Mike O said:
I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!
It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...
But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.
In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.