Re: How Soon Before Everything Worth Watching is On A DVD

"Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Hugh Candlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mike Kohary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:13:47 GMT, "Hugh Candlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >50% of all movies made before 1950 are gone forever.
> > > >90% of all silent movies are gone forever.
> > >
> > > What's your source(s)?  (I don't doubt you; I'd just like to read more
> > > about that.)
> >
> > http://members.cox.net/scorseseinfo/articles/thetimes9-07-01.htm
>
> Just finished reading this - fascinating.  One part that caught my eye was
> near the end:
>
> "Part of the problem, as ever, is money. A typical black-and-white film
can
> cost $50,000 to preserve and restore, while a colour film costs $300,000.
> The renewal of David Lean's epic Lawrence of Arabia took a year and cost
$1
> million."
>
> I believe this is the wrong way to go about it, and it doesn't have to
cost
> that much.  Forget about restoration for the moment, and focus on
> preservation.  Preserve what you have left by transferring old material to
a
> digital format and archiving it on long-lasting media.  You can always go
> back and restore it later, but right now the race is against the clock,
and
> preserving what's left is more important than actually restoring the
> material (which is a subjective process anyway and doesn't have much to do
> with preservation).
>
> Mike
>
>

But the restoration makes the $$.