Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke - Page 3

post #61 of 600
11/24/08 at 7:37pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
On the surface this makes sense (as 35mm film theoretically has more resolution than 2K). But I still can't reconcile how much better TDK Prologue looks on my HDTV than the Batman Begins portion of the BD. It may be the same pixel count, but the IMax-shot TDK Prologue just looks much sharper than the film Batman Begins. And it's not close, to my eyes.

Well, there's plenty of speculation that BB was filtered to some extent possibly to reduce film grain. For my money, I don't recall the TDK Prologue looking any sharper than several other BD titles I own -- certainly, many titles have scenes that are comparably sharp, if not for the entire film.

Heck, I just watched The Lives of Others last night, and that relatively low budget foreign film looked surprising sharp for most of its length -- w/ many scenes being reference level sharp, IMHO, and no artificial looking enhancements like Dr. No (IMHO) either. BTW, great film that one and highly recommended on BD, again IMHO.

_Man_
Reply
post #62 of 600
11/24/08 at 7:48pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_P
Where did you see it in IMAX, Robert? When I saw it in Manhattan at the Loews IMAX on 68th Street (I think they had the New York premiere there), the 35mm portions were definitely Panavision aspect ratio.

Vincent

I saw the film at The Bridge, somewhere near LAX. Wonderful presentation. Did not look like Panavision, although it could have been a long day.
Reply
post #63 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:35pm

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

Quote:
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.

I suspect Nolan might have wanted to do it the same way in conventional 35mm theaters, but there's no good way to do that with an anamorphic film print. (I'm now idly wondering which way digital projection would work - does that use an anamorphic lens for scope movies, or does it project 16:9 like a BD?) By that argument, both 35mm and BD are compromised, with Blu-ray compromised less.


This same argument could be used with regard to Vittorio Storaro's approach to wide screen on home video, yet he is branded a mad man. Both choices are a compromise on video, and an artistic choice on the part of the filmmakers.

Doug
Reply
post #64 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:46pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert George
Well, for the sake of debate, I have seen this film both ways on video (IMAX and constant matted to 2.40:1). I found the 2.40 version plays more seamlessly. The IMAX version can be distracting with the shifting AR.

As to shifting aspect ratios and the director's intent, the shape of the frame is not the reason to use IMAX. IMAX format offers a huge increase in resolution and depth over 35mm scope photography, but that only works in an actual IMAX venue. Seen in IMAX, the 70mm IMAX shots would be breathtaking. However, transferred to video, even HD, the maximum resolution is about 2K and it doesn't change when the AR changes. The IMAX effect is lost on video, therefore, there is no good reason to change the AR.


I have to agree with this. BD just doesn't have the resolution to be able to see the difference between the 35mm scope shots and the lazy 70mm Imax shots. If it weren't for the aspect ratio changes, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

For my money it kinda makes the whole point moot.

Doug
Reply
post #65 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:47pm

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

Quote:
On the surface this makes sense (as 35mm film theoretically has more resolution than 2K). But I still can't reconcile how much better TDK Prologue looks on my HDTV than the Batman Begins portion of the BD. It may be the same pixel count, but the IMax-shot TDK Prologue just looks much sharper than the film Batman Begins. And it's not close, to my eyes.

You are comparing different sources. Not an accurate comparison.

In this same discussion on another forum, I described the BD transfer as looking like a Super 35 show with the mattes opened up in some shots. That is quite literally what this looks like. The real resolution remains the same in both IMAX and 35mm sequences. The only difference is more vertical image area in the IMAX shots.
Reply
post #66 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:48pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
On the surface this makes sense (as 35mm film theoretically has more resolution than 2K). But I still can't reconcile how much better TDK Prologue looks on my HDTV than the Batman Begins portion of the BD. It may be the same pixel count, but the IMax-shot TDK Prologue just looks much sharper than the film Batman Begins. And it's not close, to my eyes.

This could be many things. Different film stocks used. Superior telecine equipment used on the newer film. Filters used on the cameras for BB and not for DK.

Doug
Reply
post #67 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:50pm

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

Quote:
This same argument could be used with regard to Vittorio Storaro's approach to wide screen on home video...

Don't EVEN get me started on this.
Reply
post #68 of 600
11/24/08 at 8:53pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert George
Don't EVEN get me started on this.

Couldn't resist poking a stick at it!
Reply
post #69 of 600
11/24/08 at 9:02pm

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

This gimmick has a history of working badly. Either it doesn't work in the theatre, or it doesn't transfer well to home video, or both. I've never seen Brainstorm, but I understand it had serious problems in this direction.

Two films I can testify to, because they are in my collection (both Japanese animation).

