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

[Michael Reuben]

So how is the director's cut of the movie? If the original was, say, an 8 out of 10. What would you guys give the new cut?

I don't know about numbers, but the DC is excellent. The characters, especially William Hurt's cop, are much better defined and make a stronger impression.
I have a question for frankie108: Have you seen the Dark City Blu-ray disc? If so, perhaps you could direct your comments to that particular disc, since that's what this thread is about. If not, there are other threads better suited to general comments on the state of Blu-ray transfers.
M.

 

[Carlo_M]

When it's a film that you really love, it is pretty disappointing when it's only a triple. Especially when if they had done less, less DNR and NO EE, it could've been a home run. This title will likely never get up at bat again. Or at least not for a very long time.

My sentiments exactly.
Which is why, even though I can see how some people may have a problem with the EE/DNR, I still bought the disc and would recommend others [who aren't in the relentless pursuit of perfection, sorry Lexus] to do so. This is a wonderful film that has been given a solid treatment on Blu-ray given the circumstances.
And those circumstances, to rehash are:
1. At minimum a 1 1/2 - 2 year old transfer (Ebert's commentary pre-dates his recent ~2 year fight with health issues).
2. A title that does not exactly scream "major revenue" title.
3. This whole thing with regards to film grain has only recently crept to the surface, thanks to our own esteemed Mr. Robert A. Harris.
Keep in mind that if you read these boards six months ago, you'd hardly hear anything about DNR and film grain removal. And if the "aficionados" weren't aware of it, you can bet it wasn't on the studios' collective radars.
So while yes we would like the studios to hit a home run out of the park every time, it's my opinion that it's unreasonable to hold it against this title for the following reasons:
1. Age of transfer, which all things considered is actually decent, compared with Patton and Gangs of New York, two much more box-office and home video sales friendly than Dark City.
2. Dark City never got a double dip on DVD (which the majority of homeowners have), so no matter how much complaining we do, we most likely aren't going to get a second version. Fifth Element was the exception, not the rule, and also is a proven cash cow in comparison.
3. The director's cut has taken a great film (IMO) and made it even better, and I for one hope more people take the time to watch it and reward Mr. Proyas and Co. for their effort, even if the home video presentation is somewhat flawed.
Others are free to disagree, but it's for the above reasons that I personally support the purchase of this release for anyone who is interested in this movie.

 

[Xylon]

I have the open matte version on DVHS I taped off HBO some years back. I can't wait for this. One of my most favorite fantasy/sci-fi movies of all time.

I have the recording too from DVHS and then transferred to a DVD-R. I just can't find where it is

 

[David Wilkins]

My sentiments exactly.
Which is why, even though I can see how some people may have a problem with the EE/DNR, I still bought the disc and would recommend others [who aren't in the relentless pursuit of perfection, sorry Lexus] to do so. This is a wonderful film that has been given a solid treatment on Blu-ray given the circumstances.
And those circumstances, to rehash are:
1. At minimum a 1 1/2 - 2 year old transfer (Ebert's commentary pre-dates his recent ~2 year fight with health issues).
2. A title that does not exactly scream "major revenue" title.
3. This whole thing with regards to film grain has only recently crept to the surface, thanks to our own esteemed Mr. Robert A. Harris.
Keep in mind that if you read these boards six months ago, you'd hardly hear anything about DNR and film grain removal. And if the "aficionados" weren't aware of it, you can bet it wasn't on the studios' collective radars.
So while yes we would like the studios to hit a home run out of the park every time, it's my opinion that it's unreasonable to hold it against this title for the following reasons:
1. Age of transfer, which all things considered is actually decent, compared with Patton and Gangs of New York, two much more box-office and home video sales friendly than Dark City.
2. Dark City never got a double dip on DVD (which the majority of homeowners have), so no matter how much complaining we do, we most likely aren't going to get a second version. Fifth Element was the exception, not the rule, and also is a proven cash cow in comparison.
3. The director's cut has taken a great film (IMO) and made it even better, and I for one hope more people take the time to watch it and reward Mr. Proyas and Co. for their effort, even if the home video presentation is somewhat flawed.
Others are free to disagree, but it's for the above reasons that I personally support the purchase of this release for anyone who is interested in this movie.

Perfect summary of the facts. Couldn't agree more.

 

[OliverK]

I finally got to watch this movie yesterday courtesy of a good friend and the director's cut is really very nicely done. Watching this for the first time on a new and bigger screen I was made aware how much this is in fact a movie for the large screen/cinema experience. The outstanding atmosphere and sets really come to life on the big screen more so than with other movies, the artefacts that I will talk about later are of course especially unfortunate in this regard. On the positive side the sound was pretty impressive to me as was shadow delineation, which is very important for such a dark movie.

Now on to the two big negatives that IMO make this a watch once and don't buy it title: Without using any hyperbole there was less than a dozen movies on HD media out of over 150 I watched in which artefacts like EE and DNR have taken me out of the movie more than they did with Dark City. This was a big disappointment for me and I was in fact surprised that the EE is so severe that it even outdoes the DNR that is also present through most of the movie and which would be objectionable on its own. The combined look of DNR and EE on top of it is so bothersome for me that I am surprised that there weren't more critical voices from those that have already watched Dark City - IMO there is absolutely no need for screenshots and/or pausing of the movie to see the EE and DNR this movie has been "treated" to, it was unfortunately all too obvious, and distracting, for most of the running time.

