"Dark City: Director's Cut" coming to Blu-ray on July 29 (2 Viewers)

[RobertR]

BTW - I've yet to see any "missing detail" from any BD screengrabs I've seen. What exactly is missing when you're watching this on your display? and where is an alternate (non-BD) screengrab that shows this "missing detail" which is so obvious to you?

What's missing is detail that was in the film source, detail that people KNOW to be there from watching the film (including myself), and that Blu Ray is KNOWN to be capable of showing. Not only is it capable of showing it, PROPER transfers DO show it. No matter how much you try to say "I can't tell anything from screen grabs", examples have been shown where the difference is quite noticeable to many people (if not to you). The goal, which is easily reachable and HAS been reached, is for the transfer to look like FILM.

 

[Jari K]

These days it's better to wait for comments from people who have seen the transfer, are FULLY aware of the DNR/EE issue and what it looks like, AND have the large screen high end equipment to show such problems..

I agree. That´s why I rather wait comments from the people like Robert A. Harris..

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

I agree. That´s why I rather wait comments from the people like Robert A. Harris..

From your words to God's ears!
Professionals like Robert Harris and Editors like Bill Hunt are put in a position that make them responsible for reporting the degree of quality produced from a blu-ray disc and in this day & age, especially what is lacking in high frequency information detail when compared to "FILM" sources.
Let us hope that the pressures of the studios don't begin to hinder the truth and that we still hear about real tests on 100" and above screens.
Paul

 

[Dave Mack]

Dunno, I just can't get all worked up over jpeg screengrabs, digital camera still shots of paused displays or the usual chorus of noise from a bunch of AVS screengrab worshipers who haven't even sampled the disc themselves. Sorry if this comes across as snarky but basing ones final judgment on a still-shot posted by someone else on an internet messageboard seems a bit idiotic to me.

The shots that I linked to were NOT Dvd Beaver's They are NOT jpegs. They are PNG files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless
Unless the cop has some special forcefield, I don't know, maybe to some that looks like a natural film image... Not to me. But some people can't even see EE in the first place.
And Rick, I hear ya about the LCD, I do have a DLP PJ myself.

 

[Paul Arnette]

It seems to me that we are in an unfortunate situation where even many of the comparatively few transfers that the studios thought were acceptable for Blu-ray Disc aren't because someone (either the studio or the mastering house) has 'baked' DVNR and EE into the masters themselves. This most certainly won't be the last time we have this discussion, and I fear A Nightmare on Elm Street will be the same way.
That said, a lot of these movies aren't going to be able to justify the expense of a new master given BD's small marketshare. So you either take a BD that's not perfect, but clearly better than the SD DVD counterpart, or you wait, probably a long while, before you see the title 'done right'. At least Dark City doesn't appear quite as egregious as 'Patton' and 'The Longest Day' from the screenshots I've seen thus far.

 

[Jim_K]

The words "accurate" and "complete" mean different things. If I accurately say a car gets X number of horsepower, that doesn't say what color it is. There is NO contradiction there.

Jesus Harry Christ O'Mighty! I can't argue anymore with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "accurate". Now you want to muddy the waters with "complete", where the fuck did that come from? BTW - Do you know the meaning of "inane"?
If not..............
in·ane

//
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html]
—Related forms in·ane·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. pointless. See foolish.
anyway..........I had to drop the arguement earlier to go see the Dark Knight. Great flick BTW! Sold out show and got stuck in the second row, and because of sitting so close to the screen it amazed me how soft and lacking detail this film looked. Can't wait for the BD to come out so some screengrabber on AVS can post some pics and proclaim to their followers that there's "missing detail"! anyway it's been a long day so..........G'night folks!

 

[Dave Mack]

Jesus Harry Christ O'Mighty! I can't argue anymore with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "accurate". Now you want to muddy the waters with "complete", where the fuck did that come from? BTW - Do you know the meaning of "inane"?

Nice language too....

 

[Dave H]

Screenshots maybe not perfect, but so far many of them have correctly identified the more notorius DNR releases.
If it walks like a duck...talks like a duck...

 

[Jim_K]

Nice...
Thanks for the wisecrack.

Not a problem.....thanks for the :rolleyes

 

[Dave Mack]

Dunno, I just can't get all worked up over jpeg screengrabs, digital camera still shots of paused displays or the usual chorus of noise from a bunch of AVS screengrab worshipers who haven't even sampled the disc themselves. Sorry if this comes across as snarky but basing ones final judgment on a still-shot posted by someone else on an internet messageboard seems a bit idiotic to me.

 

[Dave Mack]

Screenshots maybe not perfect, but so far many of them have correctly identified the more notorius DNR releases.
If it walks like a duck...talks like a duck...

Bingo.

 

[RobertR]

I can't argue anymore

Yep. You've resorted to screaming and name calling (actually, you began with name calling).

You haven't said a single thing to disprove the usefulness of screen grabs.

 

[Will_B]

If given a choice between the version that was digitally broadcast, or the BluRay version which has a bit of edge enhancement... I'd have to say the BluRay version looks better. Yes, there is a little bit of edge enhancement, but, it also has more detail than the broadcast does -- look at the hairs on Hurt's head, or the texture in his skin, etc. Or look at Riff Raff's eyeballs when he's standing on the side of the pool. All of this looks better on the BluRay.

Perfect? No. Darn close? Yep.