Be Forever Yamato was shot with the first half of the film in Academy ratio & the second half in scope — in theatrical engagements, the curtains were pulled back in advance of the reel-change at the 70 minute mark. I'm sure it was very impressive, but on video (a) you have a loss of vertical resolution, & (b) you have to change your display scaling settings, if you are lucky enough to have a multi-ratio display. The 4×3 LaserDisc, seen on a standard TV, is a massive disappointment with the effect exactly the opposite of what was intended, & even on a 16×9 set it leaves something to be desired. There was a 70mm version also, but it received a very limited showing, & information is conflicting.

The final episode of the video series Gunbuster was shot in black-and-white at about 2:1 ratio, partly as an homage to Okamoto's Battle of Okinawa. In the final scene, the picture opens vertically to Academy ratio & shifts to colour. The effect is rather powerful on a big enough 4×3 screen, but on a 16×9 you wind up either ignoring the ratio switch entirely, or making the picture smaller. It really loses something. Oddly enough, the most recent release (first DVD version), prepared with extensive involvement of the director, opens the mattes on the black-&-white sequences, making the whole film Academy ratio.
Reply
post #70 of 600
11/24/08 at 9:28pm

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

I also had the opportunity to watch the BD before I sent it to Cameron to review. I had not seen TDK in the theater, but was aware of the IMAX aspect change. I watched on a 128 inch screen.

I didn't find the aspect ratio changes annoying at all, but like I said I was watching the movie, not the aspect ratio changes. I don't want to move in on Cameron's turf since he will be the one officially reviewing the title, but lets just say that I though it looked and sounded fantastic and I will be buying this on street date.
Reply
post #71 of 600
11/24/08 at 9:48pm

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

Excuse my ignorance, but I live hundreds of miles from any IMax theater and have only seen short documentaries as a tourist. Is it common practice for all these films I see being advertised as being in the IMax format to have only a small fraction of the scenes in IMax? If so, it seems to be verging on false advertising.

Anyhow, I agree that shifting aspect ratios would be very distracting for me in any situation and I would prefer that directors forget about such gimmicky affectations.
Reply
post #72 of 600
11/24/08 at 10:10pm

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

Larry, if you mean the false advertising is because the movie didn't originate on 70mm stock, you would be correct. If you mean the movie didn't receive the IMax treatment, you would be wrong.

The "IMax treatment" involves blowing up a 35mm image to 70mm, but preserving the aspect ratio (they don't use the full 70mm frame) -- unlike TDK, which shot on both stocks in two different aspect ratios. There's a difference between something shot in IMax (originating on 70mm) and something being presented in IMax (originating on 35mm and processed).
Reply
post #73 of 600
11/24/08 at 10:15pm

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

Quote:
I didn't find the aspect ratio changes annoying at all, but like I said I was watching the movie, not the aspect ratio changes. I don't want to move in on Cameron's turf since he will be the one officially reviewing the title, but lets just say that I though it looked and sounded fantastic and I will be buying this on street date.
If I get any flack, I'll just point them in your direction.
Reply
post #74 of 600
11/24/08 at 10:43pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryH
Excuse my ignorance, but I live hundreds of miles from any IMax theater and have only seen short documentaries as a tourist. Is it common practice for all these films I see being advertised as being in the IMax format to have only a small fraction of the scenes in IMax? If so, it seems to be verging on false advertising.

Hollywood movies (as opposed to actual Imax films, such as the short documentaries you mention) normally have no scenes shot in the Imax format. They just blow up the standard 35mm film to the larger Imax format.
Reply
post #75 of 600
11/25/08 at 12:51am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
I also had the opportunity to watch the BD before I sent it to Cameron to review. I had not seen TDK in the theater, but was aware of the IMAX aspect change. I watched on a 128 inch screen.

I didn't find the aspect ratio changes annoying at all, but like I said I was watching the movie, not the aspect ratio changes. I don't want to move in on Cameron's turf since he will be the one officially reviewing the title, but lets just say that I though it looked and sounded fantastic and I will be buying this on street date.

I suspect the AR changes would not be particularly annoying to me either if I have a 128" screen at home (viewed from say 12ft or so away) -- that would probably be close enough to the IMAX experience for me. Unfortunately, I only have a 53" display viewed from ~9.5ft away (although I do plan to bump that up to 60-65" at some point in the next year or so).

I really think the individual viewer's screen-size-to-viewing-distance ratio will be a big factor in whether the AR changes will be noticeable, distracting or not at all. OTOH, there's probably very little chance that the AR changes will yield the same kind of effect as the original IMAX experience. IOW, I agree w/ those who feel that Warner/Nolan should've just provided both feasible versions to us (ie. both this compromised IMAX version and the theatrical 2.4:1 non-changing one) ideally on one seamlessly branched BD50 even if I personally end up finding this compromised IMAX version to be just fine w/ the AR changes not being distracting to me.

_Man_
Reply
post #76 of 600
11/25/08 at 12:56am

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

I've watched this film three times, but only in an IMAX theater so the shifting AR is the only way I have seen the film which is why I'm glad it's that way on the BRD.





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #77 of 600
11/25/08 at 6:05am

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

Seems like the majority are happy with the changing aspect ratios. I still think it should have been released both ways. If I want to see it the way I experienced it in my theater, I have to go to an inferior format. Kinda frustrating.
Reply
post #78 of 600
11/25/08 at 6:18am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric Easton
Seems like the majority are happy with the changing aspect ratios. I still think it should have been released both ways. If I want to see it the way I experienced it in my theater, I have to go to an inferior format. Kinda frustrating.

Different /= inferior.
Reply
post #79 of 600
11/25/08 at 6:51am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Forbes
Different /= inferior.

What I believe Ric is referring to when he says an 'inferior format' is DVD vs. BD, not consistent vs. changing aspect ratio.
Reply
post #80 of 600
11/25/08 at 7:17am

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

You got it, Paul. Im was indeed talking about DVD vs Blu-ray. Thanks for making clear what I was obviously unable to do! At first I didn't get what David was trying to tell me!
Reply
post #81 of 600
11/25/08 at 7:54am

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

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?
Reply
post #82 of 600
11/25/08 at 8:27am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric Easton
You got it, Paul. Im was indeed talking about DVD vs Blu-ray. Thanks for making clear what I was obviously unable to do! At first I didn't get what David was trying to tell me!

Ah, sorry! Yes, I did misunderstand what you meant. My apologies.

I saw this in both an Imax and regular theater, and the Imax scenes were jaw-dropping with the full aspect ratio. I don't expect a similar experience from the Blu-ray, but I also don't think I'm going to be bothered by the shifting AR. I saw Brainscan at a great old theater in Pittsburgh when it came out and I remember being very impressed when the movie switched to 70mm for the brainscan scenes.
Reply
post #83 of 600
11/25/08 at 8:35am

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

Probably not. I didn't get a chance to see the IMAX version, but my understanding is that the area of the IMAX negative transferred to 35mm for wide release is not constant, kind of like when Super35 films are prepped for anamorphic conversion. Am I right?
Reply
post #84 of 600
11/25/08 at 8:37am

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

This would have been a perfect seamless branching title. I saw the film in IMAX, and loved it, but I think the changing AR on BR will be distracting. I wish they would have included a 2.35:1 version.
Reply
post #85 of 600
11/25/08 at 10:21am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solosan
Larry, if you mean the false advertising is because the movie didn't originate on 70mm stock, you would be correct. If you mean the movie didn't receive the IMax treatment, you would be wrong.

The "IMax treatment" involves blowing up a 35mm image to 70mm, but preserving the aspect ratio (they don't use the full 70mm frame) -- unlike TDK, which shot on both stocks in two different aspect ratios. There's a difference between something shot in IMax (originating on 70mm) and something being presented in IMax (originating on 35mm and processed).


Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink
Hollywood movies (as opposed to actual Imax films, such as the short documentaries you mention) normally have no scenes shot in the Imax format. They just blow up the standard 35mm film to the larger Imax format.

Thanks for the clarifications. I was completely naive on this process - though I might also say I am now less disappointed about not being able to see these movies since they are mostly not shot with IMax cameras.
Reply
post #86 of 600
11/25/08 at 10:58am

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

I don't mind the idea of aspect ratio shifting if that's what the director intended. I don't mind the THEORY at least, ask me again about the experience of watching it when I receive the disc.

I find it slightly more annoying that the 2.35:1 sections are positioned slightly lower than centre on the screen. This kinda thing irritates me more cos it really can't be that hard to centre a movie on the screen. A badly positioned picture takes me out of the movie more than ratio changes.
Reply
post #87 of 600
11/25/08 at 11:25am

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

Plus none of us own Imax Theaters capable of tru reproduction, on the other Hand I have a 96" Screen that will reproduce a 2:35 ratio film quite well, get my point ?
Reply
post #88 of 600
11/25/08 at 11:42am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by John H Ross
I find it slightly more annoying that the 2.35:1 sections are positioned slightly lower than centre on the screen. This kinda thing irritates me more cos it really can't be that hard to centre a movie on the screen. A badly positioned picture takes me out of the movie more than ratio changes.

Are referring to the actual Imax release, or the upcoming Blu-ray disc? If the Blu-ray disc, then where did you learn that the 2.35:1 portions are not centered? This is the first I've heard of it.
Reply
post #89 of 600
11/25/08 at 11:47am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink
Are referring to the actual Imax release, or the upcoming Blu-ray disc? If the Blu-ray disc, then where did you learn that the 2.35:1 portions are not centered? This is the first I've heard of it.

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.
Reply
post #90 of 600
11/25/08 at 11:54am

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

Quote:
Maybe I'm just too picky...

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.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke