The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

I have not "labeled" anything or anyone. Many, many people in this thread have defended the release--I assume this is not a point of contention--which is the very definition of an apologist.
Furthermore, the Blu-ray version of the film cannot be properly viewed on a constant-height 2.35:1 screen--either important portions of the image must be cropped during the Imax segments, or the 35mm segments must be windowboxed on all four sides. Surely you would not argue that this does not hinder the presentation of the film on such screens? This is simply the definition of the word "retard."
If you feel that this subject is a "dead horse," you are free to refrain from participating further in the thread. Since so many people have said within the last page or two that they don't understand what "the big deal" is about the variable-ratio release in spite of pages and pages of explanations of exactly what the big deal is, I consider the subject very much alive and worthy of discussion.
I'm perfectly fine with--in fact, happy for--the folks for whom The Dark Knight's variable-ratio presentation is satisfactory. But I'm puzzled that they are apparently unable not merely to share in the disappointment of those who wanted a 2.35:1 version to go along with it, but to even understand why they are disappointed in the first place. This is most definitely not the kind of attitude I've come to expect from the Home Theater Forum.

 

[TonyD]

Respectfully, this thread feels like a joke...

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the title of this topic.
How is anything about this release a joke?
It might not be to some folks preference, but it's hardly a joke.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I have not "labeled" anything or anyone. Many, many people in this thread have defended the release--I assume this is not a point of contention--which is the very definition of an apologist.
Furthermore, the Blu-ray version of the film cannot be properly viewed on a constant-height 2.35:1 screen--either important portions of the image must be cropped during the Imax segments, or the 35mm segments must be windowboxed on all four sides. Surely you would not argue that this does not hinder the presentation of the film on such screens? This is simply the definition of the word "retard."

Anyone sophisticated enough to cite dictionary definitions should also be able to appreciate that "apologist" and "retarding" are loaded terms with negative connotations. What if I accused you of "pedantry"? The dictionary definition is "presentation or application of knowledge or learning", but it implies something else, and I suspect you wouldn't like the label.

 

[cafink]

Well, I certainly hope that "redarding" has a negative connotation, since that is exactly what I meant by my original use of the word--that the variable-ratio version has a negative effect on viewing the film via a constant-height display, in that it entails either significant cropping (of important visual information, different than the cropping of the 2.35:1 version) of the Imax scenes or a large black border around the entire frame for the 35mm scenes. I find it puzzling that I'm being challenged on this. Is it your contention that the 2.35:1 version would not be superior on such a display?

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the title of this topic.
How is anything about this release a joke?


Okay, you have a faux IMAX presentation that is supposed to, in some part, replicate the IMAX experience. Yet, there are any number of posts from people stating that they never actually even noticed the changes between the IMAX portions and the 35mm portions. Some might interpret that as being " a joke": a really bad one.

 

[TonyD]

edwin i hate to say this but it is getting tiring.
the transition from 2.35:1 to the screen becoming filled was seamless.
The Blu disc doesn't have the true imax version or the true theatrical non imax version.
oh well.
send a letter to warner and thell them why you won't buy the disc.
ok it's 2:30 in the morning, why am i not asleep?

 

[Dave Mack]

Another review from Amazon...
This guy certainly noticed the changing AR and has 2 cents...
"" 1.0 out of 5 stars Darknight Blu-ray widescreen not wide screen, December 15, 2008
By John L. Kinser "drzaius3085" (Anderson, Indiana United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Note that the one star reflects the Blu-Ray DVD and not the movie. Alot of the film was shot in IMAX. The IMAX scenes ARE NOT widescreen, they ARE PAN and SCAN. I compared the widescreen downloaded version to my Blu-Ray and the downloaded version shows alot that when they Pan and Scaned the IMAX footage they cut some of the picture out. I am debating on sending mine back and buying the regular version so I can ge true widescreen. This is not widescreen..."

 

[TonyD]

to repeat what I posted earleir in this topic.
"the changes arent a joke to me.
I'm an hour in and everytime it switches to an imax shot it's like a beautiful
awsome surprise."
so i did notice the changes but it still was a smooth transition and i liked it.

 

[Edwin-S]

edwin i hate to say this but it is getting tiring.
the transition from 2.35:1 to the screen becoming filled was seamless.
The Blu disc doesn't have the true imax version or the true theatrical non imax version.
oh well.
send a letter to warner and thell them why you won't buy the disc.

You asked the question and I provided a possible answer. I didn't include myself as considering this VAR presentation to be a joke. I pointed out in the Dark Knight review thread that I thought opening the mattes on the paddy wagon chase scene actually makes that sequence clearer. Some other scenes shot in IMAX felt like they were only in there because Nolan felt like shooting something in IMAX.
The only problem I have is that I would have liked to have the 2.40:1 ratio on there as well, because I would like to compare how the different framing changes the final product. This is no different to me than "How The West Was Won". I watched the film in SmileBox and I'll eventually watch the regular widescreen version just to compare it to the SB version.

