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

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

None.

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.

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

Which makes 3 then, since Digital IMAX is 1.89:1 (if I remember properly what Josh told me in another thread ). 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

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.

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

Original IMAX release aspect ratios: 2.39:1 and 1.43:1
But would have picked CIH if there was a second choice aloud

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.

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.

I think you should leave it alone and see what they actually release

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.

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

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 .

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

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?

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?