or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio - Page 2

post #31 of 203
Hate the shifting aspect ratios. Not the way I saw it in theaters...but, then again, what choice are we given?

None.
post #32 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Why is it odd? Whether it's 2.35, 2.39 or 2.4 is useless trivia to everyone except whoever makes the cameras and projector plates. The difference is completely negligible.

When I'm putting together a review then the exact aspect will be noted, but in general terms I'll always refer to it as 2.35. It may seem anachronistic to some - like referring to it as 'Scope - but that was how widescreen was labelled when I was a kid, so that way it will remain.
post #33 of 203
Well that was unexpected, All original or Original IMAX is what i expected from the purists. Who knew there were so many in that movie?
post #34 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas View Post

Well that was unexpected, All original or Original IMAX is what i expected from the purists. Who knew there were so many in that movie?

There are two, Imax and 2.39:1 that is it
post #35 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

There are two, Imax and 2.39:1 that is it

Which makes 3 then, since Digital IMAX is 1.89:1 (if I remember properly what Josh told me in another thread wink.gif). Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it's was they did for TDK, but maybe they'll simply use the D-IMAX version for the Blu-ray?
post #36 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Which makes 3 then, since Digital IMAX is 1.89:1 (if I remember properly what Josh told me in another thread wink.gif). Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it's was they did for TDK, but maybe they'll simply use the D-IMAX version for the Blu-ray?

I will concede on that one, and yes more than likely
post #37 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

I dont want the ratios switching back & forth like TDK its so annoying....give me the most used ratio in the movie & just stick with that.
Like the Oprah joke:
"Shes fat shes thin, shes fat shes thin....pick a body size & go with it."

I agree... they should have had a common 2.39:1 safe zone and stuck with that on the home video version.

Or at least had two different versions available. One with the shifting ratios, and one without.

As is, I have a hunch this will have the IMAX artificial sharpening baked in to the non-IMAX footage like the last film. We all know how that release looked. rolleyes.gif
post #38 of 203
Thread Starter 
Cropping the IMAX shots at 2.39:1 is the same crime as cutting 2.39:1 to 1.33:1 on DVD back in the day. Ghost Protocol sure lost all the impact with letterboxing the IMAX frames, but also cutting to 16:9 wouldn't give us the original frames as they were shot. So long for the OAR. What about Dr. Strangelove? Even that movie shifts from 1.33 to 1.66 and Kubrick's vision was always meant to be the open matte version.
I let all of you voice your opinion within the poll because I'm an open minded guy and didn't want to force only my options, but what I'm seeing is the majority of Home Video entusiasts still don't give a crap about OAR, but only about what they like.
post #39 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Cropping the IMAX shots at 2.39:1 is the same crime as cutting 2.39:1 to 1.33:1 on DVD back in the day. Ghost Protocol sure lost all the impact with letterboxing the IMAX frames, but also cutting to 16:9 wouldn't give us the original frames as they were shot. So long for the OAR. What about Dr. Strangelove? Even that movie shifts from 1.33 to 1.66 and Kubrick's vision was always meant to be the open matte version.
I let all of you voice your opinion within the poll because I'm an open minded guy and didn't want to force only my options, but what I'm seeing is the majority of Home Video entusiasts still don't give a crap about OAR, but only about what they like.

On dvd? I think you mean VHS, and no it's not at all as you do not understand OAR.
Miami Vice shot on a 16:9 camera, cropped to 2.35:1 for release as this is how it was shot period.
Just because there is extra info does not mean you have to see it, Mann shot for scope full stop.
Format does not dictate AR
post #40 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Format does not dictate AR
Out of curiosisty, which option did you vote (if you voted)?
post #41 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Out of curiosisty, which option did you vote (if you voted)?

