The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke (1 Viewer)

[Jonathon M]

It is the fault of the produced BD if it doesn't contain the version, widely distributed theatrically, that would have satified the needs of people with CIH set ups. The beef would be illegitimate if this film had only been released in the IMAX format.

Hardly. The Blu-ray Disc spec is for a 1920x1080 window. If you want to create a home theatre that displays in a manner not designed for the technical specifications of the format, you cannot really complain. The Blu-ray is advertised as being in variable aspect ratios, as per the director's preferred release. It makes no claim about being in any other format.
If you don't like it, don't get it. Or buy the DVD and upscale that for your constant image height needs.
If I have a home theater set up with masking on the top and bottom, and choose only to watch 2:35:1 (or thereabouts) ratio films on that display, it's my fault that The Dark Knight doesn't fulfill my requirements, as I have deviated from the norm.
Sorry to say it, but to quote the line from Boogie Nights; "That's not an MP, that's a YP, your problem."
Otherwise, shit, its the same as complaining that you have to reset your old 4:3 TV that has a 16:9 mode when you've got a non-anamorphic disc. The problem is at your end, with your choice of methods.
Yes, there is the complaint that the wide released version didn't get a high def release, but it's not like an obscure cut was released claiming to be what it wasn't. The IMAX released version wasn't just shown somewhere in one cinema, it was released broadly, worldwide. It was the director's preferred version of the film.
Would I have preferred to have the choice of both versions via branching? Hell yes. Do I expect it to be? No. I expect a quality version of a film, presented in a near-original aspect ratio (which this variable aspect ratio transfer is). But at least I know that the film had a director who gave a shit about how he produced the film, and ultimately, what his preference for your viewing is (ideally, through purchasing a ticket to an IMAX session).
If the city I live in had an IMAX cinema when TDK was released (now we have 3 I think. *sigh* Yes, Madagascar 2 in IMAX. f'ing yay.) I know where I would have seen it.

 

[Carlo_M]

I like the Batman growl because I think it shows how far towards the "other side" he sometimes has to go to do what he needs to do.
One thing I caught is how similar Batman's growl is to the Joker's when the Joker yells at the "fake Batman" on videotape "LOOK AT ME!!!". If I were blindfolded and just heard that snippet I would have thought it was Bale growling it. So in a way I think Nolan (who is a stickler for details) wants to show through their gruff voices how much alike Batman and The Joker are.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are no digital IMAX cameras that I'm aware of. (unless there is a prototype floating around somewhere) The highest resolution digital movie camera available is the Red One at 4k. Soon the Red Epic will be available that will be able to shoot up to 28K, which should be roughly the equivalent of IMAX. There is also a Red 3D variant coming. Also the DALSA camera shoots at 4K.
Imax has developed a digital projection system which started showing up in Imax theaters in June of 2008.

I was under the impression that the "U2 3D" feature was shot using new digital IMAX cameras; at least that's how I recall it being spoken about during an interview or two I read during production of the film. However, I could absolutely be wrong as I'm going on a year old memory here.
Whether or not one existed, I'd be inclined to believe that for a top quality image, film is still the gold standard.

 

[Nick Martin]

Otherwise, shit, its the same as complaining that you have to reset your old 4:3 TV that has a 16:9 mode when you've got a non-anamorphic disc. The problem is at your end, with your choice of methods.
Yes, there is the complaint that the wide released version didn't get a high def release, but it's not like an obscure cut was released claiming to be what it wasn't. The IMAX released version wasn't just shown somewhere in one cinema, it was released broadly, worldwide. It was the director's preferred version of the film.
Would I have preferred to have the choice of both versions via branching? Hell yes. Do I expect it to be? No. I expect a quality version of a film, presented in a near-original aspect ratio (which this variable aspect ratio transfer is). But at least I know that the film had a director who gave a shit about how he produced the film, and ultimately, what his preference for your viewing is (ideally, through purchasing a ticket to an IMAX session).

Unfortunately everything you're saying is likely falling on deaf ears with some here....may I suggest a tub of popcorn to munch on while sitting on the sidelines?

 

[Brian Sallot]

I do not mind the changing aspect ratio but I would have preferred the choice via seamless branching as the version I have seen was also the 2:35.1. I also have noticed that the non IMAX scenes have edge enhancement which can get distracting at times.
Later everyone
Brian Sallot

 

[Douglas Monce]

I was under the impression that the "U2 3D" feature was shot using new digital IMAX cameras; at least that's how I recall it being spoken about during an interview or two I read during production of the film. However, I could absolutely be wrong as I'm going on a year old memory here.
Whether or not one existed, I'd be inclined to believe that for a top quality image, film is still the gold standard.

