I took the prologue and made a 2.35:1 version by doing just that, and the ending montage suffered because Batman's head was missing in the Sears Tower shot near the end, so the image was adjusted for cropping depending on the shot.Douglas Monce said:
that blu-ray lists the imax sections as 1.78:1Nicholas Martin said:
I know that, but I'm talking about the DVD version. On the DVD version the IMAX scenes are a part of the second disc's extras. If you look at any of the online images of the back DVD cover (2-disc) it mentions the IMAX scenes in their ORIGINAL format, so that could mean 1.43:1, not the modified 1.78:1.TonyD said:
I checked those pictures myself, and can confirm what David said--the image is actually exactly vertically centered within the frame. The black bars above and below the image in those screenshots (which have a vertical resolution of 720 pixels) are both 93 pixels tall.John H Ross said:
I completely agree. I saw both versions in the theater and the entire point of the IMAX version was clearly to have a constant width image that opens up vertically. The best compromise in the home theater is to crop the IMAX scenes to 1.78:1 - pillar boxing them would defeat the whole purpose.Jason Seaver said:
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.Todd smith said: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
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.Edwin-S said:
I'm not contesting the fact that he has approved this MAR'd version. The fact is I don't really care if a director approves MAR'd versions of his own film. My problem is that the MAR'd version of this film is the only version available on BD. MAR vs OAR has been a topic of great debate on this site and people have vehemently argued that films should always be presented in their OAR.Nicholas Martin said:
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.Edwin-S said:
It's the best alternative. As much as it's our instinct and training to demand the exact dimensions of the theater, art tends to find ways to confound hard-and-fast rules.Edwin-S said:
I have to agree. The 2:35 theatrical presentation was either a) forced on him by the studio or b) a compromise since the IMAX version simply could not be shown in many theaters and he was forced to simply crop his IMAX sequences to make them fit the many theaters in this country that could not show his vision. The 2:35 theatrical release IS a MAR'd version.Todd smith said:
Ron-P said:
If you indeed: "had to mask the sides of the screen and just go for the 1:78 ratio for the movie"; you did not watch it: "as the director intended".Todd Smith said:
I got the impression he was talking about changing his setup to a constant width setup instead of constant height, not that he watched one ratio.Ed St. Clair said:
