Torouser & CriterionMuse
Torouser Torouser
CriterionMuse CriterionMuse
Torouser Torouser
I was watching an old nature documentary that just got a fresh remastering and it got me thinking—restoring those films feels a lot like trying to hold onto a fleeting moment in the wild. How do you feel about the ethics of that kind of preservation?
CriterionMuse CriterionMuse
I think preserving a film is a moral duty, like saving a rare animal from extinction. But it’s only ethical if the restoration stays true to the original vision—no added effects or edits that change the intent. That’s why I keep a spreadsheet of every copy, noting the year, transfer quality, and aspect ratio, so I can track what’s been altered and what’s still pure.
Torouser Torouser
Sounds like a quiet way to keep a trail of the past, like tracking a stream through a forest. Just watch out for the temptation to tweak it until it feels “better” than it was—those little changes can sneak in faster than you notice. Keep the data clean, and let the original voice speak.
CriterionMuse CriterionMuse
Exactly, the data is my trail, my guardrail. If I start slipping the original voice, the restoration becomes a re‑interpretation, not a preservation. That’s why I flag any changes—color grade tweaks, audio cuts, even frame additions—so I can audit them later. The original voice should always speak first, and I’ll only add a comment if it truly illuminates what the filmmaker intended.