Very good point! But how could we know? Some people would even say, that the rawness of some movies resembled their individual quality and should not be manipulated.
I don't understand all this hatred towards the restoration process. I can understand the need to preserve these films but at the same time they're not throwing them away, now are they. They're not spending millions of dollars remaking them. They're simply restoring them so that generations to come can enjoy what all of these film's creators wanted audiences to enjoy and that is the wonderful stories and characters, not the rips and tears.
I have no problem with film restoration, as long as the original source material is kept intact. When you write over the original film, like Lucas infamously did with the Star Wars "Special Editions", that's what I take issue with.
Geez, people today are so negative. Seriously, Universal is finally stepping up and doing something and still people won't quite complaining. Sure, the whole stabilization thing isn't "restoration" as much as it is fixing mistakes, but it's so minor! If they hadn't mentioned it in this video, no one would have noticed. It's not that big a deal! Would it actually kill a person to look at all the good that's being done to these movies?
Fantastic. Having seen first-hand what the latest film preservation technology is capable of, I'm looking forward to seeing the final products of this endeavor.
When I see fairly modern films (Out of Africa, Jaws, etc.) in need of restoration, I marvel that any silent films made it to our time. A lot of the Eastman color films have faded and it's amazing what can be done with proper color correction. Does anyone object to the stereo tracks added to Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind? As long as the original mono tracks are included, I've enjoyed the updated sound on many classics.
I think you've misinterpreted that particular process. They were demonstrating what happens when you remove gate-weave judder (the sprocket holes in the film being different sizes), because this allows the frames to line up absolutely perfectly. In addition, they also account for gate-weave that occurred 'in camera' and so digitally straighten any frames that juddered during exposure :-)
I swear if they remake or make a sequel for E.T. I'm going to cry it's too perfect and it shouldn't be remade or anything it's perfect and truly magic!
@ZoldierrZzz You are absolutely wrong. The purpose of blu-ray, high definition, whatever, is to present the source material in the highest quality possible. That's like saying, "Well, movies aren't in black-and-white today, so why don't we take Citizen Kane and colorize it, so that it fits today's standards."
Totally agree. The new Titanic cleanup looks worse than the original to me. Even some of the Bond restorations, whilst damage-free, don't look like the films I remember. The look like modern movies, the colours are all different now.
@ZoldierrZzz The goal of a remastering is not to make something "better". The purpose is to preserve what was originally filmed in the highest quality possible. A movie's faults and flaws are just as much a part of it as its identity as its positive qualities. If any are "corrected", they've failed.
@ZoldierrZzz Did I ever say that I didn't think they were okay looking? From what I can see, they look good for the most part. I do have some gripes, but not like some here. For me, it's just we have to wait and see what the final product looks like.
@ZoldierrZzz Would you want to "restore" a movie like Clerks in this way? The Night of the Living Dead? Flaws in camerawork, excessive grain, etc., are very rarely distracting. They often add to the charm and grittiness of some movies, particularly low budget ones.
@ZoldierrZzz I love a good bit of grain, having it there (unlike DVD) makes it feel like you're at the theater. Grain isn't a bad thing, that's just the nature of film, film is made up of grain. Bullitt is a grainy movie, but it looks amazing on Blu Ray. If you wipe away the grain, the film starts to look like video, and the people start to look wooden/waxy.
When it comes to Universal, people usually don't take too kindly to the excessive DNR and Edge Enhancement that they add to catalog titles sometimes. Take 'To Kill A Mockingbird' for example. During the remastering process, I don't understand why they had to DNR that scene when it clearly removes some detail. The original film creators did that 'blow up' zoom for a reason. Although it is a reason I must say I'm not sure of.
The restoration is great. They want to present the films the way they should be or were intended to be. It makes the films look better and if you'd rather have a cruddy looking film then by all means keep complaining. They're not rewriting history, they're fixing it.
They were only restoring classic films because if they haven't, then we wouldn't know those movies existed. The film would probably rot out and may never be retrieved. Think about it people.
It's so ironic that he says they're preserving the intent of the filmmakers while eliminating distractions. The shot in Jaws where you see the metal support rig that's hoisting the shark onto the boat? That's more distracting than little scratches.
