Where to begin. The reason that John Knoll gives regarding light and texture quality seems pretty intuitive to me. Movies are fake. If you make the fake more crisp, it will only look more fake. Case closed. It seems odd to me that Jackson and Co. wouldn't have tested this though. Perhaps the issue is that it was a fruit they couldn't resist tasting. We all know that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, but because he's regarded as a high tech director perhaps he couldn't help himself - or his reputation. Maybe a film full of prosthetics and makeup should NEVER be HFR. PJ just doesn't know how to edit and restrain himself as an artist.

But about the rest, I completely disagree that people do not like flaws. Who likes perfect? In theory, yes, perfect is fascinating, but in real life - perfect is boring. I did read that societypages link a while back so forgive me, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the connection to nature regarding old photos and movies. Some of those images are that way because of the chemical characteristics of the cellulose itself. The silver halide in the film gives the image some graininess. It think it's great when the actual process of the production of the art and its mediums is explicit in the final thing produced. And records? It isn't only about the fuzz. It's about the scale of the object - how it fits in the hand. It's about interaction - actually lowering the needle onto the record as an active pursuit. It's about SEEING the grooves. It's about ephemerality, the records slow death. Speaking of: if you haven't heard The Disintegration Loops before, I recommend it. And btw, I don't own a record player. All of my belongings exist on a hard drive.

Of course all of this can be trumped by the nostalgia tag, because that is simply the era that we exist in now: one that is just beyond these older technologies, in the perfect 'nostalgia' zone. Just thought these other factors are worth considering.