AntcuFaalb said:

I'm probably speaking only for myself when I say that I don't like movies to look too realistic.

I prefer the appearance of a pristine (I hate dirt and scratches) 16mm print. The hazy glow, the softness, and the grain structure all help to provide an aesthetic I find pleasing.

Puggo GRANDE is too dirty for me (sorry Puggo!) to enjoy, but this sample frame from it demonstrates how I'd prefer to watch most movies.

Note: This isn't AR-corrected. Also, I uploaded it to imageshack.us so as to not kill Puggo's bandwidth.

Also, do realize that this isn't because of nostalgia. I'm 25, so I definitely wasn't around during the heyday of 16mm.

Interesting!

In 1999---as they were prepping the digital projection for the Phantom Menace---the technicians had to soften the image not only in order to make it more "film-like" but also to make it easier for the audience to suspend their belief.

Here is the account of David Schnuell of THX(who was responsible for producing the 1993 Star Wars definitive collection Transfers to laserdisc)

Some years ago, Doug Trumbull decided not to shoot fiction in the very realistic-looking Showscan format. Does being in the room with the actor make it more believable, or does film grain and the 24-frame temporal sampling of film allow us to fill in the fine details in our mind? In other words, is it easier for us to believe what we see on the screen if we manufacture part of it in our minds?

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000692250