The Dark Knight Rises - Blu-Ray Aspect Ratio - Page 4

it does that when you're at the 15/70 IMAX theater, not your HT, regardless of the size of your screen. The vast majority of people have a 1.78:1 screens in their home (whether we're talking a true "home theater" or not) as CIH is a minority. The filmmakers have to make a compromise and as I've said numerous times, the IMAX Digital version is the best way to replicate the effect at home. How can you be immersed in a 1.44:1 image within a 1.78:1 frame?
Edited by Morpheo - 8/24/12 at 3:44am

So what? The whole point of being "immersed" with IMAX footage is because you feel "surrounded" by the image. Quite different than a 2.39:1 (or 2.35 or 2.4 etc) image purpose. I don't care if my screen isn't 16x9 anymore with 2.39 aspect ratio, what I want is to watch the film as it was intended to be seen.

Who said it was coolah? There are directors who prefer 1.85:1. Some prefer scope images, some not. I'm not sure they choose to film at 2.39 because it's cooler. Next time I'm doing a photoshop composition for a client maybe I should consider delivering the final product with the bleeding areas unmasked, after all that's more "image" and it should be there right? The fact that there's more footage doesn't matter, safe areas don't count. I'm not interested in an image that look "unbalanced" or badly framed just because there's more footage in the first place. I do care how theaters show a movie, because that's how the filmmakers meant it to be seen. Cameron did what he wanted, I don't know if that was the "right thing" but that's what he did. Result is fine, but asking for *all* movies to be "full frame" on 16x9 screens doesn't make sense sorry. In the case of The Dark Knight Rises, there are 3 options for original aspect ratio, 2.39, 15/70 and IMAX Digital (1.89). What's closer to a home viewing experience? IMAX Digital. Case closed.

15/70 IMAX aspect ratio *IS* 1.43:1.

I'd prefer they present the footage as it was intended by the filmmakers to be presented, thank you very much.

The taking ratio on exposed negative is; the theatrical presentation ratio is not (necessarily).

So, you feel Super35 films should be presented in 1.33:1.... interesting. Weren't you crowing about OAR a few pages ago?

You know... there is an option on pretty much all Blu-ray players that allows one to watch all their movies in 1.78 (16x9) and it auto fills the screen for you cropping the sides. There ya go. Exercise your ability to use these controls.

Not just Super 35 -- most films shot on 35mm and presented theatrically at 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 are/were filmed at 1.37:1 (or even 1:1.2, as noted here). If luca_frontino's suggestion were followed and the Blu-rays preserved the full frame, there would be no way to mask the image to the theatrical AR without zooming in and sacrificing resolution.

Variable aspect flat out does not work with CIH zoomers and this is why I would like a constant aspect version, just like it was presented in many non IMAX theaters. Transf 2 gave us both versions and so should EVERY variable aspect film IMO.

Thank you, Todd. Not sure why it's such a hard concept for the fans of switching ratios.

I think TDKR should be done the same as TDK, it makes sense...

But please Warner... re-release TDK with good PQ... the original Blu-ray sucked except for the IMAX scenes. Even The Dark Knight 1080p itunes trailer looks better than the blu-ray due to that IMAX DMR rubbish.

I know you guys are having a nice, fun little argument, but here's all I have to say:

Give us the option.

We got it for Transformers: ROTF, we can certainly get it here.

Wal-Mart had an IMAX exclusive (Target may have as well), and everywhere else had a consistent AR.

If a store had an exclusive of some sort, I would buy both.

You had to live in the U.S to have that option, that's not what I call an option.

I'm in Montreal and I would have liked the wallmart exclusive (I settled for an autographed "regular" version, since they shipped those outside the US as well...)

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/July2008/TheDarkKnight/page1.php .(Please read p1-p5)

Quote from The American Society of Cinematographers july 2008 ,The dark knight p5 A Hybrid Finish .http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/July2008/TheDarkKnight/page5.php

"After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way, DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith. That process resulted in a 35mm anamorphic negative, which was combined with effects shots and used to generate 35mm release prints.
To bring scenes shot in 35mm to Imax screens, where images are projected in 1.43:1, DKP 70mm scanned the 35mm interpositive at 4K, and an Imax team in Toronto applied digital DMR (Digital Remastering) processing to degrain and sharpen the images. The process stayed at 4K until the images were filmed out onto 65mm back at Keighley’s facility and combined with the Imax material for print. “The final Imax print combined the 4K DMR filmout, 5.6K and 8K Imax filmouts, and 18K contact prints from the Imax negative,” says Keighley.
“People suggested Chris and Wally should have covered themselves by shooting key sequences in both 35mm and Imax, but the 2.40:1 extraction from the Imax frame looks beautiful,” he continues. “In fact, due to the oversampling, it’s probably the best 35mm anamorphic image we’ve ever seen. If we’d had time to scan the original negative at 6K, we could have produced even higher quality. The information is on the negative — 35mm film captures the equivalent of 6K and a color bit depth of 14 bits plus.”
As they did with the Imax prints of Batman Begins, Keighley and his team screened each of the 80 Imax prints of Dark Knight in real time to ensure quality. “We’re a small group of hands-on people who really care about images,” he says. “We pay attention to all the details all the way to the screen.” "

Ummm...because Transformers 2 was clearly a higher caliber movie, nominated for 11 Oscars including Best Movie, script, actor, and director. Let's wait a few months before we compare TDKR to TF2, shall we. Perspective, people...keep it in.

