danny_boy said:

The irony is that the duplication process used in the fotochemical workflow tended to "even out" the discrepancy between the parts of the o-neg that were 1st generation and the other parts that were optical duplicates.

So by the time you got to that 4th generation release print the film looked relatively seemless.

But if you strike a positive digital "print" from a 4K scan the difference in granularity between all the constituent parts that make up Star wars will be jarring.

I know very little about all this, but in a way I've come to the same conclusion, which I think is sort of the same point you're making here: filmmakers account for generational loss, and it is in fact part of the intended look of the theatrical print. (And therefore, wouldn't a scan of a theatrical print be the definitive way to watch SW, or really, any movie?)

Not sure if you saw it, but have you seen the thread where I asked about this:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Trying-to-understand-film-preservation-perhaps-a-stupid-question-but-shouldnt-digital-masters-be-struck-from-theatrical-prints/topic/14944/

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.