The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio - Page 6

How did TDK work for scope setups? Didn't work for mine.

My lens/vp hid the rest of the image and I didn't feel like I was missing anything. This one sounds like the center is not necessarily a safe spot.

Exactly. His comment has me confused. TDK did not work on my CIH setup and TDKR looks to be even worse from reports since there is nearly three times the amount of aspect switching time wise, and from the sound of it, many more actual switches in those 72 minutes as well. Sounds like a CIH mess.

My thought right now since I dont have enough masking range to deal with this in my projector is to make a cutout to put in front of the projector and mask the image that way in order to get a constant 2.35. Not ideal, but seems to be the best option in a zoomers setup and there are a few other discs that this can be used on as well like TDK and Tron. A bit of a PITA, but not sure what else to do.

Gotcha. Well I guess us CIH guys will find out soon enough and I am curious to hear how it frames out from those who get to it before me.

Why not just relegate yourself to a CIH version of the film? Virtually all digital editions of TDK outside the actual BD - streaming, download, VOD - were straight 2.40:1 and TDKR is guaranteed to be the same. VUDU HDX would be the best bet. Not quite blu-ray but full 1080p + dolby digital plus.

That is one option, and I might just do it. I might just do as I described above as well since this would solve the variable aspect dilemma for other/future also. At least us CIH guys have a few options even if they are not ideal.

Damn why doesn't IMAX Corp manufacture a 1.44:1 aspect 4K TV, that'll make all us "uncropped IMAX" supporters happy, simple!
Well, not so simple actually.
Oh there will also have to be then, 1.44 aspect Blu Rays and players capable of supporting that aspect. Infact it'll become an altogether new format! That's quite a lot of hard-work, and not to mention insanely expensive, ha ha.

I saw this movie in Digital (fake) IMAX at an AMC. The screen was 1.78:1.
My guess is all Digital (fake) IMAX screens are 16x9 as opposed to 4x3, meaning that the majority of future IMAX films will no longer be shown at full height.

Yes, most IMAX theaters are now LIEMAX. There are still some originals out there, though. I saw it at the San Francisco Metreon, which still had it on film and everything. It was gorgeous.

IMAX isn't 1.33:1, though. It's 1.44:1.

The LieMAX screens aren't exactly 1.78:1, they're more like 1.89:1, which is basically the aspect ratio of a digital cinema projection chip (2048:1080, for example). It's just that in normal, non-Imax digital projection, all of the pixels are never getting used. It's either 2048:871 for scope, 1998:1080 for 1.85:1 or 1920:1080 for 16:9. I saw Prometheus in LieMAX 3D on opening weekend and was pleasantly surprised to find that they'd opened up the matte for the IMAX version to 2.00:1 instead of using the cropped 2.35:1. There were very thin black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. In situations where they simply leave it at 2.35:1 for the imax version, if you let your eyes take in the entire liemax frame you'll notice that the black bars are slightly thinner than they would be for a scope movie on blu-ray. I think it's the curved screen that gives people the illusion of it being narrower and therefore taller than it really is. Genuine IMAX screens have this effect on the viewer as well, it can almost look taller than it is wide.

So now that the time is upon us, those with CIH setups, will you adjust every time the aspect ratio changes? Or just leave it on one setting throughout the movie? I went the adjusting route with TDK but with so much ratio-changing, not sure I want to deal with that again. Compounding issues is that I have an Epson 8350, which I love, but it's manual.

There's far too much in TDKR for manual switching to not be annoying.

Its like every 10 seconds! I am trying to make a CIH version re-framed so the shot looks the best

Yes, in fact when I saw it in the IMAX theater, I was already fearing that with my home setup.

Would love to not have to deal with the ratio switches, but at least it's not every movie (though two of my favorites do it).

Just watched it tonight. I have a 2.35:1 scope setup with an anamorphic lens. Left if on that one setting and it was very awesome. No pissing around with different aspect changes. I still noticed when it switched to Imax, as the picture quality got significantly more sharp. Big deal. I can live with that. I just wish the whole movie looked as sharp...

Any way you would sell me a copy when you are done? Might be pretty expensive to ship though as I just noticed you are in the UK.

I used the aspect ratio feature of my Oppo BDP-83 and set it to full. This crops of the sides of the 2.35:1 stuff and zooms the IMAX sections. I did this when the family watched so there would not be a million questions about the bars coming and going. It was quite enjoyable and I did not notice much of any thing that was missed. I have watched it with the changing ratios and this, although not the intent of the director, is an easy workaround. It is hard to figure out what the point of some of the changes are.

While I wish the switching back and forth had been made/filmed at more logical points in the film, it isn't my film. I am no more likely to butcher this than I am a standard 2.40:1 film. I have too much respect for OAR and the filmmaker. Seems to me that a CIH setup (a small minority of people in the HT world) is an error on the part of the viewer, more so than the filmmaker.

There is a reason they created a constant aspect version for non IMAX theaters though since they knew variable aspect flat out does not work in this type of situation, so it could be argued that the OAR for non IMAX CIH setups IS constant aspect. Why not give us the option on blu ray for those with CIH setups? Transformers 2 gave us the option and every variable aspect blu should as well IMO.

I thought it looked great. Screened it in my theater (Epson 8500ub, 106" screen) with relatives and they never commented on the changing aspect ratios. The non IMAX sections looked much better than the ones in The Dark Knight did. And the IMAX sections looked stunning. Relatives commented a few times what an amazing picture it was. Biggest issue for me was the dialogue sound mix. I think the center channel was mixed too low. This is why Bane's voice comes across louder, as the effect on his voice is spread across the stereo channels. Once I boosted the center channel a few notches everything seemed fine.

Why not? That is very simple - because the filmmaker didn't want to. IMHO, it is his film and his decision to make. I respect that and OAR equally. Obviously, the IMAX version with the switching aspect ratios is his preferred version. The CIH theatrical run was done out of necessity. Given how minute the market for home CIH setups is...it doesn't really qualify as a necessity for the home release of the film. Therefore, this is the version the filmmaker wanted for home consumption. This isn't a case where a studio or producer interfered and bastardized the film. Whether it is the aspect ratio, edits, color grading...whatever...it is his or her call, not mine. I'm not bashing people who don't agree. That is perfectly fine! I simply, in my own little world, feel that it is disrespectful. That's just me though. If there are two version of a film released (theatrical vs extended for example), I like to know which one is preferred by the filmmaker. That's the one I want to see and I will never take an interest in the other one.

In this case, the one that is preferred by the filmmaker would no doubt depend on what type of theater it was being viewed in. The filmmaker wanted constant aspect in non IMAX CIH commercial setups, it sure would have been nice to have that option for CIH blu ray users as well. I understand the market is small, but the filmmaker would certainly NOT choose to have his film presented in variable aspect on a CIH setup for home OR a commercial theater which is why non IMAX commercial theaters got a constant aspect cut of the film. Transformers 2 took the smart approach here when it came to the blu ray, and it would be nice if other variable aspect films gave this option as well so CIH users could get the best presentation possible just like non IMAX commercial theaters did.

In the end, none of this matters to me. Nolan did chose this for release for his film. That's all that matters to me personally. I put consumer altered versions of this right up there with the colorization of B&W films and fan edits of films. Meaningless to me. Again, I have nothing against people who do these things! It just isn't my cup of tea.

I also see the decision to release two version of Transformers 2 as being a smart approach, but not for the same reasons. If respected and honored filmmakers are like the three Michelin Star restaurants of the world...Michael Bay is Taco Bell. I sincerely doubt that Bay released two versions of his cinematic vomit to provide CIH owners with a option. I do not believe for one moment that he did anything so noble. Nolan had a specific aspect ratio related version he wanted to released for home consumption. Michael Bay saw an opportunity to make more money. It is right in line with his quest to bring home some MTV Movie Awards and Razzies nominations.

I also have a 2.35/2.39/CIH screen. Here is what I did, which of course will not work for everyone. I ripped the DKR Blu-Ray to a MKV and then loaded it into Handbrake (kept the DTS-MA soundtrack and PGS subs) and then used Handbrake's cropping feature to reframe all of the movie to 2.39:1 dimensions (1920 x 800). The movie is defiantly protected for 2.39 and even looks great in it. So now I have the IMAX and 2.39 version, one for my LCD and the other for my projector. Hopefully, these examples will show:

IMAX
DKR 1a IMAX.png 1756k .png file

2.39
DKR 1b 2.39.png 1233k .png file

IMAX
DKR 2a IMAX.png 4044k .png file

2.39
DKR 2b 2.39.png 2972k .png file

IMAX
DKR 3a IMAX.png 3723k .png file

2.39
DKR 3b 2.39.png 2705k .png file

Sorry if they aren't the exact same frames. I did the same thing for The Dark Knight and Tron Legacy and it works great.
Edited by PDB - 12/11/12 at 3:06pm

Also, is there anything lost as far as quality goes? Obviously some image is lost in the IMAX footage, but I mean if I were to rip this onto a BD and play it on my PS3, aside from the constant 2.39:1 ratio, should I expect anything difference as far as video and audio quality?

Sadly, since it is copyrighted material I can't give it to anyone. But I will help you if I can.

I'm no expert, there are a LOT of people on here who know a LOT more then I do, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

The original IMAX MKV is a one-for-one copy of the Blu-ray. In order to re-frame it I had to re-encode, in Handbrake, to get the 2.39 MKV. I kept the quality to the same level as the original and it looks the same but anytime you re-encode there is the chance for some loss. Nature of the beast. The original is 25.9 Mbps vs the re-encode is 27.9 Mbps (I was trying to hit the same target size). Otherwise I took the existing DTS-MA audio from the original IMAX MKV and muxed it into the 2.39 MKV (using mkvmerge), so there is zero loss in audio. If you demux the MKV you can create a blu-ray or AVC disc with free programs like multiAVCHD to create it. Sadly the max size for a AVC is the max size of a dual layer DVD so 8.9 GB far less then the ~35-36 GB of the original Blu-ray. AVC will work in the PS3.

Realistically if you did it more "professionally" you would rip the original mt2s files and crop in a professional editor and then output to a Blu-ray. I rip MKVs since I play movies on my screen via HTPC or Dune player.
Edited by PDB - 12/11/12 at 3:37pm

I did similar, but with different programs

+1! I would give my left nut for a constant aspect copy of this with DTS-MA!

Out of curiosity, what did you use? Always willing to learn new ways of doing things.
Edited by PDB - 12/11/12 at 2:43pm

I reframed every imax shot manually in avid