My understanding is that, for CALIGARI, they used actual theatrical prints to fill in the gaps not covered by the existing original negative. For ONCE UPON A TIME... the "restored" footage came from rushes, material printed for reference only and not color-timed for theatrical release. While I hesitate to compare two films shot sixty-odd years apart, a print created for theatrical presentation is usually better-looking than footage printed to use in a work-print or for quick reference.JanPB wrote:Yes but you should see the Caligari examples.Roger Ryan wrote:There's a world of difference between a timed theatrical print and rushes printed haphazardly for quick reference or to use in a work-print.
I haven't seen the restorations of either film properly (I've seen CALIGARI on-line), but I'm not sure they are comparable. One would hope that the original camera negative would exist for all of footage shot for a film merely thirty years old and it's disappointing that this material doesn't exist. However, it's a real surprise that most of the original camera negative exists for a film shot 95 years ago and I'm very pleased that CALIGARI looks magnificent.