or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Dark Knight Ultimate Trilogy Boxset (releases Fall 2013)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dark Knight Ultimate Trilogy Boxset (releases Fall 2013) - Page 2

post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

From what I know, trailers were done at DI (from 4K scan).

I understand why Nolan prefers shooting on film, but why he hates Digital Intermediate so much?

Nolan says it's uneconomical from a financial and time-standpoint to use digital cinema tech and that the quality just isn't there.
post #32 of 65
IIRC, with The Dark Knight, the IMAX master (or print or converion or whatever it was) was used for the Blu-Ray, which is why the 35mm scenes look the way they do on the disc. I think this was Nolan's decision, as he wanted the variable aspect ratio for BD. It would be great if the "regular theater" 35mm version was used, but Nolan would have to authorize it.
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

Nolan says it's uneconomical from a financial and time-standpoint to use digital cinema tech and that the quality just isn't there.
DI is cheaper, digital copies are cheaper, and most of the movies from DI looks 100 times better than his "oh, it was finished on film!" crap.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

IIRC, with The Dark Knight, the IMAX master (or print or converion or whatever it was) was used for the Blu-Ray, which is why the 35mm scenes look the way they do on the disc. I think this was Nolan's decision, as he wanted the variable aspect ratio for BD. It would be great if the "regular theater" 35mm version was used, but Nolan would have to authorize it.

The IMAX version came from a 4K DI, which was used to create a 4K DCP for all the "large-format" venues which had alternating aspect ratios and that was used for the Blu-Ray.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

DI is cheaper, digital copies are cheaper, and most of the movies from DI looks 100 times better than his "oh, it was finished on film!" crap.

Now that digital cinema cameras go up to 6K and there are a few 4K end-to-end post pipelines out there, I don't think I could ever shoot on film given how much better things are on the digital side these days.
post #36 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

Nolan says it's uneconomical from a financial and time-standpoint to use digital cinema tech and that the quality just isn't there.

Nolan is also a bit of a pretentious a-hole. Have you heard the man talk about film versus digital during interviews? Even I, someone who prefers the look of film, found his comments to be ungrounded. In my opinion, an artist can choose whatever canvas he wants, but don't sit there and say yours is better for reasons that simply aren't true. (I'm talking to Nolan, not you, Lex.) There are objective examples of film being better than digital as well as the opposite. Sometimes I think the only thing Nolan knows about digital photography is The Clone Wars.
post #37 of 65
I am really confused on how people can say the quality of TDK, and TDKR is such utter ****?

Now I am no cinema expert. The closest experience I have to cinematography is photography both personally and with it being in my family for years. Through developing our own film to the reluctant switch to digital, so i tend to think I have an eye for utter crap.

I understand peoples quarrels with the AR change, that bothers some people, especially those with CIH setups. However I think its brilliant and really helped the scenes that they were shot in. Furthermore while there is some changes in quality from the film media between shot scenes I'd hardly call it crap. I have seen SO MANY worse looking movies.

Batman begins drove me nuts, good movie but the image was soft. Every time a camera shot changed the black levels went from middling to super dark, color/skin tone would be oversaturated in one shot, somewhat under in another. Some shots were sharp, others were soft.. and people say that was the last good one?

The Dark Knight is easily the best one in the trilogy and I'll admit thats mainly because Ledger carried that movie with his performance.

the imax scenese were fantastic in the last 2 movies. they are breathtaking to look at, even the 35mm stuff looks fantastic and I would say the changes in look between film is hardly apparent. I have watched these movies DOZENS of times.. the dark knight way more so.. and I hardly see anything to complain that much about. It has its little imperfections, people want the original master so to speak i get that.. but to call it crap is just insane. It is without a doubt one of the best looknig movies on blu ray.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

The IMAX version came from a 4K DI, which was used to create a 4K DCP for all the "large-format" venues which had alternating aspect ratios and that was used for the Blu-Ray.

Nolan doesn't like DIs. He has badmouthed that process on numerous occasions. His movies of course need to digitally composite VFX scenes, but he doesn't use an end-to-end DI. All of the 35mm scenes in the IMAX version of The Dark Knight were run through IMAX's proprietary "DMR" process, which adds edge enhancement and noise reduction. As far as I'm aware, the standard DCP release was scanned directly from 35mm and did not have this DMR processing.

The Blu-ray, unfortunately, was mastered entirely from the DMR'ed IMAX version of the movie.
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

the imax scenese were fantastic in the last 2 movies. they are breathtaking to look at, even the 35mm stuff looks fantastic and I would say the changes in look between film is hardly apparent. I have watched these movies DOZENS of times.. the dark knight way more so.. and I hardly see anything to complain that much about. It has its little imperfections, people want the original master so to speak i get that.. but to call it crap is just insane. It is without a doubt one of the best looknig movies on blu ray.

The IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight look great, but the regular 35mm scenes are plagued with really bad edge ringing artifacts due to the IMAX DMR processing. What Warner Bros. should have done for the Blu-ray was master the 35mm scenes from 35mm and the IMAX scenes from IMAX, then merge them together. Instead, they took everything from an IMAX blow-up print that makes the 35mm scenes look like crap. (To be clear, those scenes also looked like absolute crap in IMAX theaters.)

This problem is reduced in Dark Knight Rises, because IMAX has toned down the heavy digital processing in recent DMR releases due to complaints about how bad it used to look.
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

It is without a doubt one of the best looknig movies on blu ray.
Clearly not. I think it's easily the worst-looking disc of a recent blockbuster on the format.
post #41 of 65
The flashback scenes of Two Face in TDKR have the terrible ringing.

It was at that moment I realized TDK would never get an improved video transfer.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

I am really confused on how people can say the quality of TDK, and TDKR is such utter ****?

Now I am no cinema expert. The closest experience I have to cinematography is photography both personally and with it being in my family for years. Through developing our own film to the reluctant switch to digital, so i tend to think I have an eye for utter crap.

I understand peoples quarrels with the AR change, that bothers some people, especially those with CIH setups. However I think its brilliant and really helped the scenes that they were shot in. Furthermore while there is some changes in quality from the film media between shot scenes I'd hardly call it crap. I have seen SO MANY worse looking movies.

Batman begins drove me nuts, good movie but the image was soft. Every time a camera shot changed the black levels went from middling to super dark, color/skin tone would be oversaturated in one shot, somewhat under in another. Some shots were sharp, others were soft.. and people say that was the last good one?

The Dark Knight is easily the best one in the trilogy and I'll admit thats mainly because Ledger carried that movie with his performance.

the imax scenese were fantastic in the last 2 movies. they are breathtaking to look at, even the 35mm stuff looks fantastic and I would say the changes in look between film is hardly apparent. I have watched these movies DOZENS of times.. the dark knight way more so.. and I hardly see anything to complain that much about. It has its little imperfections, people want the original master so to speak i get that.. but to call it crap is just insane. It is without a doubt one of the best looknig movies on blu ray.
Just listen to the "experts." You'll be told how it is, despite what you yourself witness. Resistance is futile. smile.gif
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Just listen to the "experts." You'll be told how it is, despite what you yourself witness. Resistance is futile. smile.gif

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
post #44 of 65
Edited: Not worth the trouble.
Edited by HD-Master - 7/10/13 at 3:45pm
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

even the 35mm stuff looks fantastic and I would say the changes in look between film is hardly apparent
Dear God, you must be joking...

How many movies on Blu-ray have you seen? I believe The Dark Knight looked good (good, not fantastic) in 2008, especially for someone who didn't know what EE, DNR and ringing are, but come on! It's 2013, we have so many STUNNING releases to compare to. I don't understand how you can watch something as unappealing as TDK or horribly soft and flat like TDKR and not only say it's fantastic, but that the difference in quality between IMAX and regular scenes is very small. Something is not right here, your eyes, your TV, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This problem is reduced in Dark Knight Rises, because IMAX has toned down the heavy digital processing in recent DMR releases due to complaints about how bad it used to look.
I wouldn't be so sure. Iron Man 3 looked almost like TDK, with many extremely horrible DNR'd shots and EE, and Fast & Furious 6 was too soft, with some ugly waxy faces.
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Dear God, you must be joking...

How many movies on Blu-ray have you seen? I believe The Dark Knight looked good (good, not fantastic) in 2008, especially for someone who didn't know what EE, DNR and ringing are, but come on! It's 2013, we have so many STUNNING releases to compare to. I don't understand how you can watch something as unappealing as TDK or horribly soft and flat like TDKR and not only say it's fantastic, but that the difference in quality between IMAX and regular scenes is very small. Something is not right here, your eyes, your TV, I don't know.
I wouldn't be so sure. Iron Man 3 looked almost like TDK, with many extremely horrible DNR'd shots and EE, and Fast & Furious 6 was too soft, with some ugly waxy faces.

Maybe I'm being to general. I'm not saying there is no difference. Clearly the detail in the imax scenes is far superior.. there were at times some DNR that was aparemt but as far as the ringing goes. I hardly think its that apparent. I'd have to stick my face on my 60" Plasma that I normally sit 8ft away from in order to notice any ringing.

