msycamore said:

No problem. Huge thanks for doing it in the first place. As this was more for analysis than anything else it's cool, no need for another re-encode. Others may think differently of course. You might want to mention the absence of it in the description though, in case you've not already done that. Thanks.

I agree with both points. I think most will be happy with this as is, but I believe there are people discussing it (lack of Buck Rogers) as a difference with this print and that should probably be more clear.