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

[Robert Harris]

whoops

Xylon,
Welcome to HTF.
As not to use bandwidth, you might check with admins to see if you might link, but I would advise that examples be very telling, as a point under discussion here has been the relative value of frame grabs, which in many cases do not really tell a fully accurate story.
When they do...

 

[Loregnum]

I understand people who may be tired of seeing "negative" posts on the same issues (dnr, ee, etc) but at the same time I do not get why they get a bit pissy to those who bring these issues up and are upset. Like a previous poster said, at best bringing these issues up will get studios to provide a better product and at worst things won't change. Knowing that, why then is it so bad?

You know, back in the early days of DVD there were A LOT of posts complaining when a dvd was non-anamoprhic and there were posters who brushed that off as being "nit picky" and such. Look how that turned out for everyone. Why then can't people just see the same situation here? Seriously, it is the same issue to me and I can only guess people forgot about those early DVD days or simply were not around then.

As for the screengrab stuff...I understand people who say they shouldn't be taken as 100% proof of quality however EVERY single screengrab I have seen concerning dnr or EE has either been an exact indication of what i see on screen OR has looked better than the actual material in motion on my 106" screen. To me, screengrabs are worthwhile and 90% of the time they are posted by people who are big into video so one can usually put value in that. Basically, I have the ability to put 2 and 2 together and deduce that (say in this case) Dark City has dnr applied and EE which would most likely annoy me. I do not have to see it in motion to get this. I DO plan to rent it eventually or would pick it up for say 10-14 bucks (the price of the dir cut dvd is 12) but that is it.

I also think the "better than dvd" argument that many people (not just here but in general) have for blu-ray is somewhat silly. Of course it will be better than dvd but why should dvd be my standard? If they are catalog titles then chances are I already bought the dvd so why should I re-buy and pay an extra 50-100% for a disc simply because it may be better than dvd? Sorry but I want something as close as possible to the film presentation which means no detail killing dnr and EE.

I also find it odd that a reply is that people should just enjoy the content and not focus on issues. Well if I should not care about the quality then why even upgrade to the blu-ray in the first place? Again, on catalog titles that one already owns on dvd, why should one simply just be satisfied with the content and not put value in the presentation? Why pay more to re-buy the blu-ray?

 

[Scott Calvert]

You know, back in the early days of DVD there were A LOT of posts complaining when a dvd was non-anamoprhic and there were posters who brushed that off as being "nit picky" and such. Look how that turned out for everyone. Why then can't people just see the same situation here? Seriously, it is the same issue to me and I can only guess people forgot about those early DVD days or simply were not around then.

I remember the numerous, heated arguments around anamorphic/nonanamorphic like they were yesterday. The same type of people coming in and bitching about all the "nitpickers".
"Hey, it looks better than the laserdisc! Quit complaining!!"
Well I can tell you that nonanamorphic dvd transfers that looked ok on my 32 inch tube television look very not ok on my 50 inch widescreen HDTV, and I am thankful for all the hyperbolistic bitching that made anamorphic standard for widecreen transfers.

 

[frankie108]

Quote:

Here, I think, is the crux of this issue. What's more important - content or presentation??? I say, why can't we have them both. But, deep down I guess I'm more of a "content" kind of guy. When I watch a movie that's immersive I don't see things that other people see like "forcefields" and/or "halos" and, of course, I don't go looking for them either. Perhaps this explains why reviewers on internet sites rarely agree with each other even on titles like PATTON. Anyway, I'm very optimistic because if I liked PATTON, I may never be disappointed.

 

[Scott Calvert]

BR titles that are "special" to me. Don't we all have certain titles that just, well - make us 'feel good.' Of course, these are the titles that we've upgrading over the years - VHS to Laserdisc to DVD and now to Blu-ray. The "standard" I use is the last format version of the title I bought. I must say that every Blu-ray title I've seen so far has simply overwhelmed me with the picture and sound qualities over the standard DVD title.
Here, I think, is the crux of this issue. What's more important - content or presentation??? I say, why can't we have them both. But, deep down I guess I'm more of a "content" kind of guy. When I watch a movie that's immersive I don't see things that other people see like "forcefields" and/or "halos" and, of course, I don't go looking for them either. Perhaps this explains why reviewers on internet sites rarely agree with each other even on titles like PATTON. Anyway, I'm very optimistic because if I liked PATTON, I may never be disappointed.