How many blu rays have I seen? Is that really relevant? I guess if it makes you feel better I've probably seen ~250 or so

My sets professional calibrated too, is that okay with you?

Johnny are you sure your equipment is okay? Is your sharpness set to high? Are you watching BLU RAYS and not rips from someone else? You sure a piece of your equipment isnt exaggerating these issues you speak of?
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

How many blu rays have I seen? Is that really relevant?
Umm... yeah, it is. I can't see how TDK can be fantastic for someone who has seen Blu-rays like The International, Pirates 2 &3, King Kong, Watchmen, Se7en, etc.
Quote:
Johnny are you sure your equipment is okay? Is your sharpness set to high? Are you watching BLU RAYS and not rips from someone else? You sure a piece of your equipment isnt exaggerating these issues you speak of?
I guess you're just being sarcastic now. If there was something wrong with my setup, every movie would look ugly, don't you think? And yeah, the last time I checked all the Blu-rays on my shelf were, well, Blu-rays and sharpness on my TV is always off.
post #48 of 65
I originally had a 37" set when Dark Knight came out. The visual flaws of the disc were apparent then too, including the ridiculous edge enhancement. You certainly don't need your face pushed against the screen.

I mean, there was an entire thread discussing the issues and EE: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1086815/the-dark-knight-pq-issues

This shot - http://www.avsforum.com/t/1086815/the-dark-knight-pq-issues/360#post_15137857 - exposes the ugliest scene in the movie.
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

I originally had a 37" set when Dark Knight came out. The visual flaws of the disc were apparent then too, including the ridiculous edge enhancement. You certainly don't need your face pushed against the screen.

I mean, there was an entire thread discussing the issues and EE: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1086815/the-dark-knight-pq-issues

This shot - http://www.avsforum.com/t/1086815/the-dark-knight-pq-issues/360#post_15137857 - exposes the ugliest scene in the movie.

and I don't even think that scene is THAT bad..

The worst of it appear to be the ringing/EE on the uniforms

Granted, I know some people are just EXTREMELY picky and anal and thats fine I get that, but you guys talk about it like its trash and blow it way out of proportion.
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Umm... yeah, it is. I can't see how TDK can be fantastic for someone who has seen Blu-rays like The International, Pirates 2 &3, King Kong, Watchmen, Se7en, etc.
I guess you're just being sarcastic now. If there was something wrong with my setup, every movie would look ugly, don't you think? And yeah, the last time I checked all the Blu-rays on my shelf were, well, Blu-rays and sharpness on my TV is always off.

You make it sound like im saying its the best blu ray out there..

Without a Doubt The International/Watchmen are extremely good looking blu rays, and overall are much better looking than TDK.. but you guys talk like TDK is on part with the first 5th element transfer.
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

you guys talk about it like its trash and blow it way out of proportion.
Well, I think it is trash, sorry... it doesn't have to be as bad as the worst things on the format to still be bad, though compared with movies of similar vintage and popularity, I can't think of anything worse. It looks harsh, thoroughly electronic, and just plain bad.
Edited by 42041 - 7/11/13 at 9:26am
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Umm... yeah, it is. I can't see how TDK can be fantastic for someone who has seen Blu-rays like The International, Pirates 2 &3, King Kong, Watchmen, Se7en, etc.
I guess you're just being sarcastic now. If there was something wrong with my setup, every movie would look ugly, don't you think? And yeah, the last time I checked all the Blu-rays on my shelf were, well, Blu-rays and sharpness on my TV is always off.

You make it sound like im saying its the best blu ray out there..

Without a Doubt The International/Watchmen are extremely good looking blu rays, and overall are much better looking than TDK.. but you guys talk like TDK is on part with the first 5th element transfer.
There are folks who appear to repeatedly bash releases at every turn and you'll seldom see the the phrase "in my opinion" used. It usually, in my experience, is presented as absolute fact. I am not saying that specifically about AVS, as you see it in Blu-ray release threads on every forum.
Edited by HD-Master - 7/11/13 at 2:46pm
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Dear God, you must be joking...

