The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

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

That would be fine if we all had stories-tall Imax screens in our home. The Dark Knight's Imax presentation wasn't about using a taller aspect ratio, per se, but rather about using a completely enveloping image. Unfortunately, this simply cannot be achieved in a home theater environment as it was on an actual Imax screen.

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

Maybe not, but I certainly found the IMAX scenes more "enveloping" on my system than the rest of the scenes.

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

I actually found the 1.78 AR for the Imax scenes to be more suitable for home. Yes, most of us don't have 60' high screens, so a true 1:44 AR would be lost on us. What I did notice in the Imax showing was that there was a ton of "wasted" or "dead" space at the tops and/or bottoms of the Imax scenes, which has now been trimmed away for 1.78 AR. So for me, this has worked out in the manner that Brent said, the 1.78 is more "enveloping" because it fully uses the 16x9 screen that most BD owners are probably using, but without the dead space in the 1:44 framing and, of course, without the lost space for pillarboxing that material on a 16x9 set. IMO, this release achieves what Nolan set out to do [with the filming of certain scenes in Imax] in the best possible way on most peoples' home theater systems.

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

I pretty much agree with that sentiment, Carlo. What troubles me is that by including both the variable-ratio Imax version and traditional 2.35:1 version, it would have achieved what Nolan set out to do in the best possible way on all people's home theater systems.

I guess we've gone over this ad nauseum at this point, but I don't feel that the Dark Knight Blu-ray is a particulary poor release, it's just not the definitive release that it could have and should have been. And even though I don't personally have the constant-height set-up that would be required to really get the most out of the 2.35:1 version, I find that rather disappointing.

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

I thought it was interesting that the Blu-ray presents the IMAX sequences in 1.78:1, while the DVD (special edition) bonus feature has those sequences in their original, unaltered 1.44:1 IMAX framing. I saw the film in regular and IMAX theaters, and was eager to look at both the Blu-ray and DVD.

The 1.44:1 framing, on a home theater setup, simply has far too much headroom in most of the shots. It's not far too much in an IMAX theater because the screen extends way above your field of vision; being in the theater, I got that sense of being enveloped by the image as if I was actually watching the events unfold right in front of me -- a glorious result of the screen area being larger than what my eyes could take in. It probably would have taken away from the experience if Nolan had used the entire 1.44:1 frame in the IMAX theaters, I can just imagine that it would have required more head movement on my part as a viewer than would have been comfortable. Afterall, you don't want your head to be in constant motion for an entire 2 1/2 hour feature.

Watching the 1.44:1 framing at home, I remembered how amazing it was to see in IMAX, and it was great to have a disc that had those sequences as they were (minor quibble: I wish they would have strung together every IMAX sequence and shot as a "Play All" sort of thing, rather than just including the main parts of the largest IMAX sequences). But it certainly wasn't the ideal way to watch it at home -- they were obviously shot with the idea that a certain portion of the visual information would be present but more atmospheric than essential. When you watch it on a TV with that 1.44:1 framing, because it's easy to see the entire image on a smaller screen, my eye naturally wanted to give too much emphasis to the "dead space".

I popped in the Blu-ray disc next, and I found that the 1.78:1 framing worked perfectly for the home theater environment. It still managed to convey the extra sense of scope and sheer size, but presented a more natural-looking framing for a home setup. No important visual information was missing, and even though less of the frame was visible for the Blu-ray version, the frame nonetheless seemed more pleasing because my eyes weren't being forced to give unnecessary emphasis to the more "ambient" space at the top of the (unaltered 1.44:1) IMAX frame.

And, although nothing will truly replicate the IMAX experience, on a 100" screen, I found the switching between ratios to be even more effective at simulating the effect than I had imagined. In a sense, as a movie derived from the comic book world, this sort of shifting aspect ratio is perfect for the film - comic books naturally have panels with different sizes, often establishing an environment with a larger panel or full page, and then focusing on specific action and dialogue in smaller panels. "The Dark Knight" in IMAX (or on Blu-ray in the faux-IMAX format) does this quite well. Obviously during an extended IMAX sequence there's no real change to notice, but during the shots thrown in here and there as establishing shots, I thought it worked perfectly to first give us (as the audience) a sense of where we are and that we were seeing a real world, and then the tighter, 2.35:1 framing took us within that world. Even the little things were very impressive to me on Blu-ray... for instance, when the film begins, the studio logos and blue-flame bat signal that begin the film appear in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so naturally I'm adjusted to that framing and then when the first actual shot, of the Gotham skyline in broad daylight, flashes onscreen in the larger IMAX frame, it was very much a "Wow!" moment.

(It seemed obvious to me, although I can't say with certainty that this was the case, that while most of the IMAX sequences were conceived as such, some of them seemed more like afterthoughts. I'd say the lamborghini accident sequence is the biggest example of this -- it was cool and all, but with the exception of the hospital blowing up in IMAX, which was perfect, I didn't really get any extra "oomph" out of that sequence being partially in IMAX. But it doesn't really take away from anything, and if I had an IMAX camera to play with, I would have used it as much as I could too.)

