Pro-tip: You have to change the YouTube setting so that you are watching in 1080 HD, not the 360p that it can default you too.<p>You know, I think there is some real promise here!<p>With some HD remasters, you can start to really see the makeup, the little pores in everyone's skin, the smudges and uncleanliness of real film-making. Film-makers and directory choose the lighting and the focus with the end-product in mind. They <i>know</i> that the screen won't capture certain things and so they know where they can skimp and save [0]. When you re-master it, you're going against the 'vision' of the directors. Not in a <i>big</i> way at all, it's very subtle. But it's still there.<p>With ML techniques, you get the 'idea' that the director was going for, without seeing all the screw-ups that they knew they could get away with. It's crisper but the idea and vision are the same [0].<p>Peter Jackson's recent 'They Shall No Grow Old' is another great example of using ML too. In that case it was to preserve the old WW1 footage, bring it's frame-rates up to modern 24 fps, 3-D it, and colorize it. The results are literally breath-taking. Personally, I gasped when it finally hits; it's that good. Not to geek out too much here, but Jackson is <i>literally changing history</i> with that film. He changed the way we all view old footage, as something all herky-jerky and grainy, to something that is modern and real. Those 16 year old child-soldiers become <i>real people</i> again.<p>Though Jackson's work is a lot different than this effort, I think we all know that ML and the movies are here to stay. It's relatively cheap to update, takes little time, and be profitable (Remember the Disney Vault gimmick?). How long will it be before Chaplin's 'City Lights' is ML'd and remastered into 24 fps, 3-D, color, and with sound? Maybe 5 years?<p>Hell, I'd pay to see the best of old cinema brought back to modern standards like that.<p>[0] I know no film-makers, this is supposition.