|
|
 |
|
02-21-2005, 03:28 AM
|
#62 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 1999
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Local Date: 11-19-2008
Posts: 2,081
|
How is the video quality on the new release?
The original release on my 48" RPTV looks terribly out of focus and lacks fine detail. Is the director's cut any better?
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 08:57 AM
|
#63 of 82
|
|
Doug Pippel
Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,748
|
The video on the Director's Cut is no better and no worse than the theatrical release. It looks like the same soft, disappointing transfer with the additional material just added in. 
Careful man! There's a beverage here!
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 09:33 AM
|
#64 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,149
|
It's the same soft, "disappointing" transfer because it's the look intended for the film by the director and cinematographer so as to lend the film the hazy, slightly out-of-focus quality of a dream.
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 11:16 AM
|
#65 of 82
|
|
Doug Pippel
Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,748
|
That's not what I'm talking about. I realize the look that the director was going for, and theatrically it worked. The softness of the DVD transfer however has nothing to do with the way the film was shot. It's filtered, and does not represent what I saw in the theater.
Careful man! There's a beverage here!
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 11:29 AM
|
#66 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Local Time: 09:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 5,105
|
Quote:
|
DaveF, if you listen to the commentary, you'll find you're on the money
|
Thanks for the update. However, I think I will now pass on the DC, at least for a while. Too many other movies to see right now.
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 01:11 PM
|
#67 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Local Time: 09:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 19
|
fyi, Hottopic has a limited edition tin of the director's cut: w*w.hottopic.com/store/product.asp?LS=0&ITEM=272034
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 01:54 PM
|
#68 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,149
|
Had, not has...
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 04:28 PM
|
#69 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 1999
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Local Date: 11-19-2008
Posts: 2,081
|
Darn it about the transfer. The first release looks very similar to a 1997 release from Warner. Did anyone in the studio look at this transfer on something larger than a 20" screen and say, "What is going on here?" It looks like crap.
I have a few Amazon coupons to burn, but with this news about the transfer I am in serious doubt if I'll pick this up. Can anyone convince me otherwise?
|
|
|
02-21-2005, 04:40 PM
|
#70 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,149
|
Um, guys, please, it's not like this is the 1998 release of SCARFACE or something...it's entirely watchable and, despite Doug's assertions otherwise, most (maybe not all, but most) of the deficiencies with the transfer are attributable to its intented original cinematography...
|
|
|
02-22-2005, 08:56 AM
|
#71 of 82
|
|
Doug Pippel
Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,748
|
I never said that it was unwatchable Travis. I said that the transfers on both DVD releases do not represent what I saw in the theater. Donnie Darko lacks good shadow detail and appears to be suffering from excessive high-pass filtering. These video attributes have nothing to do with soft focus cinematography or the intentions of the filmmakers. I think the transfer could look a lot better. Your opinion may differ from mine, but please don't assume to be the final authority on the subject.
Careful man! There's a beverage here!
|
|
|
02-22-2005, 10:12 AM
|
#72 of 82
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,149
|
That's not my intention, but I do feel some of you aren't giving the transfer its fair due and your descriptions of same, I fear, may cause on-the-fencers to pass on buying the title when it's (yes, IMO) not warranted.
|
|
| |