"For the record, it makes no difference whether one uses digital or analogue tools in restoring a film. One or the other, or a combination of both.
When one takes on a restoration project, the single overriding object is to do no harm to the ORIGINAL ELEMENTS.
In many cases, original elements, be they OCN or protection dupes are missing vital things... such as sprocket holes, portions of frames or color.
The challenge then, is not to somehow restore the sprocket holes or the color on the actual original, but rather to create a new working element to be used for all future needs, which can replicate and take the place of the unusable and damaged original.
The kiss from Rear Window has been mentioned here. The problem was that the shot was originally a dupe cut into the working OCN. It had been step printed to slow down the action, and it was severely faded.
The OCN, from which the final shot had been produced, no longer existed.
In order to create a new working element, dye layers from different elements were re-printed to recreate a shot with viable color, and then scanned, digitally cleaned to remove layers of dirt and damage, and then recorded out BACK TO FILM. While this process was achieved via a combination of analogue and digital, today we would work solely in the digital domain for a superior final product.
Digital is more expensive than analogue, but gives us better results.
Both are simply tools we use toward the creation of new working film elements.
The other point that should be made re: earlier discussions, is that there are restorations and then "restorations." There are some who believe that if you have a viable, non-faded, printable original negative, and you clean it so that the next print produced is cleaner than the previous, you have, in some way "restored" it.
This is simply marketing bunk.
The other major difference must take into account true film restoration - again whether via digital or analogue means is of no import - as opposed to digital clean-ups, which abound for home video.
The breaking point here is two-fold.
1. Whether the process was performed at full film resolution -- in most cases 2k is not considered film resolution unless for a modern DI for which the INTENT OF THE FILMMAKERS is a final 2k record. Most original OCNs, going back more than 70 years have far more than 2k information to be harvested from them.
2. Whether the process yields a final film recorded out at FULL RESOLUTION.
Again, it doesn't matter how you get to the final point, as long as the original damaged elements are re-vaulted in a state that has added no further damage.
The bottom line here is that an original camera negative exists only as an object from which to harvest an image."
I wonder what Harris thinks about Lucas destruction of the o-neg to create the special edition of star wars, would be interesting to know.
The official Lucasfilm word is "Altered" destroyed is more applicable since they cut it up.