Jump to content

- - - - -

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

  • Please log in to reply
388 replies to this topic

#381 of 389 Michel_Hafner


    Supporting Actor

  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted August 03 2008 - 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

#382 of 389 Will_B



  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted August 04 2008 - 04:44 AM

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.
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#383 of 389 Martin Henry

Martin Henry

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 72 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 08 2008

Posted August 04 2008 - 05:21 AM

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. Posted Image

#384 of 389 Dave Mack

Dave Mack


  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 04 2008 - 09:07 AM

noticed some scenes like this too. Kinda sloppy and makes you yearn for a totally DNR free film.
Especially the scene when Kiefer talks to Jennifer for the first time. Horribly matched.

#385 of 389 Henry Gale

Henry Gale


  • 4,633 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 10 1999

Posted February 15 2010 - 02:56 PM

 Wanting to be sure BD wasn't just a fad /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif"> I am now catching up. I won't be reading these 384 posts, so forgive me if someone has mentioned this:

"I was born to ramble, born to rove
Some men are searchin for the Holy Grail
But there ain't nothin sweeter 
Than riden' the rails."
-Tom Waits-

#386 of 389 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway


  • 7,144 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted February 16 2010 - 10:44 AM

General consensus was that New Line over DNR-ed the picture quality. Otherwise the release is fine. But if you're sensitive to overdone DNR you'll probably be disappointed. (Before they were swallowed up by Warner, New Line had DNR issues. Pan's Labyrinth is another example).

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932

#387 of 389 ManW_TheUncool



  • 5,844 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2001
  • Real Name:ManW

Posted February 17 2010 - 06:58 AM

Yeah, there's some DNR/EE issue w/ it -- though not quite as bad as some others (as even RAH was ok w/ it) -- *PLUS* some of the newly added footages for the director's cut, particularly some headshots of Jennifer Connelly, are jarringly soft (probably due in part to seeing them sequenced into the otherwise supersharp DNR/EE look of the rest of the film).

But for the going price right now (on Amazon), it's hard to complain too much about those issues, if you don't already own it.

It's a fave of mine, so I bit the bullet and bought it early on (at some WBShop sale).  Wish they didn't overcook it like that, but OTOH, it's certainly not as bad as a handful other overcooked BDs (and is definitely worth owning at a good price, IMHO)...


Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things..." (St. Paul)

#388 of 389 Michel_Hafner


    Supporting Actor

  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted June 28 2012 - 07:49 PM

There is now a new release in Germany from WB, without the sharpening and DNR nasties. Also high bit rate AVC. Unfortunately it's only the theatrical cut. http://www.avsforum....0#post_22176616

#389 of 389 Dave Mack

Dave Mack


  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted October 17 2012 - 12:35 AM

Yep. What the people who were complaining about were saying all along.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users