 

[Edwin-S]

edwin i hate to say this but it is getting tiring.
the transition from 2.35:1 to the screen becoming filled was seamless.
The Blu disc doesn't have the true imax version or the true theatrical non imax version.
oh well.
send a letter to warner and thell them why you won't buy the disc.

You asked the question and I provided a possible answer. I didn't include myself as considering this VAR presentation to be a joke. I pointed out in the Dark Knight review thread that I thought opening the mattes on the paddy wagon chase scene actually makes that sequence clearer. Some other scenes shot in IMAX felt like they were only in there because Nolan felt like shooting something in IMAX.
The only problem I had is that I would have liked to have the 2.40:1 ratio on there as well, because I would like to compare how the different framing changes the final product. This is no different to me than "How The West Was Won". I watched the film in SmileBox and I'll eventually watch the regular widescreen version just to compare it to the SB version.

 

[Michael Reuben]

be superior on such a display?

No, it's my contention that, when you said "I have not 'labeled' anything or anyone", you were being disingenuous.
On the debate over the disc's AR, I agree with Carlo that there is nothing to say that hasn't already been said, repeatedly.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Unless there's a smiley for flogging a dead horse, I don't see any point in continuing this tired debate.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Unless there's a smiley for flogging a dead horse, I don't see any point in continuing this tired debate.

I see one point: Most of this debate was theoretical. Now we're getting input from people on the actual experience of watching this disc, and it's an interesting counterpoint (which is probably an understatement). It's certainly worth giving more of those people an opportunity to comment, even at the price of a certain amount of rehash from others.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Wow. All these people saying that the aspect changes were hardly noticeable. If they were hardly noticeable then they didn't do the job that they were supposed to do. The whole point of shooting IMAX scenes was to create a more enveloping environment for those scenes. If you guys didn't actually notice them then the intent was lost.

I think you're potentially mistaken here. If the filmmakers (director/cinematographer/editor) have done their job well, then the switch between aspect ratios would not be noticeable, in the sense that the person watching it won't say "hey, the filmmakers have pulled a trick and made the screen bigger". The film will make a different impression on them during that time, but the actual transition should be seamless.

 

[TonyD]

exactly jason, this is what i was trying to say.
you said it better.

 

[Nick Martin]

 

[Nick Martin]

YTMND - Beating a Dead Horse

 

[PaulDA]

Wow. All these people saying that the aspect changes were hardly noticeable. If they were hardly noticeable then they didn't do the job that they were supposed to do. The whole point of shooting IMAX scenes was to create a more enveloping environment for those scenes. If you guys didn't actually notice them then the intent was lost.

"Did not notice" is an inaccurate expression, I suspect. "Not a distraction or "Did not detract from the experience" probably describe the viewing experience more precisely for those who did not mind the variable AR.
On the issue of "why don't people understand those of us who want a fixed AR version on BD"--I suspect there are few who don't "understand" the desire. My preference would have been (as I think likely for most here) for a release that offered both ARs. However, among those who are upset at the lack of a fixed AR release on BD, I have noticed a small subset (across various fora, not just here, or even primarily here) who are shockingly cavalier about dismissing the wishes of the creator of the artistic endeavour--an attitude that should be as disconcerting as one that is dismissive of the desire to have a release in the AR of the theatrical presentation, I should think.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the title of this topic.
How is anything about this release a joke?
It might not be to some folks preference, but it's hardly a joke.

It's a "joke" because its BD.
Blu-ray was supposed too give us everything we ever wanted in a HV movie release on one disc. People actually posted that entire TV series would be put on a single disc. Of coarse now we have 3 disc releases of "IAL".
1st: The IMAX scenes are not IMAX OAR.
That's a 'joke' here at HTF.
2nd: "This" BD does not offer seamless branching or both aspect ratios.
That's a 'joke' cause the SD DVD release includes both.
3rd: The IMAX scenes where not shot w/an "IMAX" camera.
That's a joke (you pay for "IMAX" & you don't get IMAX quality; ha, ha!).
4th: This release has EE & DNR on the widescreen presentation.
That's a not at all funny joke, especially here at HTF; as a few people wanted this too be a reference release.
The OP might wish too add more...
Me, I'm not worried...
cause they are just gonna release this again...
It all so cracks me up that people are posting that they barely or didn't even notice the VAR!
That's got too be the JOKE of the yr!
[on Nolan; all that for nuttin, on the BD; why release it that way when it makes little or no diference, & HTF; where OAR used too be "everything"]

 

[Brandon Conway]

It all so cracks me up that people are posting that they barely or didn't even notice the VAR!
That's got too be the JOKE of the yr!
[on Nolan; all that for nuttin, on the BD; why release it that way when it makes little or no diference, & HTF; where OAR used too be "everything"]

As others have said, the intent is for the changes to be more subliminal in their "opening up" of those particular scenes as part of being pulled into the world of the film. Noticing them in a conscious, pull-you-put-of-the-film-to-notice-the-technology manner was not the intent.