Truly. I remember hearing how Ridley Scott now exclusively works with 4K digital intermediates for all his movies. With this and the Gladiator remastering, I fully support his decision, and hope more movies do too.
What's up with the artifacts in Mulholland Drive? It doesn't look like film at all.
How noticeable is that problem in motion?
There is definitely something off about the look. The "grain" on display looks and behaves an awful lot like video noise to my untrained eyes and it is often clearly blue-tinted or vertically striated which you might be able to see in some of the shots. In motion, this occasionally creates an odd rippling effect across the picture. I guess I'm not a huge nitpicker of video problems and I don't have a solid frame of reference for alternate version comparisons since my visual memory is worth jack and I haven't seen any other HD versions, but this release does seem to me less than ideal indicating a possible problem in the source used.
In the end, however, I can't say I was disappointed and I think it does look nice overall, other than the subtly nagging feeling that something was "wrong" which persisted until I became absorbed into the film and shut off my internal visual criticism. I wish I could describe this nagging feeling more eloquently and precisely.
As an addendum based on some other comments I saw elsewhere, I should probably say that the lead-off double-vision shot that I chose is not an encoding problem or any other flaw but just a natural frame that I thought looked cool and makes a good single image statement about the film (along with the palm trees / Naomi Watts cross-fade shot). I guess these out-of-context shots get misinterpreted sometimes...
American Beauty looks pretty good. I think if they wanted to spend a ton of money, they could eek just a tad more detail out of the telecine transfer. However, in it's current form, it's nowhere near the wreck that Gladiator was when it was first released.