Really the main problem you guys have is for a lot of blu ray releases, you tend to recycle outdated DVD masters plagued with noise reduction and artificial sharpening, if you didn't do that you'd have a better reputation of releasing your catalog on blu ray
The Universal Monsters and All Quiet look fantastic. This has just prompted me to buy a BluRay player. I live in the UK so could anyone suggest a good multi regional player (under £100)?
Admir Destani they’re still part of Universal’s collection. Both “Vertigo” and “Rear Window” were restored by the same guys who restored “Spartacus.” Robert A. Harris & James C. Katz. Although “Vertigo” needed a lot more work than “Rear Window.”
i hope they release Dracula on blu ray the last dvd release was suppose to the the restored version but i would love to see that on blu ray also frankinstine also. i cant wait for the birds and e.t and jaws on blu ray
@ZoldierrZzz Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What makes you so sure that this is want the original creators of these films wanted?
Ok, I probably did. If it was like that, then we were not talking about a manipulation of the director's intentions but of a fix of a technical limitation.
@ZoldierrZzz Grain in often inherent to the film. Taking it out is damaging and manipulating the original product. That's all there is to it. The fact that they're doing this to films without even consulting the original directors (because they're dead) makes it even worse. You know what, just go watch some of Zaranyzerak's videos on film grain.
I think they're anomalies with the film. If you look at where he's talking about the Robert Redford and Meryl Streep scene, the frame is jittering horizontally when it probably shouldn't be. I think that's the only time they stabilize, is when there is a alignment problem like that.
@TheOnlineCandyCane I agree with you. This one very minor negative thing is screwing with people so much that they can't even see the many very major great things being done to these films. It's a shame how no one can let themselves be happy about anything. :\
All people who restore films should do, is return it to it's original state. Repairing rips and scratches, removing specs of dirt is fine, as is colour correcting (to return to its original form) and removing flicker, as long as it doesn't make the picture unnecessarily dark or light. But none of this other shit about stabilising shots or removing film grain. Then you start on a slippery slope and before you know it you're at the George Lucas school of post-release negative tampering
Two points. I think it's unethical to "fix" the grain on the optical push-ins in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. These artifacts are not a mistake but a natural result of the process. They are are erasing the traces that a film historian can see of how it was done. The other problem is the digital stabilization they show in OUT OF AFRICA. Dollys often shake a bit. Again they are fixing a "problem" that is really just the way the film was shot. By making everything "perfect" they are rewriting history.
@ZoldierrZzz How do we know that the director's intention was to make everything crystal-clear and perfect? Also, film IS grain. Without it, you get a DNR'd mess.
Not all directors are geniuses and we often have to have a discipline of you get what you've shot and you have to move on coz you don't have the time to change things. I am sure if you asked the director of All Quiet on the western front they would be happy with the enhancements.
This is frightening. The example of "fixing" the scene from Out of Africa is nothing more than digitally manipulating normal camera movement. It's not restoration or preservation, it is digital tampering, pure and simple. Universal has been the worst major studio in terms of catalog blu-ray releases, and instead of getting better they are getting worse by leaps and bounds.
Well I guess it's the old saying, you cannot please everyone. Some people are going to appreciate this, while others are going find some disapproval one way or another. As for me, the changes here seem fairly minor so I'm fine with it. I do not always think the original is better. But I guess for those who do not like the films as they are on the Blu-ray can always simply watch them in their earlier releases on DVD or VHS.
@MegaFlintstoner yea i deff agree with alot of that but warner and criterion dnr alot less then universal...film grain is what makes film film and these fuckers just want everything to look digital and lifeless
@@AtlantisTheLostEmpire Executives rarely have any clue about movies, just about money. Bragging about them making decisions about art you care about is kinda yucky.
@@thegrimyeaper - They (and the historians), only made the decision to approve what films get restored first, which I say would be the most successful/critically acclaimed ones. They intend to restore all films eventually, it just takes a lotta money and time.
@@AtlantisTheLostEmpire Yeah, a lot of movies I've loved for over 30 years have already been restored so it's like watching them for the first time again, so I'm not complaining. Just heard enough horror stories about executives to get a "ugh" feeling when they were brought up.
Please stop destroying classics! I mean it is ok to color correct slightly a faded film material, but please stop this noise reduction and film stabilisation crap. That is NOT the meaning of the restauration to correct a film in that way you think the filmmakers perhaps intented to be, but to compensate the natural aging process of the physical film material.
