"The Dark Knight" PQ issues. - Page 4  

Yes I can't wait to see this, I have to wait for the disc and my new HD750 to arrive.

The DK color timing is nicer. Can't wait for this to show now!!

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.

Let me clarify that I'm referring to the pictures posted by House. I don't have the Blu-ray disc yet.

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?

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).

You guys sure have more keen eyesight than I.
wonder how u all would do in a witness identification scenario.

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

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.

Am i the only one that thinks the shot with the joker has a lot of EE. It was hurting my eyes.

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

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!

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.

Call the director and complain then.

Ah, yes. I was only looking at the IMAX grabs.

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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...?

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

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

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 ?

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!

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.

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.