Given the choice, if you could own a new print of some wonderful 1970s daysets would you be happy with them having some fade, or would you prefer them to be restored digitally then output to film? Remember I'm talking short 10-30 clips here, not longer films. And if restored, how restored would you want them? Obviously colour balanced, but what about dust, dirt, scratches? Leave or remove? Interested to know everyone's thoughts on this.

If it was put on film, we probably wouldn't know that it had been digitally restored unless mentioned. A few years ago I bought a DVD of a Randolph Scott film, and that had been digitally restored, the colour had gone, but now looks like it did new.

I'd want them personally, as clean and as colourful as is possible Stuart.
I have prints like Snow White etc that have been printed from the revised digitally restored masters when the VHS cassettes were first introduced to market, and to my eyes at least, the beauty of these prints is astonishing and simply magnificent!
They still retain the original hand drawn outlines throughout, so I'm happy!

I have no qualms whatsoever in using whatever technology can deliver us the best and cleanest results on film.
I only stop with that viewpoint when the original prints have been digitally airbrushed to the point of when the image itself appears nothing like the original, but for clean up and colouring purposes only now, I am all for it!

Good colour would be my priority.

My only personal preference is that I like film prints of any material that was originally shot on film. If it was shot digitally, then I'm only interested in a digital version of any such title. I sold a scope trailer of Captain America because it didn't start life on film. Quirky, I know, but that's how I like it. Film projection, for me, is about recreating the former glory of cinema, not as a replacement for the new.

I don't mind either but understand fully, people who share Martin's viewpoint regarding this one.

Guess I don’t have to say what I think :-)

I can live with some scratches and some fade. I love the feeling when I watch reel film. The sound of the projector. The magic of fooling the brain, watching 24 stills a second. Let film be film.

I think we can all agree on that Mats, but let's not forget film doesn't have to be a scratched, faded or a noisy affair either if we don't want it to be.
It's our decisions and our own choices that determines the outcome on that.

Well said Mats and Andrew. Love watching real film; I've always been fascinated by it, watching 24 frames per second that give the illusion of movement.

Andrew! Of course I love to watch a print in perfect condition, free from stripes and with stunning colors. Watching something digital don't give me the feeling. Maybe I'm just a nostalgic old fool, but I'm quite happy being the way I am.

Thanks for the responses. I find it interesting that there is a divide between analogue and digital, after all since the Coen Bros post production colour grading on O Brother Where Art Thou, features shot on film rarely go through a fully analogue process before being printed. I believe Hateful Eight was the only recent production that was fully chemically produced (along with the upcoming 70mm prints of 2OO1). Even Dunkirk had to have a small amount of digital post production.

Stuart, as nice a condition as possible, colour etc.