The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio - Page 3

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

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.

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.

You're gonna have to get the dvd for that (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 )

I haven't seen the 2.35 version of TDK, but there's NOTHING like that in TDKR...

Someone find the image of the on set Imax playback monitor with the scope masking

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

It's WB- breath-holding not advised.

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.

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.