How many movies on Blu-ray have you seen? I believe The Dark Knight looked good (good, not fantastic) in 2008, especially for someone who didn't know what EE, DNR and ringing are, but come on! It's 2013, we have so many STUNNING releases to compare to. I don't understand how you can watch something as unappealing as TDK or horribly soft and flat like TDKR and not only say it's fantastic, but that the difference in quality between IMAX and regular scenes is very small. Something is not right here, your eyes, your TV, I don't know.
I wouldn't be so sure. Iron Man 3 looked almost like TDK, with many extremely horrible DNR'd shots and EE, and Fast & Furious 6 was too soft, with some ugly waxy faces.
Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious6 have NOT been released to home video yet. Theatrical projection is not applicable to this discussion, when the Blu rays are released then comparisons can be made.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Well, I think it is trash, sorry... it doesn't have to be as bad as the worst things on the format to still be bad, though compared with movies of similar vintage and popularity, I can't think of anything worse. It looks harsh, thoroughly electronic, and just plain bad.

Worst indeed of recent blockbusters I have watched in the format, even the color somehow looks fake and unnatural. It is ironic that Nolan claims to love film yet TDK on Blu-ray looks more fake and electronic than all other movies that went through a DCI.
post #55 of 65
I don't know what to say then

My eyes are shot, my Calibration must be awful and I apparently don't have good taste.

It's not perfect, if I sat and nit picked every little frame I'm sure I'd hate it too.. but if I sit back and watch it it's a great movie. Very few scenes in the moment look "off" if I paused I'm sure I could tear it apart.. Ignorance is bliss? I suppose so. However people act like im denying the problems the transfer has when I'm not I'm simply stating that issues aside IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I THINK ITS A GREAT LOOKING MOVIE..

The "Worst" scene in the movie if I watch it Posted above. I don't notice the problems sitting 8 feet away on my 60 inch ST60.. if I move up close I can see it a bit (skipped through a bit last night)

if I let the scene just play out, these issues are almost non noticeible on most areas to me.. It looks far worse in these screen caps on my computer monitor than it does if I pause the disc on my TV.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady195 View Post

I don't know what to say then

My eyes are shot, my Calibration must be awful and I apparently don't have good taste.

It's not perfect, if I sat and nit picked every little frame I'm sure I'd hate it too.. but if I sit back and watch it it's a great movie. Very few scenes in the moment look "off" if I paused I'm sure I could tear it apart.. Ignorance is bliss? I suppose so. However people act like im denying the problems the transfer has when I'm not I'm simply stating that issues aside IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I THINK ITS A GREAT LOOKING MOVIE..

The "Worst" scene in the movie if I watch it Posted above. I don't notice the problems sitting 8 feet away on my 60 inch ST60.. if I move up close I can see it a bit (skipped through a bit last night)

if I let the scene just play out, these issues are almost non noticeible on most areas to me.. It looks far worse in these screen caps on my computer monitor than it does if I pause the disc on my TV.

People with projectors sit closer and you also would see more of it at 5 or 6 feet away. Also I did not say it isn't watchable just that among the blockbusters it is the worst I can think of - please note that usually all blockbusters look great so this does not mean it has to look horrible to be the worst, for me I'd say it looks mediocre at best and that is already generous given the much longer runtime of the 35mm scenes.

In the end it does not matter, you can like what you like but you would probably always find a number of people on this and other forums that will disagree when it comes to the quality of TDK, more so where more users sit closer and/or have biggers screens.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

People with projectors sit closer and you also would see more of it at 5 or 6 feet away. Also I did not say it isn't watchable just that among the blockbusters it is the worst I can think of - please note that usually all blockbusters look great so this does not mean it has to look horrible to be the worst, for me I'd say it looks mediocre at best and that is already generous given the much longer runtime of the 35mm scenes.

In the end it does not matter, you can like what you like but you would probably always find a number of people on this and other forums that will disagree when it comes to the quality of TDK, more so where more users sit closer and/or have biggers screens.

Well I'll be happy to comment on thsi thread again when I get my projector setup hopefully within a few weeks..
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

Worst indeed of recent blockbusters I have watched in the format, even the color somehow looks fake and unnatural. It is ironic that Nolan claims to love film yet TDK on Blu-ray looks more fake and electronic than all other movies that went through a DCI.
Funny you should say that. When I saw it in a theater using film and not digital projection my impression was this is extremely clean( in a digital sense) and not as film like as somethings I had seen shot on film and transferred to digital. I'm thinking that unnatural look is what Nolan was going for.
post #59 of 65
Modern anamorphic 35mm IS clean. It's not the 80s. Since you were literally watching an analog print, there's no possible way it could have a "digital" look.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Modern anamorphic 35mm IS clean. It's not the 80s. Since you were literally watching an analog print, there's no possible way it could have a "digital" look.

Sure it could. Just because he saw a non-digital print at his cinema doesn't mean it wasn't manipulated digitally before the actual film was printed.
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 Ultimate Trilogy Boxset (releases Fall 2013)