zombie84 said:
Thing is, it was never expensive to begin with. In fact, restoring it from the original negative might actually be cheaper since 95% of that has already been digitized in 2004. Just scan the missing pieces--what, maybe 300, 400 feet of film? So thats under $1000 dollars. A little bit of digital cleanup to get rid of a few of the scratches, and then the standard telecine color correction--the labor charges for these things are a few grand, I would suppose. So really, we could have a digitally remastered, restored version of the OOT made from the original negative for a few thousand dollars. If everyone in this forum chipped in five bucks we could pay for it ourselves. Cost has never really been a factor.
Thing is, it was never expensive to begin with. In fact, restoring it from the original negative might actually be cheaper since 95% of that has already been digitized in 2004. Just scan the missing pieces--what, maybe 300, 400 feet of film? So thats under $1000 dollars. A little bit of digital cleanup to get rid of a few of the scratches, and then the standard telecine color correction--the labor charges for these things are a few grand, I would suppose. So really, we could have a digitally remastered, restored version of the OOT made from the original negative for a few thousand dollars. If everyone in this forum chipped in five bucks we could pay for it ourselves. Cost has never really been a factor.
I'd prefer a well-preserved print from the 80's. Failing that, I'd prefer the Robert A Harris route. Meticulously de-SEing the movies, while a noble effort, will never really be 100% true to the original conformation.