You can get it for like 10-15 bucks now. Walmart still has a HUGE pile of them because they stocked both versions and didn't heavily promote their exclusive version.

Your post makes absolutely zero sense with regard to the point I was making, but okay.
Edited by muffinmcfluffin - 8/26/12 at 7:01pm

Look at that Dark Knight Rises IMAX frame again... it seems like Nolan and his DP framed these large format shots so that there was a scope ratio "safe area." Maybe they learned from The Dark Knight experience. There's a ton of dead space above and below just like in an open-matte situation, which was not the case with The Dark Knight.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 8/30/12 at 6:02pm

I want all the IMAX scenes to be preserved full frame in the BluRay , as a special feature. The movie can alternate between 2.40 and a cropped 1.78, I don't care! All the IMAX scenes( even the short overhead shots) to be presented in 1.43/44 aspect ratio within a Full HD frame. Or else at least a Full Screen Pan & Scan DVD with the IMAX scenes presented FULL as was done for The Dark Knight (2008)

[quote name="Dan Hitchman" ...it seems like Nolan and his DP framed these large format shots so that there was a scope ratio "safe area." Maybe they learned from The Dark Knight experience. There's a ton of dead space above and below just like in an open-matte situation, which was not the case with The Dark Knight.[/quote]

Well They needn't have left so much dead space at the top. I went to see the IMAX version, and some of the Shot compositions in IMAX just looked BAD, with too much negative space. The could've still composed it in a better way by not wasting space, at the same time keeping a safe area for the scope extraction. This is how movies have always been framed in Super 35 format, the open matte versions of some of which don't look bad at all. For Example The Da Vinci Code, Apollo 13 for instance, oh and Harry Potter, where the open-matte Full Screen versions(not all shots) are not distracting at all, unlike the shot of Batman above. Anyway, this is just my opinion.

Also true IMAX composition is all about the tall height and square looking narrow image( apart from the detail ), for that creates an illusion of height.
IMAX was never intended to be widescreen( forget LIEMAX ). Hence a 1.78:1 version of The Dark Knight Rises, or for that matter any IMAX movie, despite showing significant amount of detail and clarity than 35mm shots, CANNOT re-create the IMAX feel of TALLNESS, and immersion as the uncropped 1.43:1 frame can! I have both the Bluray version and the DVD, and after comparing the same IMAX shots in the BD and the DVD(Special Feature), I have to say there is no doubt that the DVD one(despite inferior picture quality) looks more immersive than the BD one!

Here are some examples-

This is the uncropped IMAX frame.

Now look at this-

This is the scene as it appears on the Blu Ray.

Now the curious thing is that, if you carefully notice, the Bluray not on ly chops off the Top & Bottom, but also a bit of the Sides.
To me the Original IMAx frame looks far more intimidating. As if someone is pushing me towards the Joker. The cropped bluray where the Full figure of the Joker is missing, does not make me feel so.

Now imagine, wouldn't it have been better if the chose to preserve the original framed shots within a 1920*1080p frame with pillarboxing, like they did for the DVD? Then we could have had better resolution IMAX shots as a special feature in the BD version as well.

Even The Full Screen Pan and scan DVD preserved most of the image from the IMAX shots ( cropping only enough to achieve the 1.33 from the 1.43 )-

This is taken from the Full Screen (4:3) DVD.

Take your blasphemy to some other place.

And what is "full screen", anyway? It doesn't fill my screen.

Full Screen was a name, if you care, that was coined as a reference to the aspect ratio of original 35mm film- 1.33:1, which also became the same aspect ratio of the Square-ish Televisions(4:3) that we had for a long time before "widescreen" took over the cinema halls, and eventually television(16:9).
And what has religion (blasphemy) got to do with discussing aspect ratio preferences??? It seems quite funny that you hold religion which is evidently a quite serious matter to you, equal to aspect ratios, huh?
16:9 maybe 'Full Screen' to you cause that's the most that screen looks and offers, it doesn't mean its called "Full Screen".
If you think that the Blu Ray cropped version looks better than the almost Full Imax version of the 4:3 DVD then that's your opinion. I pity you don't have a 4:3 TV , cause that's where I see the 2.39 widescreen switch to 1.33, which is the closest replication of the original IMAX presentation of the film.

hahahahahahah

No matter how much you Roll eyes or crack your ***hole laughing, everyone doesn't need or have a huge screen in their homes. There are places on earth which share a single teli for a small community of villages cause they can't afford lCDs for each and every family. And there are people who don't simply throw away their old CRT Tvs because they have "new and improved" Toys to waste their fat cash on!

If I have to watch a movie on a big screen I will go to the Cinema Hall. By laughing you are only showing how ignorant you are of other's situation and problems or wants!

It's a shame that they didn't present the IMAX scenes in full height as an extra feature on the Blu-ray, I'd love to have seen that. Heck, some enterprising nerd might've then spliced them into the film proper. Don't get me wrongo, I'm happy with TDK's presentation in that regard, and letterboxed 2.35 changing to pillarboxed 1.43 from shot to shot may have been mucho odd, but it would've been interesting to see nonetheless.

I still say that a 1.66 crop would work well for the IMAX scenes within the movie, giving us a smidgen more height without drastically affecting the width of the frame.

This thread is becoming stranger.