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

[Jason Seaver]

3rd: The IMAX scenes where not shot w/an "IMAX" camera.
That's a joke (you pay for "IMAX" & you don't get IMAX quality; ha, ha!).

This, at least, is just not true.

 

[Brian Borst]

Some of the IMAX bits were shot with a VistaVision camera, apparently. Because there are only three or four IMAX cameras available. Or so I heard, don't know if there's any truth to it.

 

[PaulDA]

Some of the IMAX bits were shot with a VistaVision camera, apparently. Because there are only three or four IMAX cameras available. Or so I heard, don't know if there's any truth to it.

Actually, it's because the VistaVision cameras are smaller (though the prints are 70mm--bigger than the 65mm prints of IMAX). They were used for very brief sequences.
Editors Guild Magazine - Online Exclusive

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I see one point: Most of this debate was theoretical. Now we're getting input from people on the actual experience of watching this disc, and it's an interesting counterpoint (which is probably an understatement). It's certainly worth giving more of those people an opportunity to comment, even at the price of a certain amount of rehash from others.

Agreed.
FWIW, I'm one of the ones who thought they should've just included both versions via seamless branching though (I believe) I do understand Nolan's vision w/ the VAR version -- and did actually see the film in true IMAX presentation. I'm still a bit undecided at the moment about how well the VAR version plays after viewing the BD once on my setup -- haven't gotten around to a 2nd viewing just yet. I think the debate (and awareness of the issue) has simply made it next-to-impossible for me to experience the VAR version as closely as Nolan intended (for now).
As some others pointed out, the point is *not* for us to consciously notice the AR change, but for the IMAX scenes/shots to help provide a more immersive experience overall (w/ perhaps occasional big impacts where warranted). But since I'm now watching the movie w/ too much awareness of AR change, that awareness works against Nolan's intent to some extent. I do agree though that awareness of the AR change seems to fade as I get deeper into the movie perhaps in part because many of the (later) changes occur in rather dark scenes that help make the change more seamless. In that sense at least, I think Nolan did an excellent job of blending the AR changes into the film (and story arc).
OTOH, even if I do become convinced that the VAR version works best for me (on my setup), that doesn't necessarily mean Warner/Nolan's choice to exclude the 2.4:1 constant AR version is the best or that I should now mock/belittle folks who desire to have that on BD (as a few people have apparently done on this thread).
_Man_

 

[David Willow]

It all so cracks me up that people are posting that they barely or didn't even notice the VAR!
That's got too be the JOKE of the yr!
[on Nolan; all that for nuttin, on the BD; why release it that way when it makes little or no diference, & HTF; where OAR used too be "everything"]

You are still joking, I hope. You are telling me that I lied? That I really did see the changes and just said I didn't? Come on.
Once the movie started and I stopped looking for flaws, changes, whatever, I just enjoyed the movie and was oblivious to anything else. Very well done, Mr. Nolan.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

You are still joking, I hope. You are telling me that I lied? That I really did see the changes and just said I didn't? Come on.
Once the movie started and I stopped looking for flaws, changes, whatever, I just enjoyed the movie and was oblivious to anything else. Very well done, Mr. Nolan.

Hi David,
What are you talking about?
Where in the quote do I say you "lied"?
Thanks.
-----------------------------------
Too all,
Are VistaVision cameras "IMAX" cameras?
(not trying too spilt hairs here, if VistaVision is 70mm [65mm] than that is indeed "IMAX" quality)
If I'm wrong, sorry about that. Did not intend too misinform; thanks for the correction.
I'll just change the 4th too very little of the movie was IMAX.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Are VistaVision cameras "IMAX" cameras?
(not trying too spilt hairs here, if VistaVision is 70mm [65mm] than that is indeed "IMAX" quality)
If I'm wrong, sorry about that. Did not intend too misinform; thanks for the correction.
I'll just change the 4th too very little of the movie was IMAX.

