The intricacies of motion picture restoration tend to mystify greater public. Indeed, it is not uncommon for individuals to register outright surprise that there remains any point to preserving motion picture film, as we move inexorably toward some vague digital utopia. Already we have come to covet our moving images on a small disk, a tangible commercial good to own and consume on a relatively small screen, at our convenience, company of our choice. We also appreciate these products for their ability to add layers to film experience, to supplement our understanding and enjoyment with materials such as alternative endings, international versions, audio commentary tracks, and exclusive interviews. Many promise to be definitive edition of a given film, returning original artistic vision of director who may have been victimized by censors, studios, or producers, with inferior or incomplete results masquerading as final version for years. Arguments over what is authentic version tend to play themselves out this scenario. In other instances, film was released as planned, but decades of travel, projection, or inadequate storage have decimated footage, leaving modern audiences to interpret a mangled text.Film restoration and can encompass all of these issues and many others. It must also be noted that movies allegedly restored for DVD release may not have undergone any physical restoration or of original film elements, but were instead scanned onto a hard drive and digitally corrected. This is not simple or cheap, but it is outside scope of this paper, which will focus exclusively on film restoration as a process ultimately acted out upon celluloid through either analog or digital techniques (Koeber, 2003).1 Practice is complex, and so is language. Before discussing issues we will visit problem of terminology, so that we have a proper mapping of terrain when considering ethical challenges of practice, which will be subsequent undertaking. Finally we will explore one of more physically and ethically difficult examples film history: James C. Katz and Robert A. Harris 1996 restoration of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.Although we are principally concerned with restoration, is a good concept to begin with, since process of restoring a film often results de facto preservation. Karen F. Gracy observes that in film archives community, meaning of is mutable and elusive (Gracy, 2007, p. 141). Literature on subject would indicate that she is absolutely correct, since definitions become difficult to fix when agendas of various constituencies within community tend to overlap or compete with one another. Still, there are core practices which can be considered as preservation, and definition supplied by National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) encompasses a range of meanings while still remaining focused: the full continuum of activities necessary to protect film and share content with public. Film now embraces concepts of film handling, duplication, storage, and access (NFPF, 2004, pp. 3-4). In this sense, involves storing film properly and inspecting it regularly, but also taking necessary steps to ensure that it is duplicated onto new, preferably polyester, film stock. If there is enough money available to preserving institution, it is excellent practice to produce an additional film negative, so that preservation negative remains untouched event that further prints of film become necessary.The NFPF also provides an excellent definition of restoration as something that goes beyond physical copying of surviving original materials and attempts to reconstruct a specific version of film. Ideally this involves comparing all known surviving source materials, piecing together footage from these disparate sources into order suggested by production records and exhibition history, and some cases, enhancing image and sound to compensate for past damage (NFPF, 2004, pp. …