Sorry, but all your claims made in your last 2 posts still do not convince me. The shot you presented has optical effects in it, thus it HAS to be grainier, and there are a lot of pictures which barely have any grain at all. Still, you don´t know what type of processing was made during the LD mastering. There are more methods than just softening the image to remove grain, and you forget that ILM were the pioneers of digital film processing, you don´t know what kind of tools they had available to master the laserdisc.
But here is the problem about conspiracy theories: as soon as I would say: "if they wanted to look it really inferior, why didn´t they add grain in all those scenes?" you would say "because then, people would notice!" and the wheel turns around with no end. In the end, you can doubt EVERYTHING. This is no better than believing everything.
You started claiming that these shots were digitally manipulated adding cgi grain, because you can esaily spot it, and are now partly moving away from this position, saying a different print could have been used. This does not add much credibility to your point.
But it surely is exciting, isn´t it?
