WooHoo! That's encouraging news on the transfer part.

I don't know which thread he made the color-correction offer in, but he offered to take on a humongous task. There's a lot to mastering the subject (which he already did), and every shot has to be done individually.

We're happy to see these gargantuan pictures with their nice detail. Even the uncorrected ones soothe my heart.

There's a reason that the WG, Gout, and uncorrected seem too muddy - they had no correction at all. Human eyes respond to light differently than film, the various electronic imaging methods, and displays. (And they all respond differently from each other). Scanners can't begin to correct for themselves, the corrections need to be done "in post". (Well, some scanners can increase or decrease the amount of overall light, some can even change the amount of light per color channel, other than that, though...).

I still suck at it, myself. But if you're still interested in correcting your own scans, have you looked at this, and the other articles? X0 - setting black and white points .

I think most serious photo applications, like Photoshop, have a monitor calibration thingy, or at least a monitor profile setting dealy. You also need to do your tv(s), and check your work there (X0 has an article on that, too).

Jpeg (and mpeg) can't be remastered worth a damn. You either have to work with uncompressed tiff, or what they call "raw" files, which are an uncompressed dump of info, that many scanners can do). 16-bit-per-channel files (48-bit color), or as good as the scanner can do. Unfortunately Those files are pretty large, which is another reason not to scan the whole film, yourself, if you can help it. (Film houses use some other file formats, that I haven't looked into, like the 10-bit-per-channel Cineon). (Your tiff and raw will be 16-bit-per, even if your scanner can only do 9-bit or 10-bit, in which case, the extra bulk would be waste, but they'll still work better than 8-bit).