"The Dark Knight" PQ issues. - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 3,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Looks amazing from the screen shots!

Yes I can't wait to see this, I have to wait for the disc and my new HD750 to arrive.
JeffY is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Schils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The DK color timing is nicer. Can't wait for this to show now!!

My Setup | Night

 

Latest Blu-Rays Bought: Brubaker, Big Bang Season 6, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, Iron Man 3, Halloween 35th, This is The End, The Conjuring, The World's End, You're Next, Thor 2, Gravity

Schils is offline  
post #93 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:37 AM
Member
 
joshschw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rveras View Post

What is it that you don't like?

Everything?
Coloring should probably be somewhere in between.
The didn't want it pillarboxed so the cropped some off the top and bottom.
His feet are cut off in the BR DK presentation, and it wasn;t supposed to be that way obviously. It looks pathetically amateurish.
Thick halos in the DK one.

I didn't even like this movie and this is very upsetting to me. This was quite possibly the biggest Blu-ray released yet and they screwed it up.
joshschw is offline  
post #94 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rveras View Post

I see grain on the non-IMAX shots.

Let me clarify that I'm referring to the pictures posted by House. I don't have the Blu-ray disc yet.
rveras is offline  
post #95 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
f300v10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As someone who has not scene this movie yet, in terms of percentage, how much is 1.85 (IMAX) ratio, and how much is 2.4? With my scope setup if I watch this in 1.85, the 2.35 stuff will be boxed on all sides which does not sound appealing at all. Also, how many times does the AR change during the film, less than 5, more than 5, more than 10?
f300v10 is offline  
post #96 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Neo_Reloaded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Everything?
Coloring should probably be somewhere in between.
The didn't want it pillarboxed so the cropped some off the top and bottom.
His feet are cut off in the BR DK presentation, and it wasn;t supposed to be that way obviously. It looks pathetically amateurish.
Thick halos in the DK one.

I didn't even like this movie and this is very upsetting to me. This was quite possibly the biggest Blu-ray released yet and they screwed it up.

Who are you to decide coloring? The coloring is whatever the people who made the movie decided. The BB preview is not an adequate comparison in that regard, as that was before the final color timing was decided upon.

I see slight halos in the DK image, but I also see them in the BB image - the color timing in the DK one just makes them more visible.

As for the cropping, that opens a whole new can of worms... What we have on the DK disc is supposed to be a happy medium between the original IMAX AR and the extremely cropped normal theater prints, but I don't think there's any way to make everyone happy (besides three different versions via seamless branching).
Neo_Reloaded is offline  
post #97 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tripleM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You guys sure have more keen eyesight than I.
wonder how u all would do in a witness identification scenario.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60 + Sony STR-DG810 + LG BH200 + JBL L830's x2 + JBL LC1 + JBL Loft40 x 2 + Polk PSW10 + Harmony One
tripleM is offline  
post #98 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Everything?
Coloring should probably be somewhere in between.
The didn't want it pillarboxed so the cropped some off the top and bottom.
His feet are cut off in the BR DK presentation, and it wasn;t supposed to be that way obviously. It looks pathetically amateurish.
Thick halos in the DK one.

I didn't even like this movie and this is very upsetting to me. This was quite possibly the biggest Blu-ray released yet and they screwed it up.

The color difference is not a screw up but a director's decision. As for the cropping it needed to be done to maximize the resolution of your HDTV set or projector and to not diminish the impact of going from 35mm to IMAX shots.

As for the halos that is a different story. My guess is that they used the 65mm IMAX prints for this transfer. A process called IMAX DMR was used to convert the 35mm prints to 65mm which includes some sharpening in the process which may cause or enhanced the halos. I saw plenty of it at the IMAX theater I went to
rveras is offline  
post #99 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:00 AM
Member
 
joshschw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

Who are you to decide coloring? The coloring is whatever the people who made the movie decided. The BB preview is not an adequate comparison in that regard, as that was before the final color timing was decided upon.

I see slight halos in the DK image, but I also see them in the BB image - the color timing in the DK one just makes them more visible.

As for the cropping, that opens a whole new can of worms... What we have on the DK disc is supposed to be a happy medium between the original IMAX AR and the extremely cropped normal theater prints, but I don't think there's any way to make everyone happy (besides three different versions via seamless branching).

I'm not deciding the coloring, it just doesn't look good.

The halos are much thicker in the DK image, maybe it's just the coloring and contrast change (the contrast is also too high, blacks seem crushed. Weird to have them like this in a daytime setting)

I agree they can't really do anything about the cropping but it was still the moviemakers at fault here. Maybe they should have left it pillarboxed? It wouldn't be anymore "jarring" than the way they did it now, would it?

