Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I've asked the generic sharpening question many times, and each time I'm told precisely the same thing. That there is a slight bit of sharpening added automatically during the production of the masters.
I don't know if this is in any way necessary, especially for Blu-ray and may be a carry over from the old days.
|
It is not necessary as examples without it show. If it's applied as early as the scanning on a Spirit or similar telecine then it's baked in. These telecines must all strike a balance between proper antialiasing which creates softness and tempts people to sharpen again to fight the softness and a very sharp (but not sharpened) and aliased look. To find the optimum requires hand tuning by watching the result projected on a big screen. If the film has a DI that step is likely to be better handled since the target are large screens.
Quote:
In any case, the look is duly noted, but it wasn't anywhere near enough of a problem to raise red flags for me.
|
No, it's certainly not a bad transfer. It's subtle enough to go unnoticed by almost everybody not watching on really large screens. It's similar to "3:10 to Yuma" whose mastering problem is very easily overlooked/invisible on smaller displays. But once you see it it keeps nagging you through the whole film.
Quote:
|
I'm wondering if the contrast, which is certainly up there as shot, may be adding to your discomfort in the ext. scenes.
|
Certainly. High contrast means the filter responds strongly. Sharpening filters amplify specific frequencies and enhance local contrast. If the image is already contrasty it can quickly go from nicely sharp to an artificial and digitally (over)processed look.