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 3

post #61 of 203
The simple reality is 16x9 is the standard for home viewing. In the vast majority of cases for films their respective ratios can be accommodated without losing their intended impact.

IMAX was, as with the adoption of wide-scope ratios back in the day, intended to be a wholly unique experience that could not be replicated in the home environment. A frame that not only filled horizontal peripheral vision but encompassed the vertical as well.

In order to properly replicate the intended experience of IMAX one would need a significantly larger squarer screen ratio; otherwise to accommodate what you are advocating within the confines of current HD spec would significantly reduce the impact of the IMAX sequences by pillar boxing them.

No one is disagreeing that the most likely cropping of the IMAX material to 1.78:1 for home use is a compromise but it is one that director was actively aware of and shot accordingly to accommodate. In order to retain maximum impact without compromising resolution to retain the increased clarity of the IMAX footage Nolan will once again crop to 1.78:1.

I can understand why you feel that this premise is a double-standard but it does not apply to this situation, most important reason is that Nolan shot the film in a manner to accommodate both 2.39:1 viewings and the likely BR presentation of 2.39:1 and 1.78:1.

Best Regards
KvE
post #62 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

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.

No because the film actually has 3 different OARs: fixed 2.39, 1.44+2.39 and 1.89+2.39. The best way for the Blu-ray version to reflect the original intent is to go for 2.39+1.78 for the imax scenes. If they wanted to please everyone, they would include both versions, fixed AR and shifting AR, but if The Dark Knight is any reference, they won't.
post #63 of 203
Thread Starter 
Well, at this point, since IMAX theaters crops to 1.43/1.89 and Nolan cropped TDK on BD to 1.78, which is not an original theatrical AR, I'd rather see the BD come out only in 2.39:1 and have the same image height in all the film formats used.

2.39:1, then.

Not!
Edited by luca_frontino - 8/24/12 at 5:38am
post #64 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

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.
You miss the point. Sometimes you need two standards. The compositional demands for IMAX screens are very different than normal screens.
From some article published by IMAX: "The best Imax framing produces compositions that look weird and too small when previewed on your video tap or from way back in an 35mm screening room, with too much sky or headroom."
From Wally Pfister: "Imax protocol stipulates maintaining an enormous amount of headroom because in most theaters, seeing the top third of the screen requires craning one’s neck. “The rule of putting the crosshairs on top of the head seemed a little extreme,” says Pfister. “Plus, we felt like we were wasting all this great negative. So we put the crosshairs on the eyes for close-ups. A ‘normal’ close-up is often way too big in Imax — if you hold it for a while, the audience is going to be looking at one eye or the mouth. You have to back up a bit. "

You can be pedantic and ignore practical reality, but with IMAX, OAR doesn't mean what it normally does, because the very point of IMAX is that the image is huge and the whole frame is in your field of vision. You don't watch it from the sort of viewing angle as a TV or regular screen.
post #65 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

2.39:1, then.

You're gonna have to get the dvd for that tongue.gif (I know 1.78:1 isn't a theatrical aspect ratio, but most 1.85 films are "adapted" to 1.78 as well otherwise we would have tiny black bars, I guess the difference is negligeable in these cases, which means 1.89 to 1.78 is still the best choice wink.gif )
post #66 of 203
Thread Starter 
I just sampled a Widescreen DVD version of The Dark Knight and I noticed some bad Pan & Scanning in the IMAX shots which were not present in the Blu-Ray. It's just like those horrible fullscreen DVDs. This means that the IMAX sequences are indeed NOT composed with a safe 2.39:1.
I hate artificial frame movement not present in the original scene, so I'm returning back to my previous request of wanting the IMAX shots at full 1.33:1 ratio. Period.
Edited by luca_frontino - 8/21/12 at 2:22am
post #67 of 203
I haven't seen the 2.35 version of TDK, but there's NOTHING like that in TDKR...
post #68 of 203
Someone find the image of the on set Imax playback monitor with the scope masking
post #69 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I haven't seen the 2.35 version of TDK, but there's NOTHING like that in TDKR...
Maybe you didn't notice them. Have you also seen it in IMAX first? Because the 1st time I saw TDK was in anamorphic in a cinema and I though it was the camera moving that way, after that I watched the Blu-Ray several times and now that I saw the opening sequence in 2.35:1 DVD I noticed, what I then perceived in 2008 as little camera movement, was actual Pan & Scan, which is evil.
post #70 of 203
Thread Starter 
I found this:
post #71 of 203
Thread Starter 
This is the monitor zoomed at 200%

It doesn't look like 2.39:1 safe area to me. There's no much difference between the left side and the right side, so the monitor is not too much turned from our point of view.
Edited by luca_frontino - 8/20/12 at 12:29pm
post #72 of 203
That is not it, and frankly the mind changing and "fact" stuff in here is making less and less sense so I am out before this gets locked.
post #73 of 203
Thread Starter 
Bye!
post #74 of 203
You have no idea what you are talking about, have made up stuff and changed your mind on what you want.
This thread was made to get some attention, and you have had way too much, bye.
post #75 of 203
Thread Starter 
I just tried to be open minded with you guys telling me that the 2.39:1 is the best, that everything should be in OAR except IMAX and seeing the 1.78:1 cropping option in the poll getting by the 2 digits like nuts in a Home Theater Enthusiast Forum... it'sjust too much. I should be the one disappointed by the responses I received. Not even one person (except in the poll) actually defended my reasons and I had to fight on my own against ludicrous arguments like "IMAX is not intended for home viewing" (when 2.39:1 has the same premise) or "IMAX has a different composition" (and the 2.39:1 not?). Those are not valid points toward chopping the original frames. I thought OAR was always FTW!
post #76 of 203
As far as OAR goes, The Dark Knight Rises 2.39 expanding to 1.78 is the way to go. It wouldn't make sense to pillarbox your screen to 1.44:1 (can you imagine this? black bars top and bottom suddenly swicth to the sides and everything that takes place on the screen suddenly looks "smaller"...how about that for an IMAX effect?...) What was presented in Digital IMAX will most likely be what we'll see on Blu-ray, and it still will be OAR.
post #77 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

I just tried to be open minded with you guys telling me that the 2.39:1 is the best, that everything should be in OAR except IMAX and seeing the 1.78:1 cropping option in the poll getting by the 2 digits like nuts in a Home Theater Enthusiast Forum... it'sjust too much. I should be the one disappointed by the responses I received. Not even one person (except in the poll) actually defended my reasons and I had to fight on my own against ludicrous arguments like "IMAX is not intended for home viewing" (when 2.39:1 has the same premise) or "IMAX has a different composition" (and the 2.39:1 not?). Those are not valid points toward chopping the original frames. I thought OAR was always FTW!
You have some serious reading comprehension issues...
"OAR" is not FTW when it results in a compromised presentation. OAR for a 3-strip Cinerama film, for example, has nothing to do with how it was seen in theaters, hence the need for a smilebox simulation. For the reasons described above, IMAX is a format that can tolerate a great deal of vertical cropping (especially when the cropping is by the filmmakers' design). It should be telling that the "standard" focal length for both formats (IMAX and anamorphic 35mm) is around 50mm, even though with an IMAX negative that's a wide-angle lens. If you still can't comprehend these things, clearly any further discussion on the topic is pointless.
Edited by 42041 - 8/20/12 at 2:39pm
post #78 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

I just sampled a Widescreen DVD version of The Dark Knight and I noticed some bad Pan & Scanning in the IMAX shots which were not present in the Blu-Ray. It's just like those horrible fullscreen DVDs. This means that the IMAX sequences are indeed NOT composed with a safe 2.39:1.

If you're going to make a ridiculous claim like this, please provide a some time codes on the disc so that we can look at them and see for ourselves what you think you're seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

This is the monitor zoomed at 200%

It doesn't look like 2.39:1 safe area to me. There's no much difference between the left side and the right side, so the monitor is not too much turned from our point of view.

This part of the image is out of focus and unclear. The monitor has frame lines that show the "safe areas" for each part of the frame exposed to light. Those are not visible in this low-res image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Not even one person (except in the poll) actually defended my reasons

Has it occurred to you that no one is defending you because you're wrong? Your argument is absurd and based on a misunderstanding of how motion picture photography works. There's nothing for anyone else to defend.
post #79 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Maybe you didn't notice them. Have you also seen it in IMAX first?

You betcha. Saw it in 15/70 IMAX last Wednesday, followed by a digital screening on Sunday (4K projection, no idea what the source res was though). I detected no undue movement in the IMAX shots, aside from the actual camera moves themselves, natch.
post #80 of 203
Thanks goodness for Xylon.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix#post_15171196

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix#post_15171210

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix#post_15171212

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix/540#post_15220168

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix#post_15171214

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1089714/the-dark-knight-comparison-pix/690#post_15248813

All these include at least the scope crop DVD version and the BR crop of the IMAX sequences, along with a few from the BB Prologue.
Overall the DVD crop exhibits that the most pertinent horizontal information has indeed been composed to accommodate for cropping to scope.
The negative space in the IMAX shots do not hold much vital visual information.

The BB Prologue shots do have some pillar boxing on the sides but pretty sure it is not representative of the full IMAX frame however; if it where the PB would be larger. Wrong ratio and the BR crop has more information to the sides and sometimes either has a little more top or bottom imagery as well.

When everything is factored in the 1.78:1 crop of the IMAX footage it is hardly comparable to P&S of old and does not compromise the integrity of the cinematography.
As well it is clearly evident that scope framing was also considered from the beginning.

Best Regards
KvE

PS I was sent these mouse over comparisons.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/141417
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/141419
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 8/20/12 at 5:16pm
post #81 of 203
Thread Starter 
Frameshots don't give you enough information on how the sequences got Panned & Scanned on the TDK WS DVD version. If you have the possibility, watch the bank robbery 1st in Blu-Ray and then in DVD. Better yet if you can watch them at the same time. You will clearly see additional movements in the DVD, which means they adjusted the 2.39:1 composition manually on the IMAX frames. IMAX is meant to be seen in its entirety, it doesn't matter if in the BD they would appear pillarboxed. To avoid this, I already said, they could easily make a 1440p transfer and push the format to a new standard alongside the Blu-Ray 3D and call it Blu-Ray IMAX.
post #82 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

OAR for a 3-strip Cinerama film, for example, has nothing to do with how it was seen in theaters, hence the need for a smilebox simulation.
Cinerama should not be presented in a stupid smilebox version, because movies shot with anamorphic lenses have a very similar curve on the horizontal plane, but the frame must be preserved in its rectangular shape. To replicate the curve, one must have a curved screen.
post #83 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Frameshots don't give you enough information on how the sequences got Panned & Scanned on the TDK WS DVD version. If you have the possibility, watch the bank robbery 1st in Blu-Ray and then in DVD. Better yet if you can watch them at the same time. You will clearly see additional movements in the DVD, which means they adjusted the 2.39:1 composition manually on the IMAX frames. IMAX is meant to be seen in its entirety, it doesn't matter if in the BD they would appear pillarboxed. To avoid this, I already said, they could easily make a 1440p transfer and push the format to a new standard alongside the Blu-Ray 3D and call it Blu-Ray IMAX.

1. In what manner does it pan and scan?
- Even if there is some movement that does not disprove what has been said.

2. It certainly does matter if it were pillar boxed on BR, it would significantly reduce the visual impact, resolution, and major point in shooting IMAX for the larger frame. Cropping to 1.78:1 is a concession that was factored in from the beginning, not just for BR but for less true IMAX theaters, the majority now, which are actually less than the full IMAX ratio. The same goes for 2.39:1 it too was factored in at the get-go, why because the vast majority of screens would show it in scope.

3. Even if there were an attempt to introduce 1440p into the BR spec it creates more problems than resolve for such limited exceptions. Next issue is that the vast majority of HT display chains cannot support it and if it were down-converted it would create aliasing artifacts; by attempting to retain the entire safe frame the end result would be a pillar boxed postage stamp of its former self. Thus going the polar opposite of the whole point of IMAX.

Nolan made the right choice before and will most likely do so again for the BR. Now if only he would get Warner to redo the transfers for the first two films. BB is filtered and TDK has the terrible DMR baked in for the 35mm portions.

Best Regards
KvE
post #84 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Now if only he would get Warner to redo the transfers for the first two films. BB is filtered and TDK has the terrible DMR baked in for the 35mm portions.
I know that Begins and Dark Knight are getting new releases this October 16th, but any specifications have not be disclosed yet. Looking at the latest releases by Warner Bros. I'm tempted to say that they will get the TrueHD replaced with Master Audio tracks. There is the possibility that TDK could get a constant 2.39:1 new transfer in the wake of the Ghost Protocol Blu-Ray choice by director Bird to not open the matte. Nolan could have changed his mind or discussed with CIH HT owners. Who knows?
Edited by luca_frontino - 8/21/12 at 10:25am
post #85 of 203
It sure would be fantastic to get rid of the edge enhancement. My eyes almost started bleeding when we recently sat down to watch BB and TDK. I wouldn't upgrade for audio alone unless there was an actual benefit.
post #86 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

It sure would be fantastic to get rid of the edge enhancement.

It's WB- breath-holding not advised.
post #87 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

Frameshots don't give you enough information on how the sequences got Panned & Scanned on the TDK WS DVD version. If you have the possibility, watch the bank robbery 1st in Blu-Ray and then in DVD.

I did exactly that, and I noticed nothing untoward. The 2.35 frame is positioned differently from shot to shot in relation to the IMAX image - i.e. there doesn't appear to be a 'common top' akin to Super 35 - but I honestly didn't spot any extra movement within the shots themselves. If it is being moved around, then it's so slight it's not worth getting worked up about.

And even if it is being shifted, that doesn't devalue the widescreen framing in the slightest. Nolan and Pfister knew that they were shooting something that had to work in two different ratios so they protected accordingly, but given how IMAX is often used for action scenes there's always the possibility that some stuff would fall outside of the 2.35 frame, hence the need for a slight readjustment on the fly. This is no different to any other 2.35 show that wasn't shot anamorphic.
post #88 of 203
Thread Starter 
I prefer the IMAX full frame, as it was originally shot, because it opens the world to the viewer and adds in immersion.
Edited by luca_frontino - 8/22/12 at 6:22am
post #89 of 203
why the hell cant they just stick with the Imax aspect ratio instead of jumping back and fourth like they did in the dark knight ?
post #90 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by champer View Post

why the hell cant they just stick with the Imax aspect ratio instead of jumping back and fourth like they did in the dark knight ?

Because the none IMAX sequences were shot in anamorphic. To stick to the IMAX ratio or the 1.78:1 BD compromise would mean cropping the sides of the 35mm footage. The IMAX footage was shot with 2.39:1 in mind. The 35mm was not shot with pan and scan in mind.
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