The Dark Knight Rises - Page 3

It had to look better because the flashbacks to TDK were the same haloed garbage as the BD/ IMAX DMR print. While the other 35mm scenes in TDKR looked cleaner..,

I'm impressed, they actually made it look exciting.

They hired that editor a little late

I may sound like a bit of a **** here but I fully suspect TDKR is going be the exact same thing we got with TDK in terms of look. A better AVC encode, but same EE'd/contrast boosted 35mm scenes. My theory on TDK was always that the look was a deliberate bid to cater to the lowest common denominator on account of the overwhelming popularity. That that approach was also easier - just using the IMAX master with pre-processed 35mm footage - was icing on the cake for Warner. The worst part is that people will absolutely love it, as they did last time.

Will they fix the film on blu-ray and make it feel less like Godfather 3...

Rip's have hit the net in 1080p, I am guessing shots will not be too far behind

Screenshots of the film have it blu-ray.com and the 35mm sections look, to my eye, perfect.

Don't know if they contain (mild) spoilers as I haven't seen the movie yet.

IMAX shots
35 mm shots

Perfect? I guess you haven't seen any perfect looking Blu-ray of movie shot on 35mm.

This is the same **** as with TDK.

LOL this is not the same **** as with TDK. The screenshots do look really good but I'm sure you and the other screenshot scientists that are on this forum will dissect it and found multiple flaws with it.

Have you seen Se7en? The International? Or The American? This is how movie shot on 35mm should look on Blu-ray. Now look at TDKR screens. Nothing to complain about? Perfect?


They look exactly like that for my eyes.
Edited by Johnny Vertigo - 11/15/12 at 7:23am

This trend of crapping on threads with GIFs is really getting old.

I don't care if it's "perfect" or not because quite frankly, none of Nolan's films look "perfect". The 35mm elements in TDKR look like Batman Begins to me. And that's just the way Nolan's films look sometimes.

Nolan shoots ugly films, news at 11

I don't know if I'd agree with that... but I can't argue against the fact that a sharp and highly detailed image never seems to be very important to him unless it's an IMAX action scene.

I haven't perused through all those screenshots since it's loading very slow but they look very good to my eye. In fact it seems by far the closest of any Nolan blu-rays to the theatrical look of the film. Not sure what the dude above is complaining about. Remember than this transfer is not from the original negative, but from a color-timed IP.
Colors look theatrically accurate.

And where I've said that they don't? I've seen it in digital IMAX three times and these screens looks EXACTLY like in theater, which is "not how movie shot on 35 mm should look". That's the problem.

PS. Everyone who thinks that Warner or Nolan and Pfister are going to properly remaster BB and TDK for the next year's Ultimate Trilogy Edition must be very naive

I didn't see it in digital IMAX, but it certainly doesn't appear to have the egregious sharpening the 70mm IMAX screening I saw suffered from (I also saw it in a regular theatre). Maybe the digital IMAX version just looked like film? Because the shots I've looked through look like film to me.

Overall those shots look very good, significantly better than what is found on TDK BR for the 35mm footage. I wonder whether the current crop of shots found over at BR.com were taken from a reencode or an image of the BR.

It proves that the IMAX DMR version should not have been used for TDK transfer.

It would certainly be nice if TDK was remastered but as others have said I highly doubt it will happen, even BB should receive a new encode. I'm not certain it was filtered per se but the lack of fine detail information could be a result of the encode. There was an HD-DVD demo disc that had more high frequency detail and grain present than the final movie disc.

Various forums have cultivated different cultures, some prefer unquestioning sycophantic praise of all titles with a disproportionally excessive obsession with packaging and tchotchkes; whereas here there is an expectation to be critical and objective in the evaluation of the PQ/AQ of BR releases. Given sometimes it to becomes excessive but I prefer a culture that strives to find truth rather than justify dogma.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 11/15/12 at 9:41am

I attribute the look of Batman Begins to a combination of soft photography and Warner's standard encoding procedures at the time. Everything they put out had a level of slight filtering (though nothing compared to what most of us consider DNR). That will likely never get a second look on BD.

The 35mm footage in TDK is a mess, plain and simple. It really should get a second look, but I have to agree that it likely won't.

I think if Nolan wises up to the issue at some point, he has the clout to make it happen. It's not like they'd even need to do a new transfer, though going from the original negative would be a good thing.

That TDKR seems to retain its filmic look, even though I'm sure WB would've been all too happy to "enhance" it for the small screen crowd, is promising. Maybe Nolan or Pfister decided to see it through.

You know what I did just a few minutes ago? I've watched 1080p wmv TDKR trailers and guess what? 35mm shots looks very good and much better than these screenshots.

The same thing happened with TDK. Great quality trailer shots (also with different color timing) and sharpened mess on Blu-ray.

What the hell, Warner?

Which screenshots are a "sharpened mess" here?

I seriously have no idea what your issue with these captures are... they look like the movie. That's how the movie looked

I said there's a difference in quality between trailer and Blu-ray, sharpened mess was in TDK.

What my issues with these screenshots are? Have you seen trailers? Have you seen Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, which Blu-ray was mastered correctly and difference between IMAX and 35mm wasn't so dramatic? Do you know how 35 mm scenes in 250 mln dollar movie should look?

Do you? I also saw Inception several times in 35mm, shot and printed on the same stocks, and it also had the same velvety, creamy look. Nolan and Pfister's style is neither grainy nor monstrously sharp.
And what does Mission Impossible have to do with anything? This isn't Mission Impossible. This movie didn't go through a DI. The transfer here is a generation removed.

I know Pfister's visual style. I just want to know why trailers looks better than Blu-ray.

I'm not sure what trailer you're talking about, do you have a link?
I forgot where I read this, but I remember reading that The Dark Knight's trailer essentially went through a 4K DI process, where they scanned the original negative coming from the shoot at 4K and digitally graded it. The finished film went through an analog process, and the DCP and IMAX masters were made from a 4K scan of the resulting interpositive, with the corresponding loss of resolution. I imagine TDKR is a similar situation.

TDK:
- http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/thedarkknight/trailer_3/DKTRL3_1080.wmv.zip

TDKR:
- http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/thedarkknightrises/trailer2/TDKR_TRL2_1080.wmv
- http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/thedarkknightrises/three/rise3_1080.wmv
That explains everything.

I have to say I love the overall lok of TDK trailer, it's a shame it doesn't look that way on Blu-ray (at least 35 mm scenes, IMAX shots - with only few exceptions in terms of contrast and color grading - are perfect). I have a lot of respect for Christopher Nolan and his style, but I don't understand why he don't want to use DI so much.

Screenshot scientist to max ^. Breaking it down, looking at trailers on his high tech monitor, pausing it, rewinding it over and over again. Then goes to the screenshots and does a comparison. People like you are so annoying. It's not that deep man. If you don't like it don't buy it. It's that simple.

I am guessing the shots are from the compressed rip I posted about earlier