The film stablization is necessary and it's not crap. Would you rather get a migraine over watching an old film's image bobbing up and down when it really doesn't need to? Color correction is necessary because the dyes used to make the working color print do fade over time (unless it's Technicolor). There's nothing wrong with making the colors the way they should be. There's things called negative timing to make sure the colors they come up with are really the ones originally intended. Noise reduction is necessary, and it happens all the time. Why would anyone be against removing the surface noise of the sound media? I don't want to hear the pops and clicks in the audio of a movie, I want to hear the movie itself. I once spent 8 hours removing the noise from a viniyl record of a comedian from the 1960s once and only after doing so was I able to hear him fumbling around with the microphone at the start - something all the surface noise and dirt in the grooves hid. Noise reduction brings forth sounds that were supposed to be heard in the first place, and removes physical media noise that really doesn't add to the artistic value.
Just because the film itself is dying doesn't mean the experience should die as well. Grain removal, film stabilization, color correction, removal of flickering and static sounds are all essential for the film experience. Granted that these are needed in moderation, but don't forget that these films are made for US.
I call bullshit on your restoration. You don't remove grain or fix actors motions just because you think it looks better. You should only fix something if it was due to damage of the film, not personal distate.
Universal released the ugliest "mainstream" Blu-ray I've seen: The Family Man, the Nicolas Cage/Don Cheadle holiday movie. I know, hardly a classic, but the transfer is just ugly beyond belief. I'm not the most tech-knowledgeable person, but I am convinced it's just an old DVD master slopped on a BD disc. The fact the company would put this out and charge people money for it scares me.
Very good point! But how could we know? Some people would even say, that the rawness of some movies resembled their individual quality and should not be manipulated.
Thank you so much, Universal, for finally doing this! I am so excited and I want to buy all of them on Blu-ray right now! :D
I don't understand all this hatred towards the restoration process. I can understand the need to preserve these films but at the same time they're not throwing them away, now are they. They're not spending millions of dollars remaking them. They're simply restoring them so that generations to come can enjoy what all of these film's creators wanted audiences to enjoy and that is the wonderful stories and characters, not the rips and tears.
I have no problem with film restoration, as long as the original source material is kept intact. When you write over the original film, like Lucas infamously did with the Star Wars "Special Editions", that's what I take issue with.
"We're not changing the filmmakers' vision"
Proceeds to change filmmakers' vision.
Geez, people today are so negative. Seriously, Universal is finally stepping up and doing something and still people won't quite complaining. Sure, the whole stabilization thing isn't "restoration" as much as it is fixing mistakes, but it's so minor! If they hadn't mentioned it in this video, no one would have noticed. It's not that big a deal! Would it actually kill a person to look at all the good that's being done to these movies?
I want to see these movies with the technologies they had at the time.
Frankenstein and Jaws have the best restoration
So sad to see cinema go digital :(
Fantastic. Having seen first-hand what the latest film preservation technology is capable of, I'm looking forward to seeing the final products of this endeavor.
Thank you.
When I see fairly modern films (Out of Africa, Jaws, etc.) in need of restoration, I marvel that any silent films made it to our time. A lot of the Eastman color films have faded and it's amazing what can be done with proper color correction. Does anyone object to the stereo tracks added to Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind? As long as the original mono tracks are included, I've enjoyed the updated sound on many classics.
Really cool. Makes me appreciate cinema more.
I think you've misinterpreted that particular process. They were demonstrating what happens when you remove gate-weave judder (the sprocket holes in the film being different sizes), because this allows the frames to line up absolutely perfectly. In addition, they also account for gate-weave that occurred 'in camera' and so digitally straighten any frames that juddered during exposure :-)
I swear if they remake or make a sequel for E.T. I'm going to cry it's too perfect and it shouldn't be remade or anything it's perfect and truly magic!
The original E.T. will still exist, you'll live.
@ZoldierrZzz You are absolutely wrong. The purpose of blu-ray, high definition, whatever, is to present the source material in the highest quality possible. That's like saying, "Well, movies aren't in black-and-white today, so why don't we take Citizen Kane and colorize it, so that it fits today's standards."
I'm happy to tell you that they are :) Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Bride of Frankenstein!
Removing mistakes is not preservation.
@bookmovieguy The point is that finally they are not reproducing the film as it was finished and shown although it's not a huge change.
I love the restoration. Done right in a simple way.
Schindler's List is of course one of the movies undergoing a full restoration. It will probably come out on Blu Ray next year.
Totally agree. The new Titanic cleanup looks worse than the original to me. Even some of the Bond restorations, whilst damage-free, don't look like the films I remember. The look like modern movies, the colours are all different now.
does anyone know the title of the music that plays during the "Pillow Talk" sequence from 05:03 to 05:43 ? thanks.
Excited for E.T
@ZoldierrZzz The goal of a remastering is not to make something "better". The purpose is to preserve what was originally filmed in the highest quality possible. A movie's faults and flaws are just as much a part of it as its identity as its positive qualities. If any are "corrected", they've failed.
@ZoldierrZzz Did I ever say that I didn't think they were okay looking? From what I can see, they look good for the most part. I do have some gripes, but not like some here. For me, it's just we have to wait and see what the final product looks like.
@ZoldierrZzz Would you want to "restore" a movie like Clerks in this way? The Night of the Living Dead? Flaws in camerawork, excessive grain, etc., are very rarely distracting. They often add to the charm and grittiness of some movies, particularly low budget ones.
GEEEEEEEEE MONNEEYYYYYYYYYY !!!
thats my boy Gern Blanston right there!!
gok
@ZoldierrZzz I love a good bit of grain, having it there (unlike DVD) makes it feel like you're at the theater. Grain isn't a bad thing, that's just the nature of film, film is made up of grain. Bullitt is a grainy movie, but it looks amazing on Blu Ray. If you wipe away the grain, the film starts to look like video, and the people start to look wooden/waxy.
When it comes to Universal, people usually don't take too kindly to the excessive DNR and Edge Enhancement that they add to catalog titles sometimes.
Take 'To Kill A Mockingbird' for example. During the remastering process, I don't understand why they had to DNR that scene when it clearly removes some detail. The original film creators did that 'blow up' zoom for a reason.
Although it is a reason I must say I'm not sure of.
The restoration is great. They want to present the films the way they should be or were intended to be. It makes the films look better and if you'd rather have a cruddy looking film then by all means keep complaining. They're not rewriting history, they're fixing it.
They were only restoring classic films because if they haven't, then we wouldn't know those movies existed. The film would probably rot out and may never be retrieved. Think about it people.
Hopefully they'll release The Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D on Blu-ray and show some of this new crowd how 3D should be done.
It's so ironic that he says they're preserving the intent of the filmmakers while eliminating distractions. The shot in Jaws where you see the metal support rig that's hoisting the shark onto the boat? That's more distracting than little scratches.
does anyone know what kind of restoration program they use?
what background music did they use for the start of this video - from 0:01 to 0:19 ? does anyone know?
@sgtpepper1138 I guess so, especially since I easily notice some mixed reactions about the process.
I think if you watch carefully, you can get a glimpse of the new logo in the fade-in and fade-out parts in the video.
Cool video
I know, but removing grain from a film removes detail from the film also, because grain is part of the film.
BEFORE IS BETTER THAN AFTER
Really the main problem you guys have is for a lot of blu ray releases, you tend to recycle outdated DVD masters plagued with noise reduction and artificial sharpening, if you didn't do that you'd have a better reputation of releasing your catalog on blu ray
@moviencartoons2 Taking a look at the website Universal set up for their 100th shows the still version of it.
The Universal Monsters and All Quiet look fantastic. This has just prompted me to buy a BluRay player. I live in the UK so could anyone suggest a good multi regional player (under £100)?
And where are The Double Indemnity,Vertigo and Rear Window?
Admir Destani they’re still part of Universal’s collection. Both “Vertigo” and “Rear Window” were restored by the same guys who restored “Spartacus.” Robert A. Harris & James C. Katz. Although “Vertigo” needed a lot more work than “Rear Window.”
why "After" is darker?
@ZoldierrZzz Well, like I said. I DO have a few gripes, but overall i'll have to see what they look like for myself.
Does anyone know what movie is in 3:42? Thanks in advance.
All quiet on the western front (1930)
They use the print that's in the best condition.
i hope they release Dracula on blu ray the last dvd release was suppose to the the restored version but i would love to see that on blu ray also frankinstine also. i cant wait for the birds and e.t and jaws on blu ray
@ZoldierrZzz Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What makes you so sure that this is want the original creators of these films wanted?
Ok, I probably did. If it was like that, then we were not talking about a manipulation of the director's intentions but of a fix of a technical limitation.
I'm an indie film-maker and even I ue digital technology to smooth out my cheap attempts at making smooth movements.
@ZoldierrZzz Grain in often inherent to the film. Taking it out is damaging and manipulating the original product. That's all there is to it. The fact that they're doing this to films without even consulting the original directors (because they're dead) makes it even worse.
You know what, just go watch some of Zaranyzerak's videos on film grain.
back to the future ftw
I think they're anomalies with the film. If you look at where he's talking about the Robert Redford and Meryl Streep scene, the frame is jittering horizontally when it probably shouldn't be. I think that's the only time they stabilize, is when there is a alignment problem like that.
@TheOnlineCandyCane I agree with you. This one very minor negative thing is screwing with people so much that they can't even see the many very major great things being done to these films. It's a shame how no one can let themselves be happy about anything. :\
The best Universal movie? Babe.
but this is not the point. We are talking about the director's intention of having his footage smoothed out...
First song name please?
All people who restore films should do, is return it to it's original state. Repairing rips and scratches, removing specs of dirt is fine, as is colour correcting (to return to its original form) and removing flicker, as long as it doesn't make the picture unnecessarily dark or light. But none of this other shit about stabilising shots or removing film grain. Then you start on a slippery slope and before you know it you're at the George Lucas school of post-release negative tampering
Abbott and Costello!! ;-)
I like how every fool jumps to the "This was sarcasm." line to get themselves out of an idiotic statement.
@phxsns1 exactly.
Hey Universal...what happend with three great westerns(High Plains Drifter;Winchester '73 & Shenandoah) announced for 2011 BD release? :/
I've never noticed that.
history and culture? come on E.T.! hidef bd, BRING IT ON!
What is the name of the two laughing Actors at 7:55 ?
I don't know. But I do know one of those actors look like Will Ferrell.
I actually think it's an Abbott and Costello picture
@@wildethang93 - Yeah it is them.
the song's?
Two points. I think it's unethical to "fix" the grain on the optical push-ins in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. These artifacts are not a mistake but a natural result of the process. They are are erasing the traces that a film historian can see of how it was done. The other problem is the digital stabilization they show in OUT OF AFRICA. Dollys often shake a bit. Again they are fixing a "problem" that is really just the way the film was shot. By making everything "perfect" they are rewriting history.
But is it worth caring over? It's just getting rid of grain and wobble. It's not like adding CGI characters or laser sound effects.
I'm in favor of film preservation and film restoration even if they look good in both 4K UltraHD and Stereoscopic 3D with the strongest audio
the perfect man (2005) wasn't in this video. neither did bring it on (2000) or meet the parents (2000).
@burtbiggins If they don't restore some of them, there won't be anything left to restore....
@dukk77777 yeah, i agree. but, it all has a purpose in some way or another :)
All James Cagney's films are currently in the Library of Congress. Get to work folks!
I love you're entertamint
It is a bit too much of "restoration" when actual camera-movements are straightened.
I wouldn't be surprised if they colorized Schindler's List...
Wish paramount would follow the same path....Universal knows how to handle the classics really well.
@ZoldierrZzz How do we know that the director's intention was to make everything crystal-clear and perfect? Also, film IS grain. Without it, you get a DNR'd mess.
Not all directors are geniuses and we often have to have a discipline of you get what you've shot and you have to move on coz you don't have the time to change things. I am sure if you asked the director of All Quiet on the western front they would be happy with the enhancements.
And criterion
haha old memories, back to the Past Filmaking...
I like how fools try to explain rationally how they did not understand a well-formulated statement. Was it too hard to understand for you?
@ZoldierrZzz Could you clarify how i'm in the minority?
0:03 Victorious copied that
To much restoration actually. It starts to rewrite history. George Lucas would be proud
This is frightening. The example of "fixing" the scene from Out of Africa is nothing more than digitally manipulating normal camera movement. It's not restoration or preservation, it is digital tampering, pure and simple.
Universal has been the worst major studio in terms of catalog blu-ray releases, and instead of getting better they are getting worse by leaps and bounds.
Well I guess it's the old saying, you cannot please everyone. Some people are going to appreciate this, while others are going find some disapproval one way or another. As for me, the changes here seem fairly minor so I'm fine with it. I do not always think the original is better.
But I guess for those who do not like the films as they are on the Blu-ray can always simply watch them in their earlier releases on DVD or VHS.
@MegaFlintstoner yea i deff agree with alot of that but warner and criterion dnr alot less then universal...film grain is what makes film film and these fuckers just want everything to look digital and lifeless
It is just a desperate attempt from you to escape the situation. Quit wasting your time arguing about a topic you failed at anyway.
@ZoldierrZzz Also, I agree with another person who said you should check out Zaranyzerak's video on film grain. watch?v=iJ3CArAmOeA
"Chosen by executives". Ugh.
And film historians. What's wrong with that?
@@AtlantisTheLostEmpire Executives rarely have any clue about movies, just about money. Bragging about them making decisions about art you care about is kinda yucky.
@@thegrimyeaper - They (and the historians), only made the decision to approve what films get restored first, which I say would be the most successful/critically acclaimed ones. They intend to restore all films eventually, it just takes a lotta money and time.
@@AtlantisTheLostEmpire Yeah, a lot of movies I've loved for over 30 years have already been restored so it's like watching them for the first time again, so I'm not complaining. Just heard enough horror stories about executives to get a "ugh" feeling when they were brought up.
@@thegrimyeaper
( *sneaks into ya house* )
( *jumps out* )
EXECUTIVE!
thegrimyeaper: AHHHHHH!!!
@naragala01 ( ๏ Y ๏ )
Your aggression and swearing is difficult to justify.
Please stop destroying classics! I mean it is ok to color correct slightly a faded film material, but please stop this noise reduction and film stabilisation crap.
That is NOT the meaning of the restauration to correct a film in that way you think the filmmakers perhaps intented to be, but to compensate the natural aging process of the physical film material.
The film stablization is necessary and it's not crap. Would you rather get a migraine over watching an old film's image bobbing up and down when it really doesn't need to? Color correction is necessary because the dyes used to make the working color print do fade over time (unless it's Technicolor). There's nothing wrong with making the colors the way they should be. There's things called negative timing to make sure the colors they come up with are really the ones originally intended.
Noise reduction is necessary, and it happens all the time. Why would anyone be against removing the surface noise of the sound media? I don't want to hear the pops and clicks in the audio of a movie, I want to hear the movie itself. I once spent 8 hours removing the noise from a viniyl record of a comedian from the 1960s once and only after doing so was I able to hear him fumbling around with the microphone at the start - something all the surface noise and dirt in the grooves hid. Noise reduction brings forth sounds that were supposed to be heard in the first place, and removes physical media noise that really doesn't add to the artistic value.
At least they aren't doing what George Lucas did to the Stars Wars movies. Hehe....
heh.....
I wanna see the original negative...
Just because the film itself is dying doesn't mean the experience should die as well. Grain removal, film stabilization, color correction, removal of flickering and static sounds are all essential for the film experience. Granted that these are needed in moderation, but don't forget that these films are made for US.
And the film looks faded out.
1st.
I call bullshit on your restoration. You don't remove grain or fix actors motions just because you think it looks better. You should only fix something if it was due to damage of the film, not personal distate.
Тhis mоviе is nоw аааvаilаble tо wаtсh hеrеее => twitter.com/d840affddb9b89425/status/795843715935805440 Univеrsаl Cеntеnniаl Rеstоring thе Clаssiсs A Lifеtimе оf Меmоriеs
That was their intention - to fix the damaged film instead of doing it just for the sake of making it look good, like you just said
Universal released the ugliest "mainstream" Blu-ray I've seen: The Family Man, the Nicolas Cage/Don Cheadle holiday movie. I know, hardly a classic, but the transfer is just ugly beyond belief. I'm not the most tech-knowledgeable person, but I am convinced it's just an old DVD master slopped on a BD disc. The fact the company would put this out and charge people money for it scares me.
Lol universal is literally the worst studio at restoring catalog titles...warners the best!!
Warner and Sony are the best