I just rented this and was stunned to see so much dirt and crap on such a new movie. The amount of dirt I saw might have been expected it if the movie were 20 years old, but is inexcusable in a recent release.
Interesting film, but sub par video quality.
I would have been angry if I had bought it.

Maybe it was intended to look that way? It's hard to believe a major studio would intentionally release a crappy transfer of a new film

Yeah I noticed this as well...I guess we will find out if this was truly intended in the HD DVD/Blu-Ray version, whenever it comes out.

I just finished watching it, and I definitely noticed the bad transfer. It could be intentional, though.

I remember this looking a bit dirty and grainy in the theater. I'm sure it's intended.

This is mentioned in the review that sizzle chest did:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read....=20474&___rd=1

He does go on to say that the transfer still looks excellent, despite the dirt. Against my better judgement I ordered this, so I hope it looks good.

Also, I wouldn't entirely put it past sony to release some sub-par titles only so they can make the case for switching to HD that much easier.

So that's the studios plan, huh? Start releasing everything with crappy transfers and then tell you how good HD will look?

It's probably true! I justed watch the latest Harry Potter and it wasn't a great transfer by any means. Some scenes were crystal clear and almost all the CGI ones were very soft. I know that they have to do this for the CGI to blend in with the real background. We'll see how good King Kong is on Tuesday!

On my professionally calibrated 65" RPTV, when a film is transfered with a little effort and it's 2.35:1, the blacks in the film are the exact same color black as the top/bottom bars. It looks like you're watching a 1.78:1/1.85:1 film...fills the whole screen. In 95% of Harry Potter you could tell it was a 2.35:1 print.

I don't think it was done intentionally. I remember the cinematography looking great in the theatre.

As the DVDTalk review states:

In the extras, DP Adam Kimmel explains how he got those landscape shots. He basically went out on his own (and with Miller a few times) with one camera at odd hours to try and get the shots he wanted. Finally, one one occasion, the weather cooperated and he took advantage of a very small window to get all the shots he needed. These were far from ideal shooting conditions and he didn't have a truckload of equipment. Although, as the reviewer states, they could have cleaned those shots up before releasing the DVD. Overall though, I didn't have a problem with that transfer. The grainy/gray/sombre look is what was intended for the film.

However there's a HUGE difference between having an intentional grainy/gray/sombre look for artistic effect, and having "much dirt and crap" as the OP wrote.
I just saw Capote in the theater only a couple weeks ago and don't really recall anything like that sticking out.
I think this DVD just fell off of my purchase list down onto my rent list. I do want to listen to the audio commentaries.

I haven't seen the DVD yet, so I can't comment on that, but I do recall the movie looking...less than pristine, I guess. I mean it wasn't distractingly dirty, but I do remember there being a little "edge" to it. This could be attributed to the fact that I saw the movie in a small independently run theatre here locally, where the projecter and what not is dated, as oppposed to a huge multiplex. I'm holding out on this DVD though, simply because I've been so jaded by "SPECIAL FANCY WHOOPDEE DOO" editions coming out within months of initial release.

I decided to look around a bit and see what other sites had to say. HTF had this thread going: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=253190
Noted film archivist Robert Harris (who restored My Fair Lady and Rear Window among others) made this comment:
Read the thread for further comments.
That settles any question for me. The look was certainly intentional but the source was also unquestionably and unacceptably dirty.