"Dark City: Director's Cut" coming to Blu-ray on July 29 (1 Viewer)

[Craig Beam]

Jari, that was effin' hilarious.

I picked up my copy last night at Fry's. Watched the documentaries, then started on the film (Director's Cut, of course). Only got about 20 minutes in, but I thought it looked pretty great. The EE/DNR doomsday outcry had me a bit worried, but I was happily surprised. This was on my 50" 720p plasma set. Tonight I'll try it on my PS3/1080p LCD setup. Uh-oh, a gaming machine! :-D

 

[OliverK]

Jari, that was effin' hilarious.
I picked up my copy last night at Fry's. Watched the documentaries, then started on the film (Director's Cut, of course). Only got about 20 minutes in, but I thought it looked pretty great. The EE/DNR doomsday outcry had me a bit worried, but I was happily surprised. This was on my 50" 720p plasma set. Tonight I'll try it on my PS3/1080p LCD setup. Uh-oh, a gaming machine! :-D

Beware measly gamer - everything you say from now on can and will be held against you
Jari, that was brilliant

 

[Paul_Scott]

Jari, even I got a good laugh out of that.
Just to be clear- when I use the term 'gamer' I am referring to someone who bought their PS3 primarily as a gaming device. I kind of tend to believe these make up the majority owners of the 11 million or so units out there. I realize the device serves a dual purpose for some weighted more on the movie side, as well as some who use it exclusively for movies. Bd movie sales suggest you guys are in a very distinct minority. When the studios assess the untapped potential sales in this format, it would seem logical they are going to target the several million who already own a device but don't buy movies- in other words, gamers.
As far as digtal copies go, this adds cost across the board. This added effort and cost is undertaken specifically to attract a certain market segment. The enthusiast outrage over Pan's Labyrinth was over 6 months ago. Eyeballing a late July release for DC left plenty of time to secure a better master, while shifting something else up or substituting another release in it's place in the queque.. So rather than putting the effort and the budget available for this release towards a 'more highly defined' master, they chose to put it towards an added bonus that your average over 35 A/V enthusiast is not going to give a shit about. You guys do realize that all these Bd Java games and digital copy discs take money out of the available budgets of these releases? What do you think is more likely in the future- that money in the budget going for an extra digital copy disc, or going to pay a compressionist overtime to make sure the main feature is fully optimized?
And yes, we would be having the same discussion had the other format prevailed-with the caveat that the main outrage would (loudly and falsely) be because the studios were FORCED to use DNR because of the size and bit rate limitations. Things would be even uglier here now. Of that I have no doubt.

 

[Carlo_M]

Paul, I'm not arguing with your stance, I'm all for best-possible-transfers. However keep in mind that DC has been "in the can" for 2 years. Also keep in mind the costs behind going back and doing it over again. Then factor in the projected sales (probably not high).
The Digital Copy? Peanuts to do. Heck I can use a freeware program on my Mac laptop and make a "digital copy" for use in a portable device in less than an hour.
I don't think the studio was thinking [and I'm making these numbers up] "it would cost $200,000 to make a new transfer...or $200,000 to do a digital copy...screw the new transfer and let's give them the digital copy!" It most likely costs peanuts for them to do the Digital Copy. I mean if I can do it for free over an hour, what kind of resource do they have to do it? They own the files, rather than having to rip them like I do. Probably minutes. Then stick it in the master file for pressing the discs. Very little effort and cost. And given how BD is still not selling like hotcakes, and this title is a niche one at best, I can't say that I disagree if I'm a shareholder/businessman affiliated with New Line. As a fan and consumer, it pisses me off.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

By equating digital copy w/the "gamer demo", you tread precarious ground. Portability of media is something manufacturers have been pushing since the late 80s: anyone remember Sony's first 8mm Video Walkman? What about portable DVD players with built-in screens? Digital copy is something that goes beyond the "gamer demo". My brother owns a portable DVD player with a built-in USB port, and he takes a portable hard drive along with movies pre-loaded so he doesn't have to change discs all the time for his kids. He's a PC gamer, hardly the PS3 "demographic". My daughter (13) was all over the digital copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix when it came out, because she could put it on her mp3 player. She's not a gamer, but she wants a PS3 to watch better quality films on Blu-Ray.
This is the problem with all broad-based generalisations (which used to be called "stereotypes"): they never hold up in reality.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

When the studios assess the untapped potential sales in this format, it would seem logical they are going to target the several million who already own a device but don't buy movies- in other words, gamers.

