The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

+1

Oh wait, I forgot

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

But in this case it begs the question, what is the OAR? We are talking about a film that was presented in theaters in at least 2 different aspect ratios, and now seems to be being presented in a 3rd on blu-ray.

The idea of OAR really doesn't seem to apply to this particular film.

Doug

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Agreed. From my own IMAX experience, I'd say the point is not that the viewer should ever actively notice the OAR, but rather (sorta) the opposite.

However, I think that is *exactly* the problem I have w/ the exclusivity of changing AR on the BD for the small screen at home. The changing AR might no longer be passively/sublimnally experienced (like at the IMAX theater), but will more likely call attention to itself. Maybe this just means I need to consider upgrading to a big FP setup asap (instead of another RPTV).

_Man_

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

But I think you could just as easily argue that the the VAR version would work better on SD in its own right since the film wouldn't appear as letterboxed during those scenes. 2.35:1 on an SD display has the picture reduced to a fairly small strip across the screen so having particular scenes expand to 1.78 would still create a somewhat similar effect, though not as effective obviously. And I'm still pretty sure there's a number of TDK fans who would like to see the extra framing, even if still appears to be letterboxed.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Well ultimately I'd have to say the non-Imax version since that's the way it was presented in the overwhelming majority of screens and even the Imax footage was composed with 2.35:1 in mind so it's not like there's relavent information added to the extra Imax framing.

So I'd say that's the original original aspect ratio.

I have no problem with the VAR being presented, just that it's the only version being presented and it would've taken little effort to include the other version as well. That's where I get the sense of being stiffed.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Did I read Nicholas Martin's list correctly? Most of the IMAX footage is just short shots and not full scenes? I guess I was under the impression it was whole scenes like the robbery teaser/scene. If that's the case I don't see how it's worth doing the variable aspect ratio.

I'd prefer a 2.35:1 option. I will just wait and see how all this plays out until I purchase the movie. Can't watch it now anyway.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I suspect Warner considered this - heck, for all I know, they tested it. And they are including the IMAX footage as an extra.

I think the difficulty with doing a home video version of The Dark Knight is that just matching a number doesn't really take the psychological effects into account. On a standard TV, going from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 and back might be a lot more jarring than 2.35:1 to full and back.

Eh, I don't know about that. Consider The Polar Express, which came out before the recent boom in IMAX and digital 3-D theaters (and is arguably responsible for it). The vast majority of screens that it played on were 2-D, but I don't think anyone watching it would argue that was the intended or ideal presentation.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

By number of uses, yes. The actual experience is several full sequences and then establishing shots where they have IMAX footage to use.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

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.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

The intention of my list was to identify every single IMAX shot, no matter how small.

The major sequences in IMAX, also viewable in their OAR of 1.43:1 on the DVD (as bonus features on the second disc) are:

-The Prologue Bank Robbery (6:23)
- Hong Kong and Lau's Skyhook Extraction (3:51)
- The Armored Car Chase, Batpod reveal and Joker's capture (8:28)
- The Lamborghini Crash (7:55)
- The Prewitt Building SWAT takedown, along with Batman's sonar and Joker showdown (7:22)
- Gordon's epilogue: A Dark Knight (2:42)

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Is there a way to compare screenshots of the SD IMAX bonus footage in 1.43:1 and the BR IMAX footage in 1.78:1. I would be interested in seeing the framing differences.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

If someone can make screencaps of the Blu-ray, then yes.

I'm not sure how the review sites are making their BD screencaps, but DVDs are no problem.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the list. I just didn't realize that sometimes the switch was just single shots. You informed me!

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Think of an average TV show.

When scenes change, you'll see a standard outside location shot, usually of the house or whatever the show takes place in.

The shorter IMAX shots are like that, and the distraction comes from the fact that they aren't long enough because they're so great to look at!

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Thanks, Tony!

Most posters in this thread had not seen the BD at all yet (not trying to short change the opinions of those who did).


"The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke"
Christopher Nolan as The Joker?