It should have been better, as I said this is the biggest Blu-Ray yet.
joshschw is offline  
post #100 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:02 AM
cky
Member
 
cky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Am i the only one that thinks the shot with the joker has a lot of EE. It was hurting my eyes.
cky is offline  
post #101 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Neo_Reloaded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

I'm not deciding the coloring, it just doesn't look good.

The halos are much thicker in the DK image, maybe it's just the coloring and contrast change (the contrast is also too high, blacks seem crushed. Weird to have them like this in a daytime setting)

I agree they can't really do anything about the cropping but it was still the moviemakers at fault here. Maybe they should have left it pillarboxed? It wouldn't be anymore "jarring" than the way they did it now, would it?

It should have been better, as I said this is the biggest Blu-Ray yet.

I think your issues are more with the filmmaker's decisions, than with WB's prowess in transferring the results to Blu-ray.
Neo_Reloaded is offline  
post #102 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximori View Post

I saw this movie in two IMAX - one at the Irvine Spectrum and another nearby Disney. The one at the Spectrum was spectacular and used the AR shift as the director intended. The other IMAX nearby Disney looked crap and used a zoom method trick to fill up the entire screen; there was no black bar nor AR shift present during the entire movie. I was really disappointed and immersion was lost, especially during the aerial shots of the city as the camera panned closer.

What you saw is the difference between real IMAX (the Spectrum) and the wonderfully craptacular new digital IMAX (near Disney), which uses 2K Texas Instruments projectors and is (shamelessly) being advertised identically to the real IMAX film theatres so that unfortunate consumers like yourself won't know they're being cheated until it's too late.

Welcome to the 21st century- stepping further backward from the quality standards of the 20th century every day!

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #103 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:06 AM
Member
 
joshschw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Reloaded View Post

I think your issues are more with the filmmaker's decisions, than with WB's prowess in transferring the results to Blu-ray.

Some are.

However if you attribute the color changing to the filmmakers so should you also the EE? At what point do you say it was the video transferrers fault? If they can add EE they an also change contrast/colors.
joshschw is offline  
post #104 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

I'm not deciding the coloring, it just doesn't look good.

The halos are much thicker in the DK image, maybe it's just the coloring and contrast change (the contrast is also too high, blacks seem crushed. Weird to have them like this in a daytime setting)

I agree they can't really do anything about the cropping but it was still the moviemakers at fault here. Maybe they should have left it pillarboxed? It wouldn't be anymore "jarring" than the way they did it now, would it?

It should have been better, as I said this is the biggest Blu-Ray yet.

Call the director and complain then.
rveras is offline  
post #105 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Blacklac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rveras View Post

I see grain on the non-IMAX shots.

Ah, yes. I was only looking at the IMAX grabs.
Blacklac is offline  
post #106 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 3,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
People here are far more fussy than they used to, I remember complaining about ringing on the original Shrek DVD and a lot of people at the time said ringing, what ringing?. The ringing on the Shrek DVD is huge compared to this. From the screen shots TDK looks great to me, I wish all films looked this good.
JeffY is offline  
post #107 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Some are.

However if you attribute the color changing to the filmmakers so should you also the EE? At what point do you say it was the video transferrers fault? If they can add EE they an also change contrast/colors.

I don't think the EE are intentional but an unfortunate artifac of taking a 35mm print and blowing it up to a 65mm print. By the way I'm speculating here based on what I saw at IMAX and this http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/9677.html
rveras is offline  
post #108 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lchiu7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I saw the movie in an Imax theatre. Of course the AR changed when the Imax scenes were shown as is to be expected though the other option would have been for the non Imax shots to be scaled up to fill the frame but I guess the director and studio decided not to do that.

I haven't seen the BD yet but I am somewhat surprised that there are AR changes through the movie. As noted in American Cinematograph Imax is shot in 70mm.

After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way, DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith. That process resulted in a 35mm anamorphic negative, which was combined with effects shots and used to generate 35mm release prints.

This means I guess if you the movie in a regular theatre, it would have a constant AR with the framing decisions in the Imax scenes made by the director. The source for the 35mm releas (perhaps the IP) could have been used for the BD. The fact that the AR changes means possibly that they felt with a BD and the fact that 2.4:1 actually doesn't use the entire screen of a HDTV, they could simulate the Imax presentation and go full screen for the Imax scenes.

I didn't like the movie that much and hadn't planned on purchasing the BD but perhaps will pick it up at my local rental place to see how it is presented.
lchiu7 is offline  
post #109 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshschw View Post

Thick halos in the DK one.

This is my complaint. Ive seen worse but in this case those with smaller screens will not notice it.
Not to bad in all other departments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Alan,

I saw this film twice in theaters (35mm/IMAX) and there was no sound during the WB opening or the symbol. The first sound came when the buildings appeared. I remember thinking that was a bit strange, but it works.

Thanks Kris. I was begining to think my audio system was on the blitz
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #110 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:22 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Those commenting on PQ please reference your display, thank you!
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #111 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
House's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've watched the whole thing. EE is definatly a problem. Some scenes seem to have a little more than the usual Warner filtering too (screenshots #9 and #10 are a good example). Grain in the 35mm segments trails around a lot. The EE is worst during the interrogation scene I think. There's some blocking in certain shadows too, again at it's worst when Gordon first walks in and talks to the Joker with the back lights off.

Overall; it's a good looking disc. The IMAX segments are excellent. Just once again it's a case of "looks good, but could have looked even better". Which is a shame for a movie like this. The AQ is fantastic, no problems there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Those commenting on PQ please reference your display, thank you!

JVC HD1 @ 120", and flicked through it a Dell 27" too for the shots.
House is offline  
post #112 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dave_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post

I've watched the whole thing. EE is definatly a problem. Some scenes seem to have a little more than the usual Warner filtering too (screenshots #9 and #10 are a good example). Grain in the 35mm segments trails around a lot. The EE is worst during the interrogation scene I think. There's some blocking in certain shadows too, again at it's worst when Gordon first walks in and talks to the Joker with the back lights off.

Overall; it's a good looking disc. The IMAX segments are excellent. Just once again it's a case of "looks good, but could have looked even better". Which is a shame for a movie like this.



JVC HD1 @ 120", and flicked through it a Dell 27" too for the shots.

Thanks for the insight. Hopefully on my 60" Kuro I won't notice some of those issues.

PSN: DaveS78
Dave_6 is offline  
post #113 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post


Holy EE AND DNR, Batman. Why?
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #114 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dave_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Holy EE AND DNR, Batman. Why?

Well the guy on the right (mayor maybe?) looked like he was wearing makeup in every scene he was in. Looked that way both times I saw it theatrically. Maybe thats what it is...?

PSN: DaveS78
Dave_6 is offline  
post #115 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tripleM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Holy EE AND DNR, Batman. Why?

As a novice - can you tell how & what u are looking at?

Panasonic TC-P60ST60 + Sony STR-DG810 + LG BH200 + JBL L830's x2 + JBL LC1 + JBL Loft40 x 2 + Polk PSW10 + Harmony One
tripleM is offline  
post #116 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
KeithTalent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_6 View Post

Well the guy on the right (mayor maybe?) looked like he was wearing makeup in every scene he was in. Looked that way both times I saw it theatrically. Maybe thats what it is...?

He looked like that on Lost as well. I think he always looks that way.

My Blu-ray collectionhttp://c.mymovies.dk/keithtalent/

KeithTalent is offline  
post #117 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:45 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
People are saying EE but i wonder if it's part of the new camera process they were using.....Wasn't it experimental what they were trying to achieve with this film....Could some of the EE be a part of some optical process and not applied by Warner or is it a result of blowing up 35mm to IMAX format ? Then again back in the eighties many films got blown up to 70mm format and they never suffered EE did they ?
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #118 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 282
They should have framed and protected the IMAX footage to match up with 2.39:1 Panavision ratio for the bulk of the film.

That way they could let you CHOOSE between the IMAX framing and the theatrical framing for those with scope theaters at home and nothing would look odd either way!

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #119 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Holy EE AND DNR, Batman. Why?

Keep in mind DNR was used in the 35mm-to-65mm process. It is part of the IMAX DMR technology. EE was in the IMAX print I saw (must likely cause by the IMAX DMR). No saying it is right but I don't think it was intentionaly add it for Blu-ray but I guess we will never know.
rveras is offline  
post #120 of 1074 Old 11-21-2008, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_6 View Post

Well the guy on the right (mayor maybe?) looked like he was wearing makeup in every scene he was in. Looked that way both times I saw it theatrically. Maybe thats what it is...?

On his forehead? Very processed looking.

None of the screenshots so far look much like the 35mm film print I saw. Maybe it's the result of whatever EE was used but the contrast seems really cranked and harsh. "Videoish". I'd actually say that Batman Begins has a more natural film-like transfer.
Kram Sacul is offline  
Closed Thread Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off