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.
Yeah I get that. The grain that is present on Legacy is what was there on the negative, but not on prints. However, was it ever intended to be viewed at the quality? What I’m getting at is that Lucas surely knew that audiences were going to be seeing a version in theaters that had more grain than the o-neg did. So did that factor into how certain shots were done? Like were certain shots deemed acceptable because he knew that the extra grain in theaters might cover up some shoddy-looking effects? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t the negative-level quality of Legacy be slightly less authentic than a pure theatrical print? But like I said, maybe I’m just thinking too much about this. If anything, grain can always be inserted back into it. And personally, less authentic or not, I would love to see Star Wars at that quality.