More than "very little" of the movie was shot in IMAX. Approximately half an hour of the film was, which means almost 20% of the film's running time. It was really shot with IMAX cameras.
IMAX cameras run 70mm film horizontally to create an image that is actually far larger than a standard 70mm frame. VistaVision cameras are actually similar in that they run 35mm film horizontally, which results in a 70mm-sized image on the negative. The overwhelming majority of the IMAX sequences were shot with IMAX cameras. However, for a select number of special effects shots, VistaVision cameras were used to pick up some action shots from places where the normal IMAX cameras would never fit. Out of the almost thirty minutes of the film that was shot in the IMAX format, maybe a few seconds of that was captured with VistaVision cameras. To use that as a basis for saying that the film's IMAX portions weren't actually in IMAX is ridiculous.

 

[David Willow]

Hi David,
What are you talking about?
Where in the quote do I say you "lied"?
Thanks.
-----------------------------------
Too all,
Are VistaVision cameras "IMAX" cameras?
(not trying too spilt hairs here, if VistaVision is 70mm [65mm] than that is indeed "IMAX" quality)
If I'm wrong, sorry about that. Did not intend too misinform; thanks for the correction.
I'll just change the 4th too very little of the movie was IMAX.

I'm one of the "people" you referred to in the quote I included in my reply. I DID NOT notice it after I stopped looking for it. Are you saying that I am lying... That I really did notice it and I'm just telling you I didn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
It all so cracks me up that people are posting that they barely or didn't even notice the VAR!
That's got too be the JOKE of the yr!
[on Nolan; all that for nuttin, on the BD; why release it that way when it makes little or no diference, & HTF; where OAR used too be "everything"]

 

[Ed St. Clair]

More than "very little" of the movie was shot in IMAX. Approximately half an hour of the film was, which means almost 20% of the film's running time. It was really shot with IMAX cameras.

Less than half is very little, too me.; certainly for a "IMAX" movie.

Everyone's gonna feel different about that tho!

If you paid for a piece of pie & got only 20% would you be happy?

If yes;: the "IMAX" price & promotion is not a joke too you; if no: the "IMAX" price & promotion is a joke too you. JJ

BIG thanks; enjoy learning bout all this stuff.

Hope you can understand my confusion over the use of non-IMAX cameras.

 

[RobertR]

Less than half is very little, too me

So 49% would be "very little"? Your definition of the term is not at all in keeping with accepted usage ("I ate very little of the pie; only 49% of it". Huh??).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Less than half is very little, too me.; certainly for a "IMAX" movie.

Not really. Comparing "The Dark Knight" to one of the large-format IMAX films isn't really fair, because TDK was never meant to compete with "Ghosts of the Abyss" or "Deep Sea" or even something like "U2 3D". No one ever claimed that the film was shot entirely with IMAX cameras.
For the past few years, select films shot conventionally in 35mm have gotten IMAX releases (Harry Potter 3-5, Superman Returns, Batman Begins, etc.). The point wasn't really to fake people out by calling something IMAX that wasn't; the point was, in this day and age of multiplexes and smaller theaters often run by people who don't even care, to present the audience with the highest possible quality. Seeing a 35mm film presented on an IMAX screen today probably isn't that much different, at least in terms of concept, than when 35mm films were blown up to 70mm for the then-high end theaters. Up until "The Dark Knight", if you went to see a Hollywood film in an IMAX theater, you were getting the movie on the biggest screen possible with the best possible audio and visual quality, and occasionally the studio threw a gimmick in (some sequences presented in 3-D for Superman Returns, for instance), but the film itself hadn't been made for the IMAX screen.
"The Dark Knight" is different. Knowing that the film would show in IMAX theaters (even before they started working on it), the filmmakers decided to try to shoot part of the film with IMAX cameras, something that had never been done before. I don't think it's fair to think of "The Dark Knight" in the same category as films that were made exclusively for IMAX theaters, like all of the nature documentaries done in the format. A better comparison would be to the IMAX presentation of "Batman Begins" -- only the "The Dark Knight", parts were shot with IMAX cameras to enhance the experience.
Now, I agree with you that it would be breathtaking to get an entire feature-length Hollywood movie shot in that format, but I don't hold anything against "The Dark Knight" for not being that film. Before TDK, this sort of thing had never been attempted before, and frankly a lot of people in the industry were skeptical that it would even work. While 30 minutes of IMAX footage might not seem like a big deal, the truth is that it was a major step forward for the format. I don't think you can really blame the filmmakers for not shooting entirely in IMAX - I think they would have if the option had been available, but it wasn't - and since no one had ever tried this before and no one knew if it would work, that they were able to make even that much of the film in IMAX was a major victory.
Because of the success of TDK in IMAX (both technically, artistically and financially), we now probably will see select films shot mostly or entirely in IMAX within the next few years. There are still problems to be solved, like the noise issue (the cameras are very noisy, so if they're used for scenes with dialogue, all of that dialogue would have to be re-recorded and dubbed in during postproduction, and some directors aren't big fans of that), the size issue (the cameras are extremely large and bulky, so they may not be able to fit in every spot the director might want to put one, and some directors may not be willing to make those compromises just to shoot in the larger format), the film length issue (IMAX cameras can only hold a few minutes of film at a time, compared to regular cameras that can hold 10 minutes or longer), not to mention the added costs of using the larger format, that there are only several of these cameras worldwide, etc., etc. Those are all major hurdles that will have to be solved, but before TDK, I'm not sure that there were too many people interested in solving them. Now there are.

 

[Citizen87645]

Because of the success of TDK in IMAX (both technically, artistically and financially), we now probably will see select films shot mostly or entirely in IMAX within the next few years. There are still problems to be solved, like the noise issue (the cameras are very noisy, so if they're used for scenes with dialogue, all of that dialogue would have to be re-recorded and dubbed in during postproduction, and some directors aren't big fans of that), the size issue (the cameras are extremely large and bulky, so they may not be able to fit in every spot the director might want to put one, and some directors may not be willing to make those compromises just to shoot in the larger format), the film length issue (IMAX cameras can only hold a few minutes of film at a time, compared to regular cameras that can hold 10 minutes or longer), not to mention the added costs of using the larger format, that there are only several of these cameras worldwide, etc., etc. Those are all major hurdles that will have to be solved, but before TDK, I'm not sure that there were too many people interested in solving them. Now there are.

Hmm...imagine if all those problems were solved, then the next Robert Altman would be in IMAX!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

So 49% would be "very little"? Your definition of the term is not at all in keeping with accepted usage ("I ate very little of the pie; only 49% of it". Huh??).

If I paid for the whole pie & got too eat less than half, 20% in this case or 49% in your case, then I did get too eat very little. I'm the type of guy that likes too eat the whole pie!
Look, I posted everyone would judge this differently & everyone will.
When I go too a IMAX feature, I want it too be in IMAX.
For some people 20% is good enough.
I hope no one is telling me I'm wrong too want too see an IMAX presentation in IMAX, just like I'm not telling everyone its wrong that they like only 20% in IMAX even tho they paid 100% of the IMAX price.
I posted its a "joke", the topic of this thread if your paying attention (JJ), that people paid for IMAX & got IMAX-lite. And hinted at I thought the whole feature should have been in IMAX in the theater & on this BD.
Judging from the great reception the PQ for the IMAX scenes are getting on sites around the web, I would think others wish that were true as well.
-------------------------------------
Well, a million people weren't upset 'bout the VAR this wk!!!

 

[RobertR]

If I paid for the whole pie & got too eat less than half, 20% in this case or 49% in your case, then I did get too eat very little.

Eating half a pie is not "very little". You're confusing "very little" with "getting less than what you paid for". In the case of The Dark Knight, can you show me ANY advertising that told people the ENTIRE movie was filmed with IMAX cameras? If not, then your whole "I was cheated" contention falls apart.

 

[David Forbes]

If I paid for the whole pie & got too eat less than half, 20% in this case or 49% in your case, then I did get too eat very little. I'm the type of guy that likes too eat the whole pie!
Look, I posted everyone would judge this differently & everyone will.
When I go too a IMAX feature, I want it too be in IMAX.
For some people 20% is good enough.
I hope no one is telling me I'm wrong too want too see an IMAX presentation in IMAX, just like I'm not telling everyone its wrong that they like only 20% in IMAX even tho they paid 100% of the IMAX price.
I posted its a "joke", the topic of this thread if your paying attention (JJ), that people paid for IMAX & got IMAX-lite. And hinted at I thought the whole feature should have been in IMAX in the theater & on this BD.
Judging from the great reception the PQ for the IMAX scenes are getting on sites around the web, I would think others wish that were true as well.
-------------------------------------
Well, a million people weren't upset 'bout the VAR this wk!!!

Your assumption is predicated on the belief that TDK was advertised as being an IMAX movie, which is demonstrably false. It was "presented" in the IMAX "format," with "select portions" having been filmed completely in IMAX.
Sheesh, did you feel ripped off when Superman Returns was shown in IMAX with ZERO footage filmed with IMAX cameras? Or the Harry Potter movies? Or the current craptacular The Day the Earth Stood Still? None of which have any true IMAX footage in them?
This isn't a difference of opinion, or whether 49% is a "little" or "a lot." You're simply wrong.

 

[David Forbes]

Here is how my local IMAX theater is advertising The Day the Earth Stood Still:
The Day The Earth Stood Still has been digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® through IMAX DMR (Digital Re-mastering) technology.
It's pretty easy to understand "what you're paying for."

 

[RickER]

I dont know what point is really being made here. Not now, anyway.
Bottom line, if you feel cheated, or if you think a movie (or pie) is shit, if you think its not worth your time or money...dont buy it!
Hell this is easy, it doesnt meet my expectations, so i will pass.
Now i am not saying you dont have the right to bitch, but jeez, can we move on!
I will eat my piece of pie, and i will watch my Blu-ray of Dark Knight, and i will be as happy as a pig in slop!
If you want cake, and to watch...insert title of your choice here ______, then fine. I want you all to be happy too. But your not gonna be happy with this pie, so move. Maybe youll get pecan next week, but today its pumpkin!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Your assumption is predicated on the belief that TDK was advertised as being an IMAX movie, which is demonstrably false. It was "presented" in the IMAX "format," with "select portions" having been filmed completely in IMAX.
Sheesh, did you feel ripped off when Superman Returns was shown in IMAX with ZERO footage filmed with IMAX cameras? Or the Harry Potter movies? Or the current craptacular The Day the Earth Stood Still? None of which have any true IMAX footage in them?
This isn't a difference of opinion, or whether 49% is a "little" or "a lot." You're simply wrong.

"TDK" playing in IMAX theaters wasn't advertised as being IMAX???
Now that's a funny joke!
"Experience it in IMAX"
IMAX
(see the poster? no mention its only 20%)
EDitEDbyED:
I just HAVE too add your quote: "You're simply wrong".
And yes I felt cheated when I saw "SR" in IMAX & it wasn't in IMAX.
Sheesh, why weren't you?
It's because you don't mind going too IMAX & not seeing IMAX; that's OK by me.
Why isn't my going to IMAX & not seeing IMAX and not being pleased about not OK with you?
I make no assumption. It is what it is. It may indeed contain more IMAX footage than any other major feature. Too me its like one of those sometimesonsometimesoff 3D flicks I don't care about. Six scenes BIG (p.i.) deal [JJ].
The bottom line is I can evaluate the merits or value of this or any other release any way I wish too. And this film not being entirely filmed in IMAX, any film by the way, is not an IMAX movie too me. I know it showed scenes in the IMAX format in the IMAX presentation & I know some "jokey" IMAX AR was used in the BD release. Doesn't matter. You think its an IMAX movie & I don't (nor do any of the people that only saw it in a non-IMAX theater or view it w/o the "jokey" IMAX AR on the HV releases).
And that's OK.

 

[David Forbes]

"TDK" playing in IMAX theaters wasn't advertised as being IMAX???
Now that's a funny joke!
"Experience it in IMAX"
IMAX

Apparently the joke is on you. From your own link:
The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience features six sequences filmed with IMAX® cameras. This marks the first time ever that a major feature film has been even partially shot using IMAX cameras, marking a revolutionary integration of the two film formats.
Try again. Or maybe take a break and have some pie.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience features six sequences filmed with IMAX® cameras. This marks the first time ever that a major feature film has been even partially shot using IMAX cameras, marking a revolutionary integration of the two film formats.
Try again. Or maybe take a break and have some pie.

Sorry David!
I was out eating pie B4 I got my edit in.
Great post by the way, great pie too!