Having seen the film now in about every conceivable variation -- the 2.35:1 theatrical viewing experience, the IMAX theatrical viewing experience, the standard widescreen DVD, the IMAX sequences in 1.44:1 on the DVD bonus features, and the shifting-ratio Blu-ray -- I'd agree that this is one of those rare cases where the director's intent was preserved, ironically enough, by not presenting the film in what would technically constitute OAR. Had Nolan gone from 2.35:1 to 1.44:1 on a Blu-ray, it wouldn't have given the audience the same jolt that those sequences were always meant to have -- they would have seemed smaller, which is exactly the opposite that he intended.

Is the Blu-ray perfect? No. I wanted more by way of bonus features, and obviously having a seamless branching option would have been nice (even though I probably would still default to the variable ratio presentation). But all in all, when it came down to sitting back and watching the movie itself... a great viewing experience that translated to home theater far better than I had imagined when I first saw it theatrically.

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

Thanks for the impressions, Josh.

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

So much for THAT idea:

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily First Day ‘Dark Knight’ DVD Sales Break Record: Certain To Smash ALL Records

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

So is TDK on BD the killer app for BD (like The Matrix seemed to be 9 years ago for DVD)?

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

I will vote for Iron Man or even the new Hulk over Dark Knight.
Just for demo purposes.

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

Could be.....Blu Ray player sales are way up also.

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

It's late but my quick thoughts--I just got it today and just finished watching it. As powerful a film as each time I saw it theatrically and the VAR did not prove an issue at home (as it did not at the IMAX showing I took in). This will be in "heavy rotation" for some time to come in my "man-cave" (as my wife calls it).

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

Just finished watching this film on Blu-ray and I am just
mystified why a big deal was made at all about the aspect
ratio change.

It never bothered me and I hardly noticed it.

This is one terrific BD both in audio and video. Don't let any
negative comments sway you away from it (like it would in the
first place).

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

I guess some have feel that must bitch about something. I agree. it looked fine on my system.

Jacob

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

Great post.

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

Well said, Ron.

I for one thought the IMAX scenes were both sprawling, enveloping and breathtaking when they came up. The detail in the frame was simply amazing. This disc IS the killer app when it comes to Blu-ray, hands down.

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

Add another vote. After watching it, i couldnt belive a thread was started about this! Not to mention going on for so long.
Great movie, and it looked beautiful on my 52" Sony LCD.

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

Gotta tell ya.... If I didn't know before the aspect was going to change, I'm not sure I would have noticed it. The first couple times I did notice, but at least twice my son pointed it out and I hadn't noticed.

After following this thread for a few days I wasn't sure what to expect. Now I'm not sure what the big deal is either.

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

Agreed. This BD looks and sounds great on my 65" Panasonic plasma. It is great to have films this well produced on a media so good.

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

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.

Anyway, the argument wasn't about whether the scenes would be distracting or noticeable. The argument was that Warner should have included both theatrical ARs on the BD.

I watched the film on BD and I could see a difference when the AR switched. The IMAX scenes did seem to have an apparent clarity to them compared to the 35mm footage. Maybe it was the placebo effect.

On another note, I thought the background footage on the action set pieces was pretty good. I found the info on the hospital destruction and the rig flipping scene to be quite interesting. I also have to admire the balls that a stuntman has to have in order to jump off building while being tethered to a helicopter. Nolan sure was off the hook with some of his planned stunts and I don't mean that to be insulting.

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

I agree with Edwin. I don't think anyone has claimed that The Dark Knight Blu-ray disc would look bad on a constant-width 16:9 screen, on which I presume everyone saying "looks fine, what's the big deal?" watched it. But some of us would like to own the 2.35:1 version as well, either to preserve the version of the film we saw in theaters, or to watch it on a constant-height 2.35:1 screen, on which the the impact of the variable-ratio Imax version must surely be severely neutered.

The Dark Knight was released theatrically in two different configurations, neither of which is available on the Blu-ray disc. Apologists in this thread have repeatedly said that the 16:9 version that is on the disc is the "best compromise," and I tend to agree--it's almost certainly true for most viewers.

But consumers with the most high-end constant-height home theater screens could have watched the film with no compromise whatsoever (at least, none moreso than was made for the film's standard theatrical release, which was seen by the majority of movie-goers, and over which Nolan appears not to have raised any serious objections). Sadly, they were not given that option, and while I understand that some might not care about that sort of thing as long as they have the version of the film that looks best on their own display, I am flummoxed that so many on the Home Theater Forum, of all places, would defend a release that retards the presentation of the film for enthusiasts who are otherwise equipped to get the most out of Blu-ray software.

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

The horse is dead. Long live the horse. Please stop beating it.

We get it. You don't like it. Some do. Some don't mind it. Stop trying to label those who aren't up-in-arms over this as "apologists" and labeling the release we are okay with as "retarding" anything. All it does is incense people and restarts the whole circular argument, which we've all gone through in this thread several times over.

Oh, and beats the poor, dead horse.

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

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.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

[quote=TonyD]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.

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

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?

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

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..."

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

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.

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

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.