I've been reading many of these threads concerning restoration of our favorite films -- what has been done, what needs to be done, how they look on DVD vs. how they look in the theater, etc. And I see sides being taken up, seemingly based on our experience with film and our insecurity about the future of the medium and what technology may bring, bad and good. I don't know if there are answers, but I thought I would start a thread and ask some questions. Perhaps our mentor here, Mr. Harris, will chime in with his own views. Why do we need our films to look like videos? Conversely... Why do we need our films on DVD to look like films? Isn't it a different medium? We don't really expect a photograph of the Mona Lisa to be perfectly representative of the real thing. Isn't the lack of real definition on our DVDs coloring our opinion of film "grain"? (meaning, the details aren't always clear, which we blame on too much grain, rather than lack of resolution). Should a film always represent its original self, even if its creator has changed his mind? (eh, Steven?) If a film is cleaned up digitally for a large and new audience, isn't this a worthy enough cause? Why must we castigate those who cleaned up "Citizen Kane" even though it doesn't look like film anymore? Would we have preferred it NOT cleaned up? When a film is restored, what percent of the future audience will see it on film, and what percent on a monitor? What is the future of film? Isn't it really, digital? Just some questions to be pondered.