TServo2049 said:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk" target="_blank" title="www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDlP-kmzWk</a>
This is a detail from the Mos Eisley shot he just posted. I think it's clear now that he's working from a high-quality (possibly IB Technicolor) print scanned in 4K.
I tell you, this detail-recovery thing looks amazing
It's not, really, though the more I read the more I get the impression he'll be very gratified to hear you say that - not that I blame you for saying it! What you'll probably end up with is amazingly steady static backgrounds (which will still have lost some detail - take a look at his crawl shot with it's bland lettering) while anything moving - unless he can track every pixel perfectly - will still be grainy. Of course this is just based on his description of the video, but from the sound of it's not much different than such things as mdegrain, which useful though it can be, is no magic bullet.
If there's to be a preservation, it should be as close to the source as possible, grain and all.
DE