Filmic grain reads as noise on a digital transfer, and unfortunately the technicians weren't able to bring it under control.
There's a very slight layer of
filmic grain, and decent - enough edge delineation.
Still, while edge - enhancement is at a minimum and the colours are saturated but free of bleed, it looks like a film from 1969 — a thin patina of
filmic grain preserving a sense of authenticity in the experience of watching it at home.
Not exact matches
The 2.35:1, 1080p transfer is both
filmic and filmy, boasting of rich, fine
grain and a cigarette haze that's almost tactile.
I would describe the image as aggressively
filmic —
grain, though it fluctuates, is in abundance from the opening shot, and there is even some unapologetic neg damage from 01:34:08 to 01:34:14, as you can see from the streaks in the blown - up frame below:
There is a thin layer of
grain that adds to
filmic quality of the double feature.
Not the biggest fan of Tom Stern - era Eastwood, but what we have here is completely un-digital in appearance, like a (velvet) painting come to life, and the surprisingly minimal presence of
grain doesn't cause the image to look any less
filmic.
Every nuance of the
filmic image seems to make its way into the transfer, which gets top marks in every category: natural - looking film
grain, spot - on color and contrast, inky blacks, and fine detail.
Shot in 35 mm, the picture was sapped of
grain early in the process but nevertheless retains a
filmic patina that is ultimately very attractive, more glassily «real» than any of this summer's other blockbusters.