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

[moshmeister7]

I just bought my first blue ray player , just rented my first blue ray disc, it just happened to be the Dark Knight Rises, and the aspect ratio started changing from 2.35: 1 to 16:9. I found that very annoying. I am a big fan of 2.35:1 and I don't like it being messed with. My first thought was that this was a blue ray thing, that maybe all blue rays do this. Glad to find out its just the Dark Knights producers trying to add more pretentiousness to their already pretentious movie. I also noticed that there is no Dolby Digital available, it's either DTS or 2.0, WTF! I hope this is another ego trip that applies only to Dark Knight movies cause I like DD better. I hate those massive DTS jumps in the volume level. This is kinda funny that I end up with this movie for my first bd rental.

 

[TonyD]

I just bought my first blue ray player , just rented my first blue ray disc, it just happened to be the Dark Knight Rises, and the aspect ratio started changing from 2.35: 1 to 16:9. I found that very annoying. I am a big fan of 2.35:1 and I don't like it being messed with. My first thought was that this was a blue ray thing, that maybe all blue rays do this. Glad to find out its just the Dark Knights producers trying to add more pretentiousness to their already pretentious movie. I also noticed that there is no Dolby Digital available, it's either DTS or 2.0, WTF! I hope this is another ego trip that applies only to Dark Knight movies cause I like DD better. I hate those massive DTS jumps in the volume level. This is kinda funny that I end up with this movie for my first bd rental.

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

LOL. At least he didn't complain about the digital look imparted by all the EE applied...
_Man_

 

[David Willow]

I just pulled out Batman Begins and The Dark Night yesterday to rewatch before I watch The Dark Night Rises (I know, I'm way behind)...

Is it coincidence that this thread was reopened or something else... Could it be the Mayans Or maybe some mysterious force in the universe? Hmmm....

BTW - Nearly all of the BDs I own are DTS. I am not sure what massive volume jumps you are referring too but the lossless sound on most BDs is amazing.

And welcome to HTF, Brendan. Browse around and don't be afraid to chat. We are generally a friendly bunch.

 

[William1915]

I have to agree that having invested in a home theatre with a projector it is annoying when purchasing a blue ray that says it is 2.35:1 but isnt during the complete film.
I only buy 2.35:1 films on blue ray and other formats on normal dvd for the 16.9 tv specifically because my projector screen is set-up for the 2.35 aspect ratio.
Very annoying - would prefer to have had the choice of all in widescreen or Mr Nolan's cut.

 

[Carlo_M]

I have to agree that having invested in a home theatre with a projector it is annoying when purchasing a blue ray that says it is 2.35:1 but isnt during the complete film.
I only buy 2.35:1 films on blue ray and other formats on normal dvd for the 16.9 tv specifically because my projector screen is set-up for the 2.35 aspect ratio.
Very annoying - would prefer to have had the choice of all in widescreen or Mr Nolan's cut.

Okay, so am I understanding that all of your Blu Rays are only 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and every other aspect ratio film you have on DVD only?
So you've not purchased films like The Godfather, Seven Samurai, Rashomon, The Shawshank Redemption, etc. (all in 1.85:1 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio) in Blu Ray only because they are not in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio?

 

[Persianimmortal]

On changing aspect ratios, I can agree that it is quite annoying. Watched The Dark Knight Rises a couple of nights ago, and it was all over the place, constantly changing back and forth between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1. In fact it was much more noticeable than The Dark Knight, which only really used the whole screen for establishing shots and to give a sense of scale, or to highlight action sequences. In TDKR the use of 1.78:1 seemed almost random, even for ordinary scenes involved a few people talking to each other. It got to the point that it became extremely distracting, and I wanted to beg the director to just pick an AR, any AR, and stick with it for more than 5 minutes.

 

[haineshisway]

Happily, the screeners for this film were in one aspect ratio - scope.

 

[Robert Harris]

On changing aspect ratios, I can agree that it is quite annoying. Watched The Dark Knight Rises a couple of nights ago, and it was all over the place, constantly changing back and forth between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1. In fact it was much more noticeable than The Dark Knight, which only really used the whole screen for establishing shots and to give a sense of scale, or to highlight action sequences. In TDKR the use of 1.78:1 seemed almost random, even for ordinary scenes involved a few people talking to each other. It got to the point that it became extremely distracting, and I wanted to beg the director to just pick an AR, any AR, and stick with it for more than 5 minutes.

I screened this last night, and with few exceptions - short cuts - found that the added resolution, which was huge, along with the image filling the frame and the audio cues, were quite visceral. I had no problem.
That said, for those who run full 2.35 height, the problem is understandable. I viewed a screener. Does the BD packaging make no reference to multiple aspect ratios?
RAH

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/279139/the-dark-knight-changing-aspect-ratio-feels-like-a-joke/600#post_4018950
I screened this last night, and with few exceptions - short cuts - found that the added resolution, which was huge, along with the image filling the frame and the audio cues, were quite visceral. I had no problem.
That said, for those who run full 2.35 height, the problem is understandable. I viewed a screener. Does the BD packaging make no reference to multiple aspect ratios?
RAH

I don't get the complaints. Did any of the people unhappy with the AR variations see the film IMAX? The shifts were a lot more extreme there - and they never distracted me in the least. The added clarity more than compensated for any potential distractions...

 

[Steve_Pannell]

I screened this last night, and with few exceptions - short cuts - found that the added resolution, which was huge, along with the image filling the frame and the audio cues, were quite visceral. I had no problem.
That said, for those who run full 2.35 height, the problem is understandable. I viewed a screener. Does the BD packaging make no reference to multiple aspect ratios?
RAH

Yes it does.

 

[Persianimmortal]

It does say on the back of the bluray box "16x9 variable 2.4:1 and 1.78:1", and I'm certainly not implying that I was duped into believing otherwise - I knew there were IMAX sequences like The Dark Knight, so I was expecting AR changes.
But again, I felt the use of the IMAX scenes in TDKR seemed far too frequent, very random and not as visceral - as RAH puts it - as they were in TDK. Basically it was just distracting and annoying for me, as there were several instances where rather mundane scenes would suddenly take up the entire screen, then the next moment we're back to letterbox, and so on. Didn't work for me, and I hope it isn't something that will become more common.

 

[DVDvision]

I myself fail to understand how someone as Tech savvy as Nolan, would not release the IMAX version in one format only (ie 1.78:1) like Sam Mendes or James Cameron would. The change in aspect ratio within the film is absolutely amateur and stupid.

 

[Matt Hough]

I found myself so immersed in the film that I often didn't even realize the aspect ratio had changed. But I can certainly understand the frustration of those running projectors on a 2.35:1 screen or having 2.35:1 sized TV screens.

 

[EnricoE]

like i said four years ago... they should've given us an option. seamless branching or widescreen and/or director's favorite ... whatever, just do it. warner can't say "there are no widescreen versions of the movies" because they do exist. i compared the dark knight blu-ray with the widescreen dvd and the matting of the imax scenes isn't just black bars slammed onto them. they carefully choosed what we see, including panning. so if you just add black bars on your own, you would crop out things that should've been visible like in the 35mm theatrical versions.
maybe mr. nolan and warner bros will change this when a new release comes out. we all know that begins and dark knight have problems, edge enhancement and contrast boosting, etc. so while they fix these problems, they could also include the original widescreen presentation as an option.

 

[Vincent_P]

I myself fail to understand how someone as Tech savvy as Nolan, would not release the IMAX version in one format only (ie 1.78:1) like Sam Mendes or James Cameron would. The change in aspect ratio within the film is absolutely amateur and stupid.

Because the 35mm sections of THE DARK KNIGHT films are anamorphic 35mm and they'd have to be heavily cropped at the sides. The whole point of him shooting parts in IMAX is for the screen to "open up" and become more immersive, if the whole film had a 1.78:1 aspect ratio that entire effect would be lost.
Vincent

 

[Carlo_M]

Just to add to the discussion, the changing aspect ratios aren't necessarily "arbitrary". Nolan has said that the IMAX cameras are so loud that you can't shoot dialogue heavy scenes without re-recording the dialogue due to the IMAX camera noise.
What few scenes are in IMAX that involve dialogue often have something between the camera and the actors (like when Bruce is in a car and the windshield is between the camera and the actors).
Nolan obviously loves the added clarity, depth of field, etc. that IMAX brings and tried to shoot as much as he could with it within those limitations.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Persianimmortal /t/279139/the-dark-knight-changing-aspect-ratio-feels-like-a-joke/600#post_4018970
It does say on the back of the bluray box "16x9 variable 2.4:1 and 1.78:1", and I'm certainly not implying that I was duped into believing otherwise - I knew there were IMAX sequences like The Dark Knight, so I was expecting AR changes.
But again, I felt the use of the IMAX scenes in TDKR seemed far too frequent, very random and not as visceral - as RAH puts it - as they were in TDK. Basically it was just distracting and annoying for me, as there were several instances where rather mundane scenes would suddenly take up the entire screen, then the next moment we're back to letterbox, and so on. Didn't work for me, and I hope it isn't something that will become more common.

I found the AR changes to be LESS distracting in "Rises" than in "TDK". Nolan tended to use more short IMAX shots in the latter, while we got much longer sequences here, so we didn't see as many shifts.

Or at least it didn't seem like it to me...

 

[TheBat]

there is a bit of work around on both dark knight and rises. there is the ultraviolet edition which is the normal widescreen edition that you saw in the theatre. you might want to look into that.
Jacob

 

[TheBat]

there is a bit of work around on both dark knight and rises. there is the ultraviolet edition which is the normal widescreen edition that you saw in the theatre. you might want to look into that.
Jacob