QUOTE(aiman04 @ Sep 6 2009, 01:45 PM)
They were not meant for standard resolution. The cinema screen is so big even back then they're definitely not standard resolution. 35mm film has higher resolution than the current 1080p HD cameras, but because they're analogue we can't measure them by pixels. Only when scanned to digital they equals to 2160p resolution which doubles the resolution of the HD cameras. Like I said, a 70mm film can even be scanned at 4320p.
But I get what you mean. Only that it just got nothing to do with resolution. It's more about the quality of the film stock used in the old days, how well the studio stores them and how far the studio willing to spend for new restoration and transfer. The film negatives of the Star Wars trilogy was cleaned using chemical solutions before being re-scanned for the DVD release a few years ago, and then Lowry Digital (now owned by DTS Labs) did further cleaning by digitally removing specs and scratches (similar to DNR, but on DVD resolution the loss of details because of it are not so noticeable).
In HD, the effects of DNR becomes obvious. With DNR, the details of the film also reduced, so either you want to see clean image, but smooth, waxy characters' faces (recent example, Gladiator) or grainy detailed image. That's why directors leave the grains intact, not because they loves them but to preserve the original detail of the image. In this case the grain is not intentional but just the natural properties of the film stock itself.
For Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg and DP Janusz Kaminski intentionally used Kodak 5293 film stock and bleach bypass techniques to achieve a high-grain look, and sent the negative to a lab to further leech the color out. This is intentional grain, it's an artistic decision, no way the grain will be removed.
Yup, I think you made your point very clearly here. It's not that I adore DNR... but if a process done right, you don't need DNR to remove excessive grain if there's less or no grain in the first place on a film stock. Example, watch The Matrix, I Am Legend, Fantastic Four... they're almost grainless while they're shot on film not digital camera and I don't think the studio utilised DNR on these blu-ray releases either. It'll be a turn off for me too if a film is heavily grained, especially when viewed on high definition blu-ray even though it's sharp and detailed.
I was wondering too, if it's sacrilegious to tamper with grain and maintaining what's original and best for viewers to see... why some studios (who knows better what to do or not to do with their products) used DNR to ruin it if that what they want...