Johnboy3434 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

You say that like it's a good thing.

I think it is. Obviously, a lot of the posters here may disagree, but I'd prefer a mere simulation of what it would look like without grain to a picture with a bunch of artifacts that are nothing more than an unavoidable side-effect of film-making. That said, I want the process of removing such artifacts to extend beyond merely blurring the image. It only looks good to me when it's been done by frame by frame, practically by hand, like the OT DVDs. Unfortunately, that's incredibly expensive and time-consuming, so we often end up with what Harris describes. Sucks, but that's life for you.

The flaw is thinking of them as "artifacts," since they are not. They are the physical makeup of the medium used to capture the image, just like when you look at a painting you can always see that it is dried semi-viscuous liquid moved and arranged by the movement of a brush. Would you like to have all "artifacts" (ie lines of paint, uneven quality to the layers applied, and visible and semi-visible brushstrokes) in every painting ever made to be erased too? This is fundamentally flawed reasoning, and a severe and fundamental misunderstanding of the medium of motion pictures. They are not artifacts. They are part of the medium and the art. They should not be tampered with. This is exactly what Harris is talking about, this flawed reasoning that grain is somehow "artifacts" in the way of seeing the real, clear image; its scary to realise how many people share this viewpoint. Thats what happens when afficionado-based mediums go mainstream; when I see the first "fullscreen" Blu-Ray, I might actually cry.