A Few Words About A few words about... Sin City (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Seraut.

Pointillism.

Precisely.

RAH

 

[Jeff Gatie]

That's funny. My dad was a commercial artist (fine arts educated) and when I was young, he used to take me to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Gardner Museum and the Fogg Library at Harvard (fine art museums all). When I expressed the fact that "I just don't get" the impressionists and their various offshoots, he told me to start with my nose inches from the work and slowly move back. It was like a lightbulb going off. Funny thing was, right after he said it, a lot of other people in the impressionist wing also started doing it. I guess he looked like he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Robert Harris]

If one isn't careful, this thread could turn ugly...

things like "persistence of vision," moving grain, and Latham Loops.

RAH

 

[dave wright]

Dont want to get too technical,but watching this movie on my 80" x 45" screen is a "Total BLAST"

 

[JohnRice]

To me, that is really the bottom line. One thing the online community has really brought out is people who are too eager to show how "discriminating" and "knowledgable" they are by finding faults that are actually just part of or limitations of the process or simply not that big a deal. What happened to enjoying the movie?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It died with the first really bad unwatchable video transfer.

One of the points of reviewing the technical quality of a DVD's presentation is to encourage the studios to do better. There is some confusion of forest and trees as a result, but overall, I think it's worthwhile. Otherwise, we'd be watching pan & scan transfers of 16mm reduction copies of all of our favorite films.

Regards,

 

[Vincent_P]

HIGH TENSION was originally rated NC-17 for the violence and was cut down to an R-rating. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake had to trim one of the murders for its R(you can see the unedited version in the deleted scenes of the 2-disc set). Tobe Hooper's TOOLBOX MURDERS also had cuts imposed to three murder scenes, and again on that DVD you can see the unedited versions in the deleted scenes section (albeit taken from a noisy, highly-compressed AVID output). George A. Romero also had to trim LAND OF THE DEAD, as well as resort to Kubrick-like digital trickery to "block" offending material from view, in order to get that film an R-rating.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

I agree with Ken. When it comes to DVDs, I already know whether I like the movie or not and want to buy it, I'm reading the DVD review to get an idea of what the transfer/compression looks like. Of course we watch movies because we like them, but we also want the DVDs we pluck down money for to look and sound the best they can.

Vincent

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

DVD is a good training ground for the studios to learn how to properly digitally master film.

Do you want HD discs of your favorite films that have been mucked to no end with filtering, EE, and other electronic-realm artifacts?

As for me and my house...we want to enjoy our future HD movie library in a "transparent" experience that's like looking right at that film source without the delivery medium getting in the way.

The more attention we pay to our DVD transfers now, the better the studios will be and the pay-off will be worth it down the road.

Had we videophiles not gotten up in arms about these "minor issues" the studios would still be sticking us with recycled 4x3 lbx laserdisc transfers. Remember..companies like Criterion and THX didn't even WANT to give you new 16x9 transfers until we complained enough and helped them see the light. I spend hours arguing with folks at both these companies who tried to base their positions on innane arguments like "16x9 transfers are too hard to compress...with 4x3 lbx transfers the PQ is better because the letterboxing bars ease the burden". Criterion actually meant that seriously...but they didn't seem to be windowboxing their 1.33:1 titles to "ease the burden" of all those pixels containing active-picture content... And don't even get me started on THX and their meaningless logo that really only means "this DVD is the best that the studio was willing to do and we were paid to give it our approval even though it could have been a whole lot better."

:rolleyes

Now even THX and Fox studios know what EE is and were careful to be sure it didn't show up on any other Star Wars DVD after Phantom Menace. Things aren't perfect in DVD land, but they are generally a whole lot better (the new problem on the horizon is over-filtering to remove film-grain and noise-reduction to audio that destroy's the HF response).

It is all about enjoying movies...but as long as a studio is going to take the time to master that film and slap it into DVD that will probably last for about 50 years...why not have it be the best that it can be...especially when most of the time the problems that DVD's have weren't a result of the lack of $$, but rather just plain ignorance about how to properly master! (think cold mountain)

-dave

 

[Vincent_P]

Excellent post, David. It should be copied and e-mailed to every DVD and movie company.

Vincent

 

[JohnRice]

OK, so we're back in the world of black and white with no middle ground. I could bitch just as much about how all the videophiles are to blame for the fabulous looking, vacuous crap we are given on a daily basis. David, I personally hold YOU responsible for The Day After Tomorrow and Dukes of Hazzard. What do you think of that?

Yes, THX is nothing more than a marketing scheme intended to line Lucas' pockets. Yes, it was particularly absurd for Criterion to takke such a stance against anamorphic. Yes, I am particularly happy that video (and audio) quality of DVDs has improved so much, in general. Yes, I am upset that Fox screwed up the transfer of The Good Girl so horribly. Yes, I am not the least bit surprised that most videophiles have no idea Fox screwed up the transfer of The Good Girl because they are too busy looking at Sin City from 2 feet on a 120" FP screen trying to find something wrong. And finally, yes, I do think some videophiles have gone overboard when I see comments about Once Upon a Time in the West being "unwatchable" because it has visible EE in a couple scenes with extreme contrast, suchh as Frank framed against a light sky. Do I wish it wasn't there? Absolutely!! does it make the movie unwatchable? HELL NO!!!

 

[Michel_Hafner]

#(the new problem on the horizon is over-filtering to remove film-grain and noise-reduction to audio that destroy's the HF response)

Indeed. And it does not stop at DVD and HD. It's a digital intermediate problem as well (see "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" for example).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

John,

I think we can agree...

 

[JohnRice]

What if I hold you responsible for Gigli, can we still agree?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I fundimentally disagree with this. There are two types of adaptations: those in which the filmmaker is faithful to the source material, and those in which the filmmaker is not-faithful to the source material.
Either category can produce great movies, it's just a matter of control. In the former category, the soul of the film lies with the original storyteller. In the latter category, the soul of the film lies with the filmmaker.
I can tell you however, that if I'm a fan of the source material, I almost always prefer films from the former category to films of the latter category. The Harry Potter films are a good case study on the difference. The first two films I would put, with several glaring awkward exceptions, in the former category. The third film I would put in the latter category. I fell in love with those first two movies right from the first moment, those glaring exceptions aside. The third film struck a sour note with me the first time through, and only when I was able to disassociate it from the book was I able to appreciate it for its own merits. Cuarón's film varies subtly in the visual details from the Columbus films, but feels completely differently.
Now, accepting that Rodriguez and Co. have taken the Columbus route, by being "too faithful to the source" all they have done is elliminate those previously noted "glaring awkward exceptions". And the only reason Sin City feels more literal than most adaptations is because films shares more common vocabulary with the graphic novel — which is a visual medium — than with the traditional novel, which is not.

 

[JeffLab]

Well, I just watched Sin City for the first time last night, and for the most part, I really enjoyed it. As far as the DVD goes, I agree with the general consensus that the video is top notch. The audio track, however, I had a problem with. Am I the only one that found the voicework sounded highly compressed? There was a high pitched ringing and static with every word spoken throughout the movie that drove me absolutely nuts. It is more apparent with the female voices, but it is always there. Unfortunately, I couldn't get past it and it bothered me through the whole movie, marring what would have otherise been a perfect cinematic experience. For the record, it wasn't just me. I had made it a movie night with friends, and they all complained of this as well.

I'd like some input on this. Has anyone else experienced this as well? Maybe the DVD is different in my region? I live in a predominantly french area, perhaps its a different DVD entirely? I don't know. Your thoughts are most welcome.

 

[Max Leung]

Jeff, I noticed this too, after my 3rd viewing of the DVD (I was testing my HTPC). The opening scene with Josh Hartnett is the most noticeable. However, I don't experience the high-pitched ringing - just the static, which sounded like rustling fabric. Heck, at first I thought he was rummaging in his pockets for something whenever he spoke - but nope, he didn't do that.

This is with the DTS track. I haven't listened to the DD5.1 track. Most of the scenes sound okay to me.

 

[JeffLab]

I went back and checked both the DTS and the DD tracks, they both do it. It seems more pronounced on the Dolby track, however. The lower range voices don't really do it that much (i.e. Mickey Rourke) , but during the segment with Clive Owen, its really obvious throughout. Both from his voice and the women's, due to the higher pitch I suppose. Either way, it really bothers me. I hope they clean this up for the SE. Its a great movie, but I'll have to pass on the current DVD because of this flaw.

 

[Mark Schmitt]

I heard that too on my rental copy. I first thought maybe it was a problem with my setup, but when I only really noticed it in the very first scene, during Hartnett's on-set dialogue (not on his voiceover), I figured maybe it was a problem with the actual recording. I hope that it's fixed for the SE, in any case.

I'm really tempted to buy this anyways, since I love the movie. But with an SE coming and other things out right now that I want, I think I'll wait it out.

Maybe.

 

[Citizen87645]

In the featurette it says that opening story was the "test run" Rodriguez did to persuade Miller to sign on. Coincidence?

I can't say I noticed the soundtrack problems mentioned, but overall I was expecting it to sound better than it did. Visually, no complaints whatsoever.