Thanks for checking out our community! We've got lots of great stuff going on around here... why don't you create an account and join the fun? Why?
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
So, will the prolog be part of this release?
|
|
Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
Yes you are. I can't say if it sits low since I don't have a copy in front of me, but I wouldn't use review screenshots to determine if it does since you don't know how the pictures were taken, processed and posted.
|
|
Originally Posted by John H Ross
I'm referring to the Blu-ray disc. You can see some screenshots here:
Blu-ray.com - The Dark Knight (+ Digital Copy and BD Live) (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Screenshots It's only a fraction off-centre, but perhaps just enough to make the aspect changes even more noticable (not only does the picture "change" but is also drops slightly. Maybe I'm just too picky... I think Batman Begins was similarly "low" on the screen. |
" 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".
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
This is going too drive the "constant height" guys NUTS!!!
|
|
Originally Posted by troy evans
Here are my questions: Is the sd dvd in IMAX? If it's all about the IMAX experience, shouldn't it be? Since a changing aspect ratio has nothing to do with Hi-Def, if only the Blu-ray gets this treatment, then, I don't understand the point. Director's intent or not.
|
|
Originally Posted by John H Ross
I'm referring to the Blu-ray disc. You can see some screenshots here:
Blu-ray.com - The Dark Knight (+ Digital Copy and BD Live) (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Screenshots It's only a fraction off-centre, but perhaps just enough to make the aspect changes even more noticable (not only does the picture "change" but is also drops slightly. Maybe I'm just too picky... I think Batman Begins was similarly "low" on the screen. |
|
Originally Posted by David Deeb
Because if you click on those screen shots and bring them full frame, you can measure the black on top and bottom and they are exactly the same. Perhaps my way was unscientific, but I did it and the picture is fine.
|
|
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
I don't know if this would work because the extra framing above and below might be of different size, but perhaps for those who truly frown upon the changing ARs, might hard mattes work?
|
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I doubt that the framing remains consistent from shot to shot. It's unlikely that they just pulled the image from the center of the frame.
Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
No, the DVD version is 2.40:1 ONLY, with the IMAX scenes on the second disc of the 2-disc DVD version.
The question I've been asking (since I'll get both DVD and BD) is what AR are the DVD IMAX scenes, since they don't have to be formatted for HDTV, they theoretically could be in 1.43:1 as originally shot. |
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
that blu-ray lists the imax sections as 1.78:1
|
|
Originally Posted by John H Ross
I'm referring to the Blu-ray disc. You can see some screenshots here:
Blu-ray.com - The Dark Knight (+ Digital Copy and BD Live) (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Screenshots It's only a fraction off-centre, but perhaps just enough to make the aspect changes even more noticable (not only does the picture "change" but is also drops slightly. Maybe I'm just too picky... I think Batman Begins was similarly "low" on the screen. |
Carl Fink
Insect Politics
|
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
Not really; this is just an odd case where the home video version including exactly what was on the screen in theaters would undermine the intent. If the IMAX-shot scenes were pillarboxed, then there's a good chance that the person watching it would see it as smaller than the widescreen scenes. Sure, the IMAX-ratio scenes would cover more area (1.44 square screen-heights vs 1.34 square screen-heights), but the brain probably wouldn't process it that way. If Nolan wants those scenes to come across as bigger than the rest, then cropping them to 1.78:1 is probably the best compromise.
Fortunately, changing aspect ratios mid-film isn't something the comes up very often - I think the last film to try this trick was Galaxy Quest, which abandoned it almost completely for DVD: While the film expanded from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 at the moment Warning Spoiler! Click to show Tim Allen's character realizes he's actually in outer space
, the DVD just stays at 2.35:1 for the entire length because the alternatives were giving the trick away from the start by having blank space all around the image or having the image get smaller when the director's intent was to show the world getting larger. |
Lurking at HTF Since 2001
|
Originally Posted by Todd smith
I find it funny that MOST of my fellow 2:35 brothers are up in arms over this because it does not agree with the CIH setup, but most of these same guys are the ones who pushed OAR for years.......hhmmmm.......Kind of contradictory IMO. Just my .02
|
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
This disc does not contain any OAR presentation of this film, at all.
|
|
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
No, but Nolan planned on this modified AR even before the film was in theatres, so it's still a director-approved presentation, like it or not.
|
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
Sometime's you reach what's real by making believe.
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
How is it contradictory? This BD isn't in any of the OARs of the original theatrical releases. It is in a modified aspect ratio designed to approximate the IMAX effect: a poor approximation at that. This film was presented in a 2.35:1 OAR theatrically which is not on this disc. It was presented in IMAX and that presentation is not on this disc. This disc does not contain any OAR presentation of this film, at all.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Nolan can mar his film, but there should also be at least one OAR presentation of this film on this BD. That presentation should have been the the theatrically released 2.35:1 version.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
This BD isn't in any of the OARs of the original theatrical releases.
|
|
Originally Posted by Todd smith
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.
|
Lurking at HTF Since 2001
|
Originally Posted by Ron-P
Can someone post a link, or quote from Nolan on this issue? I see a lot of posts throwing around comments that he's made on this but nothing that's quoting him directly. Specifically the issue between the SD-DVD and the Blu-ray release, not the theatrical run.
|
| Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight features Imax sequences that fully fill the eight-story screen, while the rest of the film appears letterboxed. Director Christopher Nolan said that the Blu-ray Disc version could capture the Imax sequences by filling a 16:9-ratio HDTV while the majority of the film appears letterboxed. “For home video, certainly the Blu-ray version will [involve] actually changing the format size and actually using the IMAX footage,” Nolan said. “You can see the difference on that high resolution.” As an example, the recent Blu-ray release of Batman Begins featured six minutes of the Imax footage from The Dark Knight. Indeed, it fills the 16:9 frame and captures the detail. “On the standard 35mm version, we did 35mm extractions from the Imax frame,” Nolan said. “The Imax negative is so clear and grain free that there's a great sharpness and clarity to them. Obviously, the differences are nowhere near as dramatic as there is on the Imax screen.” There might be minor cropping in the Blu-ray edition, as Imax screens are not exactly 16:9 in dimensions. “Some of the smaller Imax theaters are a smaller aspect ratio which is 16:9 as well,” Nolan said. “It's still quite a difference from the 2.40:1 [aspect ratio] to a 16:9. So I think you'll get some sense of it.” Shooting in Imax changed Nolan's technique as a filmmaker to accommodate the technical limitations of the format. “One of the big disadvantages of these big Imax cameras, particularly in low-light photography, is that they don't have very sophisticated video hookups. You don't actually get a very clear image on the monitor at all. If anything it was more of a case of watching with my eyes and seeing what was really going on because the actual video feed that you get from the Imax cameras is very dim and it's very hard to see what's going on.” The Dark Knight opens in theaters July 18. |
|
Originally Posted by Todd Smith
I just have to mention that I am using a 2:35 CIH setup and viewed this movie yesterday and LOVED the changing AR feature. Sure it does not exactly make full use of my setup as I had to mask the sides of the screen and just go for the 1:78 ratio for the movie, but I would not want it any other way....why? This is the way this movie was meant to be experienced from everything I have read and that is EXACTLY how I want to experience it, even if it is a bit of a hassle on my setup. I find it funny that MOST of my fellow 2:35 brothers are up in arms over this because it does not agree with the CIH setup, but most of these same guys are the ones who pushed OAR for years.......hhmmmm.......Kind of contradictory IMO. Just my .02
|
|
Originally Posted by Todd Smith
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.
|
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
|
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
|
Sometime's you reach what's real by making believe.