U2 3D was shot with the Sony Fusion 3D Camera System. That is a pair of Sony HDCF950 HD cameras to record 3D. This is the system that James Cameron developed and shot Aliens of the Deep and Ghosts of the Abyss with. It is a 1920 X 1080 resolution system.
Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I do not mind the changing aspect ratio but I would have preferred the choice via seamless branching as the version I have seen was also the 2:35.1. I also have noticed that the non IMAX scenes have edge enhancement which can get distracting at times.

I agree w/ this to some extent as well after seeing TDK on BD 2x now -- and in a true IMAX venue once, which nobody should think the BD's VAR presentation comes particularly close to recreating (unless one has a setup to match and then suffer the consequences of the BD's PQ limitations among other things, IMHO ).
On my 53" RPTV, while the EE halos do not exactly jump out at me (like those on some DVDs), I do agree w/ some that the EE processing in general has lent a relatively hard edged, digital look to images. Images often look sharp in a way that's not natural, detailed and true like on other high quality BD titles (or certain high quality shots/scenes on many titles, including many of the IMAX shots/scenes on TDK itself). However, I'd also add that this aspect is probably not as bothersome on TDK (at least for my 53" setup) as it would be on certain other films due to the nature of the film and its themes, ie. in some ways, it feels a bit like stylized use of film grain and other processing techniques that work for the film rather than necessarily against it. I haven't heard/read Nolan's definitive word on the matter, but for all we know, maybe this look is partially intended for exactly that reason (and partly also due to the technical limitations involved w/ IMAX presentation and processing). Afterall, it does seem like Nolan is one of those directors who'd care enough to not let such things slip through completely unnoticed. For instance, how many commercially successful directors would actually spend the 2-1/2 hours doing a BD-Live chat event like he has afterall? And he's also known to dislike any unnecessary processing on his films. Of course, this is all just me wondering out loud about this.
_Man_

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Hah...fantastic.

 

[DVDvision]

In my opinion, since the 35mm sections were apparently shot "open matte", the IMAX version would have worked better being 100% 1.77 aspect ratio. The problem is not that the IMAX scenes are full screen, it's that on occasion, shots randomly change from 2.35 to 1.77, thus distracting people and making them aware of watching a technical process rather than an involving story. The problem is that they kept the 2.35 ratio (for the imax version) on the rest of the scenes. I think it's not an artistic intent, it was made on purpose so that people can make the difference between regular 35mm shots and the Imax shots. (ie they won't have to guess which scenes are shot in Imax, and which are not). It has nothing to do with the right way to tell the story, and everything to do with showing off.

 

[Michael Reuben]

since the 35mm sections were apparently shot "open matte

They weren't. They were shot with anamorphic lenses. The approach you're suggesting could not implemented, because there is no way to "open up" those scenes.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Open matte would imply that Nolan shot the 35mm scenes in Super35, which definitely was not the case. Nolan does not shoot in Super35: he prefers to shoot with anamorphic lenses.

 

[DVDvision]

I see. Super 35 should probably have been a better bet thought, allowing for a nice IMAX transfert without changing ratio.

 

[Dave H]

Having watched the BD again, I really wished they would have just used the 35mm footage and integrated the IMAX scenes...this would have given the image a much more natural, film-like look to such scenes. The 35mm scenes on the BD do look quite processed.

 

[Todd smith]

Having watched the BD again, I really wished they would have just used the 35mm footage and integrated the IMAX scenes...this would have given the image a much more natural, film-like look to such scenes. The 35mm scenes on the BD do look quite processed.

I just watched this again as well and the 35mm scenes still looked great to me overall. They do look a bit processed, but it does not bother me personaly and in a sense fits the material. I actualy think the processed look was done on purpose and was artistic intent. Looks great to me.

 

[Dave H]

I just watched this again as well and the 35mm scenes still looked great to me overall. They do look a bit processed, but it does not bother me personaly and in a sense fits the material. I actualy think the processed look was done on purpose and was artistic intent. Looks great to me.

You may be right since they used the IMAX transfer, but I much prefer the way Batman Begins looks (although the BD may contain some slight filtering).

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I see. Super 35 should probably have been a better bet thought, allowing for a nice IMAX transfert without changing ratio.

Not really. IMAX's raving about its DMR processing notwithstanding, you can't add resolution to an image, and that's where the biggest problem with Super35 comes into play: depending on the film stock used, you could wind up with dinner plate size grain, or with digital "smoothing" by DMR, edge haloes may crop up and you may lose some of the fine detail that was already there.

 

[DVDvision]

I see, anamorphic is more complicated to light and shoot, but if you take the time, you indeed get better results, at a price. I would be satisfied with just a mini movie of the IMAX scenes thought, this should have a huge rewatchability factor.

 

[Mr. Film]

The aspect ratio change was a nice feature. But I'm sure that some where down the line a version of The Dark Knight will come out with a consisted 2:40:1 ratio.

 

[Nick Martin]

This thread is a bit frustrating, isn't it?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

This thread is an annoyance.