Cees

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Ironic isn't it? Unfortunately it seems to be a growing trend.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

If that were the case, Nolan wouldn't have had to modify the AR much from the 1.44 Imax, which means it would have been a TRUER represention of the IMAX experience. Also, the extra pixels used on a 1.44 scene would have been highly appreciated by SD viewers. So basically the majority of Bd users are being pandered to What's funny is, Warner is showing you how 'special' and discerning you are by giving you the exclusive right to view the fim in an MAR version...and you guys are eagerly lapping it up not because it is the absolute genuine IMAX article (it's not- it's a pretty substantially modified AR) but because it will be the ultimate convienence for your more modest fixed width displays. You guys don't care that the IMAX shots are cropped, because they are cropped in such a way as to look more cool on your displays. So maybe all Super 35 films that are shot protected for 2.35 should only be released for home viewing at 1.78, because impact is more important that composition?

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I don't know about others problems with this, but as a CH user, I don't need to see this to KNOW it will not be as satisfying an experience as it should have been. The whole point of building a CH infrastructure in you HT is so that you no longer have to be conscious of a live image area swimming inside a dead unused space. There is no such thing as 'letterboxed' when you have a CH set up. 1.78 is a more immersive size than 1.33 and 2.40 is , as it should be, significantly more immersive than 1.78...totally unlike the situation with a fixed width display (which admittedly is what most of you will be watching this on). Far from being more 'impactful', what I will see for the majority of the runtime is a much smaller image than what it should be. It is very much a gimmick because the majority of the dramtic meat of the film will be compromised to showcase a small handful of scenes or brief establishing shots. This was not the case in the theatrical version I saw. It was a seamless experience where the whole film had impact, not just a scattered 20 minutes of footage.
Will I buy it anyway? Yes, unfortunately. I only saw it once at the theater and would like to see it at least a few more times. But it is clear a day this is not a satisying release for some of us, for a substanative reason that mirrors why some others are so tickled with it- impact potential. In my case however I'm not championing an MAR version from what I originally saw to get that impact. It would be easier to take all these high falutin claims of directorial integrity and preferrence more seriously if you guys were hung up on getting the full IMAX frame. Why can't you guys just admit it- you don't really want the 'Imax' version...you guys want the 'gimmicky home TV' version, which is exactly what they're giving you.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

"You guys want", "you guys are eagerly lapping up", "you guys don't care because...", "you guys were hung up", "why can't you guys just admit"....




Cees

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

"you guys" = the people who are dismissively mocking people expressing issues with this release. I just pulled your quote as a vehicle to address it- not so much to single you out specifically (or even inclusively). Nothing personal, Cees. For one of the biggest releases of the decade, this already a substantively unsatisfying one for a few of us in terms of its fundemental presentation.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Care for some popcorn Cees?



It's really better to sit and watch the madness rather than retread the same ground over and over again getting nowhere.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I'd have had a big ol' for the thread about that being non-anamorphic.

I think if you look back through my posts, you'll find phrases like "best compromise" and "no perfect solution" throughout. And that The Dark Knight is clearly a special case, a rare instance where preserving the original aspect ratio(s) may not be the best way to translate the theatrical experience to home viewing.

Would I support opening the mattes on all Super35 movies? No, of course not. For this movie, though, where there is a clear intent to give a few scenes a greater impact, yes, I want the mattes open.

Because that's not true, I guess. I want the best translation to home video I can get, and of the various options - constant 2.35:1, switching between 2.35:1 and 1.44:1, and switching between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 - the latter seems like the best compromise for the most people.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Ironic how we've gone from "why do I have black bars?" to "Hey! Where'd my black bars go?"
I'm not trying to fan the flames one way or the other. Since I haven't seen TDK in any form, I'm looking forward to it.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

This was exactly might thought on the matter. Fewer people saw the movie in IMAX than standard 35mm, and fewer people will buy the BluRay than the DVD. Now granted, the reasons for the discrepancies are different, but the numbers could be similar.

And I know this point has been made, but the fact of the matter is that the Constant Height crowd at this point is so small, that it is not a factor in these decisions.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

What IS it with all the assumptions about "what others really want", along with the implication that "those others" are lying? I would prefer a "complete" release as well (a scope release and the VAR release) on BD. It isn't happening at the moment. NOT MY (or anyone else in here's) CALL. It IS my call to buy or not buy--that is the ONLY 'right' I have.

