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

[Robert Harris]

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.

 

[Douglas Monce]

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

 

[Douglas Monce]

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

 

[Robert George]

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.

 

[Douglas Monce]

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

 

[Robert George]

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.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Don't EVEN get me started on this.

Couldn't resist poking a stick at it!

 

[ChristopherDAC]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.
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.

 

[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).

 

[Citizen87645]

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.

 

[cafink]

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.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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_

 

[Robert Crawford]

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

 

[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.

 

[David Forbes]

theater, I have to go to an inferior format. Kinda frustrating.

Different /= inferior.

 

[Paul Arnette]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Carlo_M]

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?