For members who like this movie and who want their Blu-Ray transfers to come anywhere close to the look of film: Please rent, don't buy.

I am sure that this is not a title that is indicative of what studios will put out with new transfers in the future but this is no consolation for lovers of this movie given the long time we will probably have to wait for this title to reappear with a new master and transfer. Another opportunity missed.

 

[Xylon]

I don't think you guys want to see your HD movies looking like this close-up:

 

[Xylon]

Instead of this:

I know its not fair but I think you get my point.

 

[OliverK]

What a snazzy technique !

Although I predict that you will get a lot of flak for the comparison...

Did the broadcast version of Dark City look better in that first screengrab ?

 

[Xylon]

Blu-ray format is supposed to be a high definition format. There is no compromise on excessive DNR for HD release. It just plain sucks And EE shouldn't even be an option
Mild DNR is acceptable as long as it doesn't take away the details. One of the best example I can think of is Grand Prix. Compare that to Patton.

 

[Xylon]

Bring it!

 

[OliverK]

to Patton.

Grand Prix is very even. It has a little less detail and grain than I would wish but there is no added EE to mask an ever so slight softness. It provides a very satisfying viewing experience overall and I think I have read of nobody who does not like the transfer of Grand Prix.

 

[Xylon]

What a snazzy technique !
Did the broadcast version of Dark City look better in that first screengrab ?

House posted some from my other thread (Blu-ray, HD DVD & HD broadcast (h.264 & MPEG-2) screenshots) Since the file size is a measly 6 GB you can just imagine the bitrate on that one. Too much artifacts and blocking. All I can say is Blu-ray were able to resolve the DNR and EE much better
I'm still looking for my copy somewhere.

 

[OliverK]

Thanks for the link, that version is open matte and 6 gig means a very low bitrate, and that with a larger frame, that is a bit too much for an interesting alternative.
But the definition of the halos improved a lot on the BR

 

[frankie108]

If so, perhaps you could direct your comments to that particular disc, since that's what this thread is about. If not, there are other threads better suited to general comments on the state of Blu-ray transfers.
M.

Opppps. Of course your right - I did get off on a tangent there didn't I. Sorry. I hope to see DARK CITY soon.

 

[Will_B]

Some of these complaints (NOT ALL) may also be due to different make-up techniques. Dark City's makeup people may have used more of a base layer, er, I don't know the terms. But you know what I mean -- the skin-colored makeup layer intended to reduce a guy's beard and cover pimples etc.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Finally got around to watching this last night. Personally, I found the few blurry shots of Jennifer Connelly (that Dave Mack mentioned) to be far more distracting than the bit of EE and DNR that were mildly noticeable (but not nearly "unwatchable") on my 53" RPTV from ~9.5ft away. Those blurry shots were quite jarring whereas I got used to the EE/DNR quickly enough (at least on my screen size at my viewing distance).

But yes, I suspect the EE/DNR would be a lot harder to accept if I had a 100" screen from say 12-to-14ft away. As it were, those issues were quite a bit more noticeable even if I moved a foot or so closer to my screen.

So yeah, the PQ is a bit disappointing, but I can live w/ it for the ~$15 I paid considering what's the alternative.

RE: the DC, as someone who loved the original theatrical cut, I'd say it's a little better overall. I liked the pacing of the "original" better in some spots. For those who felt the "original" had good potential, but was a bit too confusing and/or frenetic, the DC might well play *much* better. Definitely good to have both versions available.

_Man_

 

[Dave Mack]

I think the thing is that a good BD can really make a title look like film.

Dark City looks good, even great in some spots but it never looks like film. It looks like it was shot on digital HD video. The whole "film noir" look takes a bit of a hit because of this. A little grain can be a good thing. It is Just GONE from this title.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Some of these complaints (NOT ALL) may also be due to different make-up techniques. Dark City's makeup people may have used more of a base layer, er, I don't know the terms. But you know what I mean -- the skin-colored makeup layer intended to reduce a guy's beard and cover pimples etc.

They don't apply makeup to walls, clothing etc. If the DNR look is all over the picture you know it's not makeup. It's just that on faces it's very obvious since people know how faces look, with and without makeup. The temporal artifacts of DNR can not be makeup related anyway. Makeup is attached to the face and does not have a life of its own 24 times a second.

 

[Will_B]

Note the "NOT ALL". Most of the screen caps have been of people's faces and skin. Yes, there is some DNR and it can be noticed elsewhere.

 

[Martin Henry]

Got my copy today. The DNR on this is disgraceful. There some scenes that have grain at the start, but it's completely disappeared by the end of the same scene. It's like someone forgot to turn the DNR machine back on after lunchtime. Check out the shot of Mr Hand flying away after seeing Murdoch at his uncle Karl's place. Grain... now you see it... now you don't. :frowning: