If a postcard faded, was scanned into a computer, restored, then rescanned to a postcard, yes, a postcard restoration has been accomplished. Surely you can see that? If a film fades/wears/deteriorates, is scanned into a computer, restored, and then rescanned to film, a film restoration has taken place.
Photochemical restoration and digital restoration both have the potential to create new elements. If they create new film elements, and those elements better represent the original film, then a film restoration has been accomplished. This is not a matter of opinion, Damin, so it isn't something we should continue arguing. If we disagree, we disagree, but the above is consistent with the work of film restorers the world over today, including Robert Harris, whose digital restoration work is very definitely film restoration when it creates an element in better keeping with the original film than surviving unrestored elements.
Both photochemical and digital begin with a film element. When the end product is another film element in better keeping with the film's original state, it isn't a mesh of 1's and 0's any more than it's a series of atoms or photosensitive particles. It's these things, sure, but no less film. And those 1's and 0's are not 1's and 0's on a film negative (unless you're watching certain scenes in The Matrix where numbers do, in fact, appear on the screen). Whether the image is photochemical or digital when it is worked on, once it is scanned to film it is, again, photochemical. There's nothing to physically differentiate a film element created optically from a film element created digtally, arguments about the quality of the specific work (apparent resolution/detail, color accuracy, etc.) notwithstanding.
Photochemical restoration and digital restoration both have the potential to create new elements. If they create new film elements, and those elements better represent the original film, then a film restoration has been accomplished. This is not a matter of opinion, Damin, so it isn't something we should continue arguing. If we disagree, we disagree, but the above is consistent with the work of film restorers the world over today, including Robert Harris, whose digital restoration work is very definitely film restoration when it creates an element in better keeping with the original film than surviving unrestored elements.
Both photochemical and digital begin with a film element. When the end product is another film element in better keeping with the film's original state, it isn't a mesh of 1's and 0's any more than it's a series of atoms or photosensitive particles. It's these things, sure, but no less film. And those 1's and 0's are not 1's and 0's on a film negative (unless you're watching certain scenes in The Matrix where numbers do, in fact, appear on the screen). Whether the image is photochemical or digital when it is worked on, once it is scanned to film it is, again, photochemical. There's nothing to physically differentiate a film element created optically from a film element created digtally, arguments about the quality of the specific work (apparent resolution/detail, color accuracy, etc.) notwithstanding.
Robert Harris may chime in here and prove us all wrong, for that matter. Enough already. But for those who wonder about the value of LDI and the work of other digital houses, I hope this has shown that there's often much more to it than some have suggested, and a potential to it no less dignified, and no less inherently "film" in its final product, than that of photochemical film work.