I was surprised the digital broadcast version was open matte (but still widescreen). I wonder if the special effects scenes were also made that way.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Jesus Harry Christ O'Mighty! I can't argue anymore with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "accurate".

Then better not argue with yourself.

 

[Jim_K]

You haven't said a single thing to disprove the usefulness of screen grabs.

Wasn't trying to "disprove" someone elses usefulness of screengrabs, which would be akin to trying to convert ones religion. I did say that I thought basing ones final judgment on a screengrab without viewing the disc themselves was idiotic. Still do, sorry if that bothers some people but there it is.
Sure screengrabs can point out flaws like the "cropped" EE example on page 3. Would it be as noticeable in full motion to everyone on every display out there? maybe, maybe not. Will I notice it on mine? very probably now that's it's been pointed out and I'll consciously or subconsciously look for it. Would I notice any other EE present on the disc without it being pointed out to me? maybe, maybe not. I'll find out when I view it.
Do I like the fact that's there's apparently EE on one shot at least? Of course not, but I'm sure to be demonized as one of the "it's good enough" crowd anyway.
and to say that me viewing these still screengrabs on my crappy 19" flat panel computer monitor is an accurate reflection of what I'd see in full motion on my 70" 1080P display, or someone else's 100"+ screen, or the next persons 50" 720P display, etc, etc, is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[RobertR]

Sure screengrabs can point out flaws like the "cropped" EE example on page 3.

So you concede at LAST that they're useful.

 

[Paul Arnette]

I was surprised the digital broadcast version was open matte (but still widescreen). I wonder if the special effects scenes were also made that way.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'made that way', but the thread on AVS reports that the special effects scenes are cropped as a result of the open matte HDTV presentation, so I'd lean toward answering no. Regardless, I agree with your assertion that between the SD DVD, the HDTV broadcast, and the BD, the BD is the 'lesser of three evils'.
However, that really feeds into my prior point about the seeming lack of suitable masters. For a lot of these releases, people are going to have to judge very carefully for themselves via whatever means they are comfortable with whether a release is worth it or not. I certainly don't begrudge anyone wanting to use screen shots as a means of doing so, as long as they understand there are some limitations that they can't overcome (e.g. motion). However, the argument that you can't adequately judge a release until you've seen it, while perhaps correct, really isn't practical. Many people do not have either the time or money to buy/rent and watch every release they're interested in order to determine a transfers 'worthiness'.
It would certainly be nice if we didn't have to, but we are clearly not there yet with Blu-ray Disc and may never be. After all, we never got there with DVD either.

 

[Cassy_w]

Where is the controversy? New Line uses DVNR. They have for a long time. We knew this was a possibility and now we know it has happened.
The surprise here is that they used a very old transfer (must be ten years by now) and spliced in the new stuff. I have the old 1080i version on DVHS tape and it is a tad soft, has EE and noise reduction, although it is clearly superior to the DVD. It also has a low low bit rate, which explains why the screen shots show the BD is a slight improvement (superior encoding).
But DVNR is married to the transfer. It's there and it cannot be removed.
And I for one am ticked off about it. :frowning:

 

[Ruz-El]

What's missing is detail that was in the film source, detail that people KNOW to be there from watching the film (including myself), and that Blu Ray is KNOWN to be capable of showing. Not only is it capable of showing it, PROPER transfers DO show it. No matter how much you try to say "I can't tell anything from screen grabs", examples have been shown where the difference is quite noticeable to many people (if not to you). The goal, which is easily reachable and HAS been reached, is for the transfer to look like FILM.

When's the last time you saw the film in the cinema? What was the set up? I don't know how many movies I've seen in the past 5 years that weer not projected properly in the cinema (noticeable via picture information showing up ion the matts, etc.) Just curious too, in which proper transfer is available to compare to?
As far as screen grabs being suitable, I suppose they are with something so obvious with "PATTON", thing is though, movies are a moving image right? And DVD/BLU is a digital technology that utilizes some form of compression to replicate a analog source, I'm sure some of the things that show up in a still picture aren't all that noticable to the eye in movement, similar to how animation works to fool the eye.
As far as Blu being bille as offering perfection, and expecting a true experiance you get from a print, I kinda doubt you'll ever see that without a 35mm projector, regardless of what the media is capable of. It's always going to be a digital copy of a analog film. Could be close, but perfectly exact?
I'm just glad I didn't go HD/Blu yet, I bet this looks great in fulll moving SD.

 

[David Wilkins]

There are some of us who do care, do have the setup, and do have the knowledge and eye to see the difference between a good and a manipulated transfer. No doubt there's some bandwagon-jumping going on, but frankly I don't see how it's a bad thing, the more exposure this gets the better.

A lot of us care, at least among members of this forum.
What's irritating is this kind of post, where people are basically "reviewing" the disc based on this half-assed relaying of information. Everybody gets wound-up in advance of the disc even being available to assess properly...and you get certain people barking back and forth about the merit of screen garbs: "No it isn't! Yes it is!, No it isn't! Yes it is!...ad nauseam, and it's all basically for naught.
This kind of exposure, regardless of volume, carries no weight or credibility; if anything, it robs us of credibility.
I have a revolutionary idea: why don't we wait until at least one of the handful of reputable reviewers turn in a report on this title. Even better, would after it's available for the rest of us to look at, on our home system, via rental or purchase.