Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?
Yes to the first, no to the second.
Not 100% as sharp as the negative but Mike has estimated that it’s probably 90-95% of the way there. So it’s still essentially at a much higher quality than anyone saw in theaters.
As I understand it, by using multiple prints, he has been able to isolate the negative grain, which is on every print, and preserve it, while removing the print grain, which is unique to each print, thus restoring original detail and preserving filmic quality.
Edit: by original detail, I don’t mean to original level of detail, but rather that the added detail is all original to the negative.