Originally posted by: mverta
On the left, a pre-93 laserdisc image. On the right, the 2006 "1993-laserdisc-master" DVD. The image is grainier. This either means that the '93 laserdiscs were sourced from a different, and grainier print than the pre-'93 laserdiscs, which would mean they went through the re-issuing and quality actually went down in some respects, or this image has been artificially grained-up.
...or that in the Laserdisc mastering stage, it was removed. Laserdiscs can not faithfully reproduce grain, DVD´s can to some extend. There are many threads here complaining that image processing had been done when mastering these movies for the Laserdiscs. The 2006 DVD clearly has more horizontal resolution than the Laserdiscs.
There are some other differences in the images to suggest a different print, as well, so it's not 100% clear. The comment "mixed bag" is especially appropriate to describe the 2006 DVD, which is why I said I'd bet money, and not that I was definitively sure. Having done grain matching on more than 100 projects in the last 10 years, I see a good amount of evidence for post-added grain, which has a look you can recognize if you're familiar enough with it.
On the left, a pre-93 laserdisc image. On the right, the 2006 "1993-laserdisc-master" DVD. The image is grainier. This either means that the '93 laserdiscs were sourced from a different, and grainier print than the pre-'93 laserdiscs, which would mean they went through the re-issuing and quality actually went down in some respects, or this image has been artificially grained-up.
...or that in the Laserdisc mastering stage, it was removed. Laserdiscs can not faithfully reproduce grain, DVD´s can to some extend. There are many threads here complaining that image processing had been done when mastering these movies for the Laserdiscs. The 2006 DVD clearly has more horizontal resolution than the Laserdiscs.
There are some other differences in the images to suggest a different print, as well, so it's not 100% clear. The comment "mixed bag" is especially appropriate to describe the 2006 DVD, which is why I said I'd bet money, and not that I was definitively sure. Having done grain matching on more than 100 projects in the last 10 years, I see a good amount of evidence for post-added grain, which has a look you can recognize if you're familiar enough with it.
Then share your knowledge with us, and explain how you can spot digitally added grain. The shot you are showing has optical effects in it, so there is no wonder the image is grainier due to the optical printing.
The "logical" reason you give sounds really paranoid and ridiculous to me, and goes too far. We should be careful NOT to build up a whole fantasy conspiracy world now. This is the path where other people are rightfully starting to declare us nuts, if they read this.
You can´t see these hefty grain structures here:
and on lots of other shots.