Sandman  wrote:   
   :  sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:   
   : > One clearly obfuscates considerably more than the other.   
   : Only because the version of the latter has been massively remastered.   
   : I'm sure you have seen the quality of the masters as they looked back   
   : in 1996.   
      
   Er, it wasn't the SE that was restored, it was the original movie.   
   The restored footage was then used to create the SE.   
      
   : I'm not sure why you focus on Star Wars here, there are literally tens   
   : of thousands of artistic works that will never be released again, or   
   : seen in their original form.   
      
   I'm focusing on SW here because this is a SW group.  How do you know   
   that I haven't complained similarly in other cases elsewhere?   
      
   : Like Mona Lisa, the last supper, Nosferatu. On and on and on.   
      
   Well, all of those cases are considerably older, and not comparable at all.   
   Kino has done a rather admirable job with Nosferatu, given its early demise   
   due to copyright infringement.   
      
   : > He simply wants it forgotten,   
   : > after all the VHS copies deteriorate.  That he has made clear.   
   : Where has he made that clear? Do you have some substantiation for this   
   : statement?   
      
   Have you read the interview in American Cinematographer from Feb 1997?   
      
   : Plus, the original versions do exist on DVD, so I have no idea why   
   : you're bringing up VHS here. A letterboxed DVD version is still better   
   : than the VHS version.   
      
   Hmm, when I suggested making that version at least watchable (by checking   
   the "anamorphic" setting), you objected that the quality was unacceptable.   
   Now you think I should be happy with the last (non-anamorphic) version,   
   which is worse?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)