Johnboy3434 said:but I'm a person who's more interested in aesthetics than historical preservation. Two different mindsets, that's all.
The thing is, the amount of grain present in a shot is an AESTHETIC choice by the cinematographer. They could have gone with a finer-grained film stock while using more light, but they didn't.
I understand your argument, but as a preservationist, I can't accept it - that's like saying that old effects should be updated to meet current technological standards because it's ugly in comparison to what we see now. While there are those who would argue for that, the concept horrifies me.