Original IMAX release aspect ratios: 2.39:1 and 1.43:1
But would have picked CIH if there was a second choice aloud
post #42 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

But would have picked CIH if there was a second choice aloud
You mean constant 2.39:1? It's there. I put it. It's the original 35mm presentation. But in that way the IMAX scenes are greatly castrated and NOT in their original aspect ratio.
post #43 of 203
Just got back from seeing the fixed-aspect 2.35 version, and it works very nicely indeed. The clarity of the IMAX process is still readily apparent, with those scenes featuring a bewitching combination of razor-sharp detail with a smooth, grain-free appearance. And though proper IMAX is wonderful in terms of the expansive impact of the image, the actual composition seems to take a back seat in favour of the sheer scale of it.

Take the bit right at the beginning when the 4x4 is approaching the plane: the shot of Aidan Gillen in front of the aircraft is beautifully framed in 2.35, with the aircraft filling the background of the widescreen image and the actor's upper torso in front of it, but in IMAX you get lots more legs and feet and tarmac. Not every IMAX shot is that bland, natch, but the legs/feet/floor thing is a common throughline. If anything the 1.78 IMAX crop for Blu-ray will help in that regard, because it combines the 'wow' factor of the alternating aspect with tighter framing that goes partway towards maintaining the (IMO) superior 2.35 composition.

luca, mi amico, you're barking up the wrong tree. The filmmakers themselves have sanctioned the 1.78/2.35 version, so if you want to bleat about people not respecting OAR then you'd better hit up Mr Nolan first before chiding the rest of us.
post #44 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

The filmmakers themselves have sanctioned the 1.78/2.35 version, so if you want to bleat about people not respecting OAR then you'd better hit up Mr Nolan first before chiding the rest of us.
If I could chat with Nolan regarding this subject, I certainly would point out to him the mistakes he did in the Dark Knight Blu-Ray release (IMAX cropped to 16:9 and EE), but I absolutely can't, especially since I don't live in Los Angeles. But many of you probably even work in the Hollywood industry, so I'm trying (to quote The Joker) "to send a message".
post #45 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

If I could chat with Nolan regarding this subject, I certainly would point out to him the mistakes he did in the Dark Knight Blu-Ray release (IMAX cropped to 16:9 and EE), but I absolutely can't, especially since I don't live in Los Angeles. But many of you probably even work in the Hollywood industry, so I'm trying (to quote The Joker) "to send a message".

He said he thought the dark knight disc was wonderful on the commentary they did.
Add to my choice on the poll I said second choice as in I would have voted twice.
post #46 of 203
Thread Starter 
Uh, guys! I just discovered that the IMAX 1.43:1 is not of the actual frame aspect ratio, but of the theater's screen.
If you measure the frame I posted in the opening post, it is basically more like 1.33:1.
post #47 of 203
I think you should leave it alone and see what they actually release
post #48 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Cropping the IMAX shots at 2.39:1 is the same crime as cutting 2.39:1 to 1.33:1 on DVD back in the day.
No it isn't. IMAX was never meant to be viewed on a TV, the nature of the IMAX screen means films in the format tend to go for wider shots and have tons of headroom. The 2.39:1 crop is a bit extreme but 1.78:1 provides perfectly good viewing. And yes, the non-imax theatrical version is still OAR just like both versions of Avatar are OAR.
post #49 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Word.

I'll just watch it with the masks in the 2:35 position and let the IMAX scenes spill on the masks. I use Protostar material for them, and it absorbs a good bit of the light.
post #50 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

I'll just watch it with the masks in the 2:35 position and let the IMAX scenes spill on the masks. I use Protostar material for them, and it absorbs a good bit of the light.

The HDTV version of Dark Knight in the UK were 2.35:1 constant
post #51 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Agreed. I did not mind it on TDK at all and hope that the same is done with the DKR disc
Also agreed, being most of us don't have IMAX at home I think the dual aspect ratio approach done on the TDR blu ray is the best approach .
post #52 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

Also agreed, being most of us don't have IMAX at home I think the dual aspect ratio approach done on the TDR blu ray is the best approach .
Well, I don't have a scope screen at home and like me many more, so why don't they crop the 2.39:1 shots to 16:9 like IMAX? Because it's wrong! And so is masking the IMAX frames.
post #53 of 203
Thread Starter 
You are using 2 standards for your little dear CIH screens and forgetting the preservation of the original cinematography.
post #54 of 203
The director shot the IMAX sequences with scope composition cropping in mind from the get go. Probably kept 1.78:1 framing in mind as well.

