Quote:Probably an IP, which is also a low-contrast element. Home video transfers of older films often have detail in the extremes of exposure that is rolled off theatrically, since the video technicians have more to work with. Personally I don't feel that's a good thing, as it often makes movies look very flat vs. their theatrical look. How much detail should or shouldn't be there in this case is not for me to speculate. Ultimately, "digital tweaks" of a certain sort are kind of a necessity to replicate the theatrical appearance of a film from a negative or IP, since how the look of neg/ip maps to the look of the print is a complex, non-linear bit of photochemistry. These days I believe it's achieved by actually profiling the characteristics of the print film and creating a filter that emulates that response (a necessity with DIs printed to film) whereas in the DVD days that technology wasn't there.
There are many parts of this transfer that look pretty much spot-on to what the movies from the time tended to look like theatrically. Elsewhere, I'm more suspicious, but I don't think modernization was the intent.
Edited by 42041 - 3/21/13 at 4:09pm