I can understand that you tought Patton looked fantastic. It's very pretty. The problem is, it isn't authentic. It's historical revisionism and it upsets purists like myself. Patton the Bluray looks nothing like Patton the film, and I would think that is directly opposite of what the Home Theater Forum should be championing.
I certainly do not believe in belittleing others that like these sort of revisionist transfers but I also do not believe that it is a matter of opinion whether the studios should be altering pictures in this way or not. It's historical revisionism and it's wrong.
I understand that film is an organic medium and Patton can very well look different from cinema to cinema depending on the generation of the print and quality of the labwork. But I am certain it should not look like "Patton: Presented by Pixar". I think, when doing transfers for older films, aiming for something as close to the first generation IP or answer print is quite ok. And if there is no remaining IP or anwer print then of course there will be some guesswork involved.

 

[RobertR]

Quote:

That's where many of us are saying you and others are making your mistake. The whole point of Blu Ray is that it brings us much closer to the look of FILM. THAT is the standard we should judge it against, not older formats. And no, such a standard is not "unreasonable" or a too-picky demand for "perfection", because some transfers DO have that look. It's NOT that difficult at all. In fact, it's actually EASIER, because it requires LESS processing.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Hi Frank, welcome to the forum.
Everyone has their own litmus test for what they find acceptable or not. For me, it boils down to a simple qestion- "when I project the image on my wall, does it look like film or does it look more like good video blown up large?"
What I've found is, HD resolution in and of itself is NOT the big determiner in this. I've seen many sd DVDs in the last year that have a more analog, film-like look. At the same time I'm seeing more and more Bds that, while having more 'oomph' from color space and res boosts, curiously look like digital video.
Just because that digital 'oomph' may be a look liked by many people, doesn't make it the ideal to strive for because it's not an objective ideal.

 

[Jari K]

You may have thought that, but it is a fact that some people back then WERE saying that those pushing for anamorphic were being too picky. Some of them were the very same people who are now saying that some are too picky over the DNR/EE issue.

So now you´re kinda hinting, that people who in this thread have said comments like *Dark City has some issues, but it´s still far from being truly "bad"* (--which would be what I´m personally saying *at this point* - this is based on the comments on this thread and yes, those screencaps, I haven´t seen the film yet myself--) are the ones that "accept" issues like non-anamorphic transfer, pan&scan, etc? I hope not, since obviously you´re wrong (like I said, IF you implied that..)
The problem now is, that you´re using this "if you´re not with us - you´re against us" approach, like saying that these "nitpickers" (word used in this thread, not necessarily my choice) are on the holy mission against the big studios and their use of DNR/EE , and everyone should boycott this release or something. Like "you can´t enjoy this film" now when it has some EE or something like that. At all. I´m exaggerating a bit of course, but just to make my point..
This obviously is not very "black and white" issue and at least to me life is too short. There´s always going to be more mediocre releases (whether it´s the source, DVD/BD production or some other issue - there are also plenty of pure "opinions"), and yes, I still buy some of those (since the alternatives are even more mediocre - simple as that), since I want to see the film in Blu-ray. With some titles, I just wait for the sales. I won´t buy e.g. "Patton" until it´s "on sale" and probably it´s going to be the same thing with "Dark City". If buying these films makes me a "lesser person" among the fellow movie and A/V buffs, so be it. At the end of the day I probably won´t even care.. I know where I stand (I love films and respect A/V values) and it´s good enough for me.
We all here are probably "against" digital manipulations and issues in that nature, but this is not about "taking sides". Every new release (DVD, Blu-ray) is a "new case". It usually takes more than 1-2 screencaps. You read the reviews, forum info, learn about the history behind the film (also techinical issues) and eventually you just might actually see the film yourself. Whatever the case is, you make your own judgments based on the info at hand. At the end of the day, "RobertR" can´t say what "Jari K" should or shouldn´t watch. And vice versa.
So: "Dark City" has some issues, mainly some EE and perhaps some minor DNR. Are we against these type of issues (digital manipulations, etc) by the studios? Yes. All of us? Probably. Should we boycott this release? No. Why not? Everyone will make their own decisions eventually and the message has been already sent with e.g. this thread. Huge debate - and that message will be buried. Is the film "unwatchable"? No.

 

[RobertR]

Quote:

Some of us choose to think in terms of excellence rather than levels of mediocrity.