Your premise is flawed, what you have been referring to is the compromise of the original intended composition decide by someone else other than the filmmaker. Such as P&S.

Referring to Kubrick is a convoluted mess because it is based on old preference for the VHS era of 4:3 displays. Most of his films were shot in open matte safe, more or less, but often they were exhibited at 1.85:1 in the theaters, in particular the US. Clearly not the case for 2001. Now if 2001 had been cropped to fit 1.78:1 today that would perfectly coincide with your premise. Nolan however has composed the IMAX sequences with scope and 16x9 cropping from the beginning.

James Cameron has shot on Super35 open matte safe partly in the past to accommodate home video release of the interlace 4:3 era, he had other reasons as well.
Just because he shot open matte does not mean the proper ratio is the full frame, for his 'scope' films he composed the frame for that ratio first and foremost, 'full frame' was second.

Titanic he was not as careful to shoot open matte safe, which had to be addressed during the 3-D conversion. If I remember correctly SFX were not finished for open matte solely for the scope masking.

Best Regards
KvE
post #55 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Well, I don't have a scope screen at home and like me many more, so why don't they crop the 2.39:1 shots to 16:9 like IMAX? Because it's wrong! And so is masking the IMAX frames.
Because the film was not shown at 16:9. It was shown in scope everywhere except IMAX venues. Which was Nolan's call. Is this so bloody hard to understand?
post #56 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Because the film was not shown at 16:9. It was shown in scope everywhere except IMAX venues. Which was Nolan's call. Is this so bloody hard to understand?
Look, what I'm trying to say is that you can't ask OAR for anamorphic and whatever else for IMAX. IMAX scenes should be showed in the original IMAX aspect ratio. If 2.39:1 was the only aspect ratio, Nolan would have masked the IMAX presentation in 2.39:1. The IMAX shots are chopped in the 35mm because the scope format is so narrow that it would kill the impact of the scenes if they were shown letterboxed in the centre of the screen, although that is still a wrong decision, it is indeed an understandable one. What you are missing is that the primary aspect ratio is the IMAX one: Nolan always tried to shoot as much in IMAX as possible, so the anamorphic, Super 70 and VistaVision are the secondary formats for technical reasons. I understand if the open matte is not what the director intended to be viewed, but saying that IMAX in 16:9 or 2.39:1 is a correct composition for the Blu-Ray is incoherent with the OAR argument many of you bloody fought for.
post #57 of 203
Thread Starter 
Another option would be releasing a BD (either as a separate disc or as a separate edition) encoded at 1440p (so 1920x1440 pixels), that would require some firmware updates and new capable displays, able to deliver the IMAX scenes at full frame without compromises.
Many movies would benefit from a 1440p BD, since IMAX is going to be used more and more in the future.
post #58 of 203
Imax is not for the home and can't be replicated in any home to the same effect as in the specially designed theaters.

Like most all action films of significance, make it all 2.40 for a big screen effect. If I want the true Imax aspect switcharoo, I'll go to the Imax theater@!
post #59 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Imax is not for the home and can't be replicated in any home to the same effect as in the specially designed theaters.
Like most all action films of significance, make it all 2.40 for a big screen effect. If I want the true Imax aspect switcharoo, I'll go to the Imax theater@!

Exactly, should all movies that had a 70mm blow up be in 2.20:1?
post #60 of 203
Thread Starter 
Again with using 2 standards?! IMAX is not meant for home viewing? Well, guess what, even 2.39:1 is not meant for home viewing. Blu-Ray is 16:9, but 2.39:1 is fit inside with black bars to preserve the aspect ratio and so should be treated IMAX frames.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio