zombie84 said:
Yes, the negative was deteriorating, and much of it had to be replaced with dupes from other sources, or reprinted. Digital technology hadn't yet advanced far enough, the 1997 SE was mostly an old-fashioned photo-chemical restoration. The entire film wasn't digitized because there was no such thing as DI's back then, they just recomposited whatever shots they need, printed them back onto film and then spliced them into the neg so that it could be completed photochemically.
Yes, the negative was deteriorating, and much of it had to be replaced with dupes from other sources, or reprinted. Digital technology hadn't yet advanced far enough, the 1997 SE was mostly an old-fashioned photo-chemical restoration. The entire film wasn't digitized because there was no such thing as DI's back then, they just recomposited whatever shots they need, printed them back onto film and then spliced them into the neg so that it could be completed photochemically.
Yea, I guess I should just stop bringing it up. People keep getting confused in regards to the '97 restoration.
Even if we have to settle for working from theatrical prints (presumably with cigarette burns every 20 minutes, but I'm assuming that could be taken care of somehow), it would be still look better than standard dvd, and it would definitely look better than the laserdisc ports we got.