People have the right to be disappointed when ANY release is not meeting their own preference. They have NO RIGHT to be satisfied. And let's remember a few things that seem to get lost in the shuffle:

1) Home theatre, with exceedingly few exceptions, is, at best, an approximation, not an exact reproduction, of the commercial cinematic experience.

2) Home video releases (regardless of format) is PRIMARILY a business concern.

3) SOMETIMES, the filmmaker gets direct input on how HIS film is presented in the home environment. That input varies in its scope--the clout varies from one filmmaker to another.

4) What the filmmaker wants (in cases where he has a say) does not always accord with what the audience wants or expects.

5) The "audience"/consumer has no POSITIVE rights--it only has the right to be pleased or disappointed.

All of the above appear to be at play in this case. Warner has decided (apparently) that SD DVD buyers will probably have the LEAST resemblance to the home theatre experience at home--so no VAR for them. Nolan apparently has sufficient clout to get what he wants as far as BD is concerned, but either doesn't care about SD DVD or has no clout in that arena (or some other reason I can't think of at the moment). Nolan appears to belong to the school of thought that home cinema is not exactly the same as commercial cinema AND therefore he is free to shape the release (over which he has say, the BD) in a way HE thinks best presents his film, most likely influenced by what he believes the majority of BD owners have as displays, despite what anyone else may think. As consumers, we have no right to demand a presentation that accords with our wishes (we don't own it). We only have the right to accept or reject what IS offered (and express our disappointment/happiness).

The issue at stake remains the same--ownership vs expectations. I may not always be happy with what the filmmaker chooses to present in home video releases (I can enumerate any number of such examples) but I will still defend the right of filmmakers to make that choice whenever such is possible. This applies to any artistic endeavour.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

If you made it 2.40:1/1.44:1 to benefit the 4x3 displays you couldn't make it anamorphic.

It's not MAR. It's one of three valid OARs, which depends on the viewing medium and setting.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I understand and even agree with many of your other points except for this one...and this is the cruxt of why I've even bothered to post. The irony of this release is that the lower def version IS the one that is closer to the theatrical experience because the formatting is exactly what a majority of cinema goers experienced. The resolution difference that hyper critical viewers like us get hung up on, to me CAN BE a relatively minor difference due to a host of factors (including Digital manipulation at various junctures and even ones own eye sight and viewing distances). OTOH, the AR on view either is or isn't true to it's theatrical counterpart.

Look, I understand the Bd is a compromise, but it's apparently more of a compromise than many here realize. I'm referring to the observations that the 2.40 footage was digitally manipulated before the prints even hit the theaters, specifically because of the special circumstances of the Imax exhibition- and this manipulation has (apparently) been ported over here to a net negative effect.I don't dispute the CH crowd is a tiny minority of a minority - but doesn't anyone else appreciate the irony that Imax version is being sold/promoted/insinuated as being the better version for more exacting viewers who are willing to pay more for a more refined experience, yet it's actually the version that is ultimately most compromised. It is certainly thru it's MAR, and quite possibly thru it's digital manipulation holdovers (EE).
And hell, I haven't even brought up the lousy jacket art they saddled us with.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Closer to the non-preferred theatrical experience by the filmmaker. That's a key point.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

But if you look at most of the large format films of the 50s and 60s, most people saw them in a "Scope" 2.35:1 version. Only people in large cities that got the road show version got to see those films in 70mm at 2.20:1. But that 70mm ratio is generally regarded as the preferred ratio.

Ultimately I think if Nolan had his druthers, he would have shot the whole film in IMAX. So in a way the whole thing is a compromise.

Doug

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Every 35mm film converted to IMAX goes through digital manipulation, with the exception of digitally originated films. It's called IMAX DMR. If this process imparts EE, it's because it's part of the process to bring 35mm up to snuff so the grain structure isn't the size of dinner plates. Get over it.

As for those of you sayin that the SD version is to be preferred, go read the review here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...l-edition.html
It's plagued with artifacting and looks too soft.

Would I have preferred that both versions get released on the BD release? Absolutely, but we are at the whims of both the studio and director. It's not our movie, after all; we are only entitled to own a copy of it prepared according to the director's wishes. Get over it.