I don't see it. Think about what you're saying — that the studios are going to try to make their releases attractive to people who don't buy movies, at the expense of making them unattractive to people who do buy movies. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", & it doesn't make sense to alienate actual buyers in the hope of attracting a larger number from the pool of potential buyers unless you're very sure it's going to work. Easier to issue releases that your regular movie buyers will like, & assume that they won't alienate too many of your occasional buyers.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

This is an old transfer from an old master and they simply released it that way because they did not want to spend any more money on it - there is no secret strategy there.

The above is also my feeling how Dark City (Blu-ray) was authored.
Just finished watching it on my 110" screen in it's entirety.
Purchased the Blu-ray for $18.95 at Amazon.
Noticed the DNR and EE in several parts which was disappointing, but I can't say I wasn't warned by RAH and others.
The last scenes that were filmed in the sunlight were particularly soft, which I would compare to DVD quality softness.
A couple of scene close-ups taken earlier, with the detective, were also comparably soft.
The movie itself was great!
Wouldn't recommend the disc to buy for the above reasons but would rent for entertainment.
Paul

 

[Paul_Scott]

sure it's going to work. Easier to issue releases that your regular movie buyers will like, & assume that they won't alienate too many of your occasional buyers.

The people that are hung up on the preservation of the highest frequency detail, are but a minority within a minority.
Yes I do honestly think the studios would sacrifice 5K-10K sales in the hopes of snagging 80K-1000K from a pool of over several million that think HD should always be smooth and shiny and who may want a respite from 7 straight hours of MSG8.
And while the digital copy disc mayy seem like peanuts, it increases costs across the board from production to packaging to increased shipping weight. The corporations involved don't dismiss a fration of a % in added cost per unit. It is a very real figure to them...which is why most studios dispensed with printed inserts in regular dvds years ago.

 

[Jari K]

As far as digital copies go, this adds cost across the board. This added effort and cost is undertaken specifically to attract a certain market segment.
You guys do realize that all these Bd Java games and digital copy discs take money out of the available budgets of these releases? What do you think is more likely in the future- that money in the budget going for an extra digital copy disc, or going to pay a compressionist overtime to make sure the main feature is fully optimized?

I probably missed some earlier points of these "digital copies" (and I missed their "connection" to "gamers", and to the "main feature optimizing" issues .. ), but I pretty much agree. I have no use of these "digital copies" (which you can then play in your computer etc) and I don´t fully see why they´re included in the Blu-ray-releases. We finally got rid of those "combo discs" (sorry again, I know that some people liked them), but now we have to deal with those "digital copies".. Always some additional, "downgraded" versions (that most of us won´t ever need) are "forced fed" to us.. So I guess we´re on the same page with this one.
What comes to "profile 2.0"-extras and "BD-Java"-games, I could live without those also. "Extras" for me means interviews, commentaries, deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes-footage, etc. I have no real use of "Java games" (I have three consoles, dammit.. ) etc. But you know, I guess they won´t take *that* much space in the end..

 

[Dave Mack]

Dave
Go watch the disc and judge it in full motion, without pausing the screen. Your assessment may not match mine but at least you gave it a fair shot, right?

Gotcha, Jim. My copy got here today so I will watch it tonite after mini-Mack is down, even though I have to get up at 5:30am for work!

 

[JulianK]

someone @ the studio decided that an all-purpose 1080p master would be more efficient than creating separate masters for HD and SD.

This is pretty much standard practice throughout the industry now for anything shot on film.
The general consensus is that you get better results down-converting the HD version to SD than you do making a SD version directly.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

True, but in order for it to compress efficiently in MPEG-2 for DVD, some film grain has to be removed and in some cases edge enhancement applied, which is what appears to have happened with Pan/s Labyrinth and Dark City.

 

[Dave Mack]

Started watching the DC 14 minutes ago.
The EE around the cops IMHO IS just as bad as in the screengrabs.
So far a mixed bag. certain shots look excellent. Visible grain, no EE. Some look horribly processed like the shots of Connely in the meeting with Kiefer in his office. Smeary, soft with motion artifacts. Interesting in that just seems to be her shots and not Kiefer's, (in the A/B cutting) Perhaps Connely's takes had to be pushed? The resultant image might have been much grainier than the reverse angle shots so they DNR'd just those? But I am watching it via FP on a 92" screen so these things will be more noticeable.
Anyways, so far overally pretty good. I DO like Connely's singing voice on the DC instead of the dubbed over version in the TC. The other girl might be more of a pro singer but it always seemed phony. The voice didn't match Connely. This is better IMHO.

edit: almost done. It happens several more times in scenes with Connely. When she meets Murdoch for the first time back in the apt. the weird smeary DNR happens again and later with Bill Hurt in a scene. Just odd.
edit: finished it. Intersting in that they added blue streaky lights to the big showdown scene FX. makes the miniatures look a bit less miniaturey. Anyways, good but not great IMHO. The EE is visible in more than 1/2 of the shots and to me it's distracting. It also looks too slick and not like film to me. Like it's been digitally polished a bit too much.
Afterwards I popped in The Lost Boys which has no EE at all that I can see and looks way less processed. Much better looking and it's considerably older.
Oh well, so close. The color, black levels all look really good. Too bad they couldn't just let it look more like a film. Still worth it and a great film but it should have looked better. A shame in a way.

 

[Carlo_M]

Just finished watching the DC of DC, PS3->Sony KDS-60A3000, viewing distance of 12'. As others have said, room for improvement, but nothing that was a showstopper.
What was noticeable is the completely different feel of the film given the slower pacing, added scenes, alternate takes and lines, and largely muted score. It's as if the original version was so frenetic they used music to bolster that hurried, rushed feel to the film, but the new version was slow so they pulled back on it.
Loved the original but feel the new cut surpassed it in many ways. The new pacing takes getting used to, but once you make that switch, the ride is as enjoyable (if not more so).
I'll admit, I was too absorbed in the new cut to dissect the transfer too much. But for me, nothing egregious to take me out of the film. And yes, Connelly's singing matched much better.
And all I have to say is: "Sayonara voiceover!"

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Quote:

I have compared enough stills with projection at normal speed to have an idea how stills relate to the film in motion. The motion makes DNR often even worse!
I could ask you to go watch the disc on a 3.5m wide screen as I do to see what I see.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

This is pretty much standard practice throughout the industry now for anything shot on film.

Yeah, but the HD is not supposed to be dumbed down for the SD version derived from it. That must be limited to the SD version only. And even there such waxy smeary DNR has no place these days.

 

[Cees Alons]

Started watching the DC 14 minutes ago.

Cees

 

[Jari K]

Started watching the DC 14 minutes ago.

So you actually watched the film with your laptop next to you, stopping the film every once in a while to comment about DNR and EE over the message boards?
I mean seriously, I would think that the "film", "story" and "actors" are still the main thing here, EVEN if the transfer has minor "issues". You probably ruined that from yourself over this silly thread..

 

[Cees Alons]

Even if, for a moment, we forget all about the enjoyment of watching a whole movie, we still shouldn't think we can prove anything about the moving picture by copying a screen capture someone made.

I'm not referring here to the fact that the screencap may have been chosen to show the absolutely worst (or best) example of a frame containing what the poster wanted to argue. Nor to a possible malafide use of photoshop techniques, or even "innocent" reproduction errors.

Screencaps PROVE close to nothing about what you see when watching the running movie. But on the other hand, they're almost the only way to explain on a non-moving medium what you saw.

Of course they need to be used very carefully, and preferably by people who, like Michel, know "how stills relate to the film in motion" indeed.

One of my biggest irritation in this respect on the internet is people who didn't see the movie at all and post opinions based on such screencaps of others (that were accompanying an article about the movie as seen by the author) and apparently think they have a 'proof' in hand. ("Here, see?")

The other irritation I have in this respect is separated screencaps: those that are published anywhere, or repeated somewhere (even if it's done by the original author) without the original text they were meant to clarify.

IMO, screencaps only carry any value when accompanied by the original article. Because the value lies in the description of the original observation, not in the stills themselves.

Cees

 

[Jari K]

Good post Cees.

IOne of my biggest irritation in this respect on the internet is people who didn't see the movie at all and post opinions based on such screencaps of others (that were accompanying an article about the movie as seen by the author) and apparently think they have a 'proof' in hand. ("Here, see?")
The other irritation I have in this respect is separated screencaps: those that are published anywhere, or repeated somewhere (even if it's done by the original author) without the original text they were meant to clarify.

Now we´re talking. We´ve now screencaps circulating from the various sources and many of them doesn´t have the original link/source included. They´re living their "own life" now. E.g. DVDbeaver didn´t post some of those screencaps to "show DNR or EE", I believe..
But like I said in some other thread, we´ll see these "I saw one screencap of this movie - it has DNR/EE/etc, no buy"-threads in the future, even when the person posting them haven´t see the disc him/herself.. IMO; It doesn´t work like that.
Give me the valid sources/links/knowledge/info (RAH, etc) WITH those screencaps and then we talk. If that´s not going to happen, forgettaboutit. One screencap means nothing alone. We need some proper "info" behind that (like it happened with "Patton", IMO)."This image is rather clean with no grain - it *must* have DNR"-type of threads is not the way to go, IMO. Too much speculation (since we all know, that the amount of grain varies quite a lot within the films - due the film stock, cinematography, style, post-production, restoration, etc).