[piratehunter]



Quote:
While speaking with iF Magazine, 'The Dark Knight' director Christopher Nolan mentioned that the inevitable of Blu-ray will feature the IMAX shifted aspect ratio. He commented, "The Blu-ray, in particular, will be able to actually use the shifted aspect ratios as it appears on the IMAX screen because the 16:9 aspect ratio is sufficiently different from the 2:4 that you'll actually see a shift on the Blu-ray."


He continued, "The resolution on the Blu-ray is clear enough that you can actually see difference in grain structure and sharpness. So I think it will be quite spectacular."


The film has still not hit theaters, so the Blu-ray is far off, but its interesting to learn that the high definition format is exciting directors.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1488


Announcements like this make me hesitant to jump into CIH. That and the fact that almost every Blu-ray I watch now has subtitles in the bars instead of the image.


I was just wondering how you CIH owners felt about this?

 

[rboster]

The glory of cinemascope outweights the handful of titles that are affected by something like an aspect ratio switch in Dark Knight or the occasional subtitles in the black bars (which I use a scaler to overcome...not perfect, but liveable). So I go with the flow. Never understood why members said once you go scope, you'll not want to go back...until I went scope. Besides going from big screen to projector...this was the next best thing to happen to my Home Theater experience.

 

[piratehunter]

How does the scaler overcome the subtitle issue?

 

[rboster]

You adjust the framing slightly to compensate for the subtitles. I'm using a Radiance by lumagen

 

[Josh Z]

For what it's worth, the IMAX footage in Dark Knight was composed to work at either aspect ratio. The 35mm release prints will be projected at a consistent 2.35:1, with the IMAX scenes cropped on the top and bottom. So it should be fine to do the same at home.

 

[Cam Man]



Quote:
"The resolution on the Blu-ray is clear enough that you can actually see difference in grain structure and sharpness. So I think it will be quite spectacular."

What Chris Nolan says is true, but it's not the whole story. We will be able to see the PQ factors he mentioned, but no HT technology can do it at the IMAX scale. The whole point of IMAX is scale with PQ. We will be able to enjoy the wonderful sharpness and lack of grain of IMAX in 16:9, and the 35mm anamorphic footage as well. If the IMAX portions on BD were in their NAR of 1.33, it would not be very impressive because it would occupy the TV portion of the 16:9 panels. If they transfer all those sequences at full 16:9 (1.78), then I plan to have the Lumagen remote in my hands to select the appropriate AR for the appropriate scene. I'll take the bars on the side for that portion because I know if they gave us the full 1.33 NAR and I pulled the lens, it will be no better because it would occupy even less of the 16:9 panels (the scaled down 1.33 verses partial-panel 16:9 via scaler). This is a situation that just does not translate perfectly from the IMAX theater to the home theater...at least not yet.


Here is the current ICG article on the film. http://http://icgmagazine.com/2008/july/july08.html The International Cinematographer's Guild will have a special IMAX screening for members later this month in L.A. followed by a Q&A with DP Wally Pfister. I may try to make that!!

 

[R Harkness]

What a strange idea (it seems to me) to shoot part IMAX. I'm trying to picture how it will switch between scope and IMAX in a movie theater without seeming odd and jarring.


Proof will be in the pudding I guess.

 

[Cam Man]



Quote:
What a strange idea (it seems to me) to shoot part IMAX. I'm trying to picture how it will switch between scope and IMAX in a movie theater without seeming odd and jarring.


Proof will be in the pudding I guess.

My thoughts exactly. The ICG article give a little of the evolution of the decision process. I plan to see it in both formats, but I'm not so sure how much difference, if any, will be visible in the 35 print. That would be our clue as to what to expect on BD at home.


I think in IMAX thaters it might be impressive to see the switch which will undoubtedly be at important punctuation points in the story and will be accompanied by some creative changes in the score/sound. The other question is how much of each format's NAR will be used. Will all of the 2.40 frame be used in IMAX? What AR will the IMAX portion use in IMAX theaters? All or part? Should be interesting.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/14290419


The other question is how much of each format's NAR will be used. Will all of the 2.40 frame be used in IMAX? What AR will the IMAX portion use in IMAX theaters? All or part? Should be interesting.

I don't know how reliable the information is, but someone on another forum claims to have seen an early IMAX screening and insists that all of the