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

"Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Paul S. Person" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snippo>

>> >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).
>>
>> I don't disagree with you, but, if you watch some of the "restoration"
>> featurettes (espcially on Alfred Hitchcock films, IIRC, /Vertigo/ was
>> one) you will find that some film restorers have nothing but scorn for
>> those who digitize the film and call it restoration. Oh, well.
>
>I'm not saying that should be the full extent of a restoration; I'm saying
>get it digitized and then worry about the full restoration later.  Getting
>it *preserved*, as opposed to restored, should be the focus here.  It can't
>be restored unless it's there to be restored in the first place.
>Preservation is the prerequisite here, and doesn't cost much money, so I
>don't see why it isn't being done with more urgency.

After my post escaped (I did not intend to send it precisely because
of the point you are making) I tried to "cancel" it. 

Huh, I guess most servers really do ignore cancellations. Oh, well.
-- 
Five of my email addresses have been hijacked & used 
by spammers since mid-September 2003! The email above is 
invalid. All replies to the newsgroup, please.
Also: I still mostly download on Saturdays & 
upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue.