In subjective tests, normal people often report grain (real or reconstructed) as a defect so you're probably in the majority of viewers. Creators and codec nerds value them more than the audience.
So these grain removal techniques are in many ways a political compromise between people who just want the smaller video, and the people who want the grain.
I'd be fascinated to see how codecs with and without this feature diverge in terms of encoding changes. Presumably there were some big gains just sitting there but the minority that preferred grain stopped then being exploited.
Much of the drama around encoder quality has came down to this dichotomy. Choosing to lose the grain/detail was attacked as plastic or fake by the people who care about it, while people who didn't could point to better test scores. Which then caused more arguments about the validity of the measures.
So these grain removal techniques are in many ways a political compromise between people who just want the smaller video, and the people who want the grain.
I'd be fascinated to see how codecs with and without this feature diverge in terms of encoding changes. Presumably there were some big gains just sitting there but the minority that preferred grain stopped then being exploited.
Much of the drama around encoder quality has came down to this dichotomy. Choosing to lose the grain/detail was attacked as plastic or fake by the people who care about it, while people who didn't could point to better test scores. Which then caused more arguments about the validity of the measures.