 

[frankie108]

It's very pretty. The problem is, it isn't authentic. It's historical revisionism and it upsets purists like myself. Patton the Bluray looks nothing like Patton the film, and I would think that is directly opposite of what the Home Theater Forum should be championing.....

(emphasis is my doing)
As a purist you definitely have a heavy cross to bare and I don't envy you.
As a non-purist, I just watch films for pleasure so it doesn't concern me if PATTON is or isn't "authentic" and may or may not suffer from "historical revisionism" or, even, if PATTON the BD looks like PATTON the movie since these esoteric concepts are foreign to me.
Of this I am certain, however, and that is the BD title blows away my old standard DVD version by a huge margin which is my main concern. I'm quite happy with the upgrade.

 

[Jari K]

Some of us choose to think in terms of excellence rather than levels of mediocrity.

"Some of us"? Not that "mediocre"-camp, where I´m at the moment? Seriously speaking, now you´re probably "reading" a bit too much into my comments. I´m sure you got the point, though. You want the best presentation of "Dark City" on home video, you get the BD. If you don´t want BD (some EE, etc), then you stick with the DVD (well, I guess the SD DVD has also EE, etc, since it´s from the same source). Simple as that. My point was, that buying that BD doesn´t mean that you suddenly "ignore" EE/DNR, etc. You just live with those issues this time, since you want to see the film. For "some of us", this is just one film and after that we move on. On to the next debate. I´m sure it won´t that far away..
But now, say "goodnight to the bad guy". I´m going to sleep..

 

[RobertR]

You want the best presentation of "Dark City" on home video, you get the BD.

Yes you do. But you also let people know that this isn't the best possible presentation on home video (and EASILY possible at that).

 

[frankie108]

of Blu Ray is that it brings us much closer to the look of FILM. THAT is the standard we should judge it against, not older formats.[/b] And no, such a standard is not "unreasonable" or a too-picky demand for "perfection", because some transfers DO have that look. It's NOT that difficult at all. In fact, it's actually EASIER, because it requires LESS processing.

Sorry, but my "standard" has always been to weigh the over all expense of buying into a new format against any perceived improvement in picture/audio quality over the old format. To be honest, I had no intention of buying into Blu-ray before the holiday season (just too expensive). But, my brother gave me a deal on his old player that I couldn't refuse. I think the "point" of Blu-ray (beyond the obvious business aspects) is, or should be, to provide significant improvement in PQ/AQ over standard DVD - which it does quite well in my opinion. "Perfection" is a word I would not use in connection with any entertainment media format.

 

[RobertR]

I think the "point" of Blu-ray (beyond the obvious business aspects) is, or should be, to provide significant improvement in PQ/AQ over standard DVD.

When the original film-like look is not only promoted as achievable, but IS achievable and HAS been achieved, we shouldn't settle for improvement over an older video format, but instead hold people to the bar we KNOW they can reach. If you went into a car dealership that advertised and promoted its cars as getting 45 miles to the gallon, and you knew that other owners of the car WERE getting 45, would you be happy with getting 30 just because it was "better than your old car"? I think not.

 

[teapot2001]

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?

~T

 

[Edwin-S]

I'd like to see if I could spot what the fuss is about but I can't rent it. My local BlockBuster saw fit to bring in 4 copies of what looks to be some straight to video crapfest called "Never Back Down" and zero copies of this movie. Their competitor couldn't be bothered to bring any Blu copies, but they did get the SD DVD version. After the Space Chimps retired they must have been hired by the procurement department of BB and Rogers Video.

 

[Tino]

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?
~T

Havent watched it yet, too busy reading this thread.

 

[frankie108]

but instead hold people to the bar we KNOW they can reach.

Robert,
It's unreasonable, I think, to expect a "home run" every time out at this stage of the game. It takes time for quality to become the norm. I cite the long evolution it took to produce quality standard DVD discs as an example.
I also think the studios, within their own severe economic constraints, are doing the best they can with what they have to work with considering that they may collectively feel that Blu-ray is just a niche format at this time.

 

[RobertR]

Robert,
It's unreasonable, I think, to expect a "home run" every time out at this stage of the game.

Frank,
Even if the studios can't hit a "home run" every time right now, we should always be asking them to hit as many as we KNOW they can. If we know they CAN be "Babe Ruths", we shouldn't settle for a few home runs, nor should we say "well at least it's better than AAA ball".

 

[Dave Mack]

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.