|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
&
If you indeed: "had to mask the sides of the screen and just go for the 1:78 ratio for the movie"; you did not watch it: "as the director intended". |
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
It would be interesting to do a survey to see how many of those objecting to the changing AR saw the film in IMAX.
|
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
&
If you indeed: "had to mask the sides of the screen and just go for the 1:78 ratio for the movie"; you did not watch it: "as the director intended". ------------------------------- This is a "joke"; a BIG joke! This is not how it was presented in most theaters & not how it was presented in IMAX. And we don't even get what the SD offers. WB has re-released 'adjusted' AR's for titles in the past; I predict this will be the case for this title as well. ======================== Thanks for the history of "the prelude". GREAT marketing! |
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
I got the impression he was talking about changing his setup to a constant width setup instead of constant height, not that he watched one ratio.
|
| What is contained on the BR is the CLOSEST approximation to the directors intent which was the IMAX version from everything I have read. This is how the film was meant to be seen (at least the closest to it). The straight 2:35 presentation is NOT the directors vision. |
|
Originally Posted by Robert George
IMAX is not a shape of an image, it is a film format process that immerses the viewer with a very clear image that is intended to fill the field of view both horizontally and vertically. Replicating the image dimensions of an IMAX show on video is not IMAX.
My interpretation of Nolan's comments is that the film was shot with some sequences in IMAX format expressly for IMAX venues. IMAX screens account for a very small percentage of commercial theater screens in the world. Of course the 2.35:1 version of The Dark Knight is a perfectly valid expression of the director's intent as he isn't stupid and wouldn't make a movie only for a relative handful of screens. The IMAX version may well be the director's PREFERRED version, but is certainly not the only valid version. I've seen this film in a commercial theater, and now have 1080p versions of both the IMAX version and a "matted" version with a constant AR. I have compared both version by AB'ing numerous shots numerous times and believe me, a constant 2.35:1 version of TDK is not missing anything of importance or anything that takes away from the telling of this story either narrative or visually on video. |
From everything I have read, and the way I interpret it is the variable AR changing is the way this film was visioned and I would not want to watch it any other way. I am not a fan of pan and scan either though
| Thanks for the IMAX definition which was completely unneccesary. I meant the version that was seen in IMAX venues. |
| Prefered or director intended version is the same thing IMO. I want to see this film how the director prefers it (or intends it to be seen). |
|
Originally Posted by Robert George
The IMAX venue is (apparently) his preference.
. |
Anyone who wants to experience this film as closely as possible to Nolans intent will want to view the variable AR version. Viewing it as 2:35 the whole film is a compromise from his preference.
|
Originally Posted by Mark-P
After reading all the arguments in this thread, I'm going to change my opinion. I originally said I thought an all 2.35:1 AR version should have been included on the blu-ray. It was pointed out that cropping the Imax scenes to 2.35:1 was MAR and it is hypocritical to insist on a MAR version when all along we have been advocating OAR. (I'll set aside the issue that 1.78:1 is still a slightly MAR from 1.44:1)
So I'll be pulling the curtains in on my 2.35:1 screen and watching the blu-ray in 1.78:1 with shifting aspect ratios as the director intended. |
| It was pointed out that cropping the Imax scenes to 2.35:1 was MAR and it is hypocritical to insist on a MAR version when all along we have been advocating OAR. |
|
Originally Posted by Robert George
This film was exhibited in scope in at least 95% of the theaters that showed it. The DVD version, which will account for the vast majority of video sales, is the scope version. Where does one find the arrogance to believe that only people that have access to an IMAX theater or are watching Blu-ray are to be privy to the "director's intent"?
This is getting just silly. |
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".
|
Originally Posted by Robert George
This film is correctly presented two ways. The director did it that way. The Blu-ray only offers one of those versions.
|
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
The only MAR'd version of this film is the one that is going to be solely available on BD. It is ridiculous to say that a version prepared for presentation in 95% of theatres is MAR'd. Parts of the film were shot in IMAX but the whole thing was protected for a proper 35 mm scope presentation. This film had two OARs: a standard scope version and an IMAX version. It is impossible to reproduce the true IMAX version on home video hence the attempted approximation of an IMAX presentation. The scope version was a theatrically released product and it should have been on the BD, in addition to this new version of the film.
|
|
Originally Posted by Todd smith
The BR and SD-DVD are BOTH MAR'd, but the BR is MUCH closer to the original vision and the least MAR'd between the 2 and is the prefered version if you are looking to get the closest to the purest experience intended by the director.
|
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
Sorry; couldn't resist.
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
| The OAR for DK is the variable AR version which is how the film was visioned. The BR presentation is the closest to that vision that we can experience at home. Its OK if you prefer a standard none variable AR version I assume because it works better with your setup, but the variable AR version is the OAR and anything else is a compromise from the director intent. |
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
According to that article quoted earlier, it's quite obvious the IMAX version was his preferred choice for Blu-ray. Period. If it wasn't, we'd have both versions or the staight 2:40 version. On any rate, I'm looking forward to this release and curious if the OAR switching will bother me.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert George
My position in this debate has nothing to do with my personal preference. It has everything to do with the patently false assumptions being made about the "correct" presentation of this film such as the above quote.
Both presentations of The Dark Knight being discussed are equally "correct". You and a few others are not doing anyone any favors by portraying your own narrow views as the "right" one. And for the record, my system is based around a 106" 1.78:1 screen. |
|
Originally Posted by troy evans
So, the film has 2 correct OAR, IMAX theater and what I'll refer to as standard theater presentation of 2:35. The version on the BD is Nolan's intent. The IMAXed scenes are technically presented in an incorrect AR for the BD being 1:78 not 1:44 or so. Which technically makes the BDs OAR partially incorrect. Meanwhile, the sd dvd has a consistent OAR of 2:35 which makes it's OAR correct. Have I got all that right? If so that means that the lesser sd dvd format has the correct presentation over the superior Blu-ray format. Unbelievable!
|
|
Originally Posted by troy evans
Bottom line, if the IMAX version is the directors intent then it should have never been shown in other theaters. Since the director made a compromise, why not make another and give me the film in 2:35? It's the fact that Nolan allowed his art to be on display incorrectly that makes this whole AR thing stupid. Coupled with the 2:35 sd dvd release of his film.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I don't believe Nolan allowed his art to be displayed incorrectly. Nolan knew full well that the majority of theaters his film was going to be shown in were incapable of IMAX presentation. He with INTENT shot and protected this film for a scope presentation; therefore, the argument that his only intent was to shoot an IMAX version is false. Nolan planned and shot his film with the full knowledge that he was going to be servicing two ARs: a scope and an IMAX version. Therefore, IMO, this film has two OARs and the intent was always to have two OARs. The scope version is no more MAR'd than the IMAX version.
If he prefers the IMAX version that is fine by me, but nobody is going to convince me that his only intent was to shoot an IMAX version. |
| NO, both presentations are not "eaually correct". Check out this review as it may help you understand better than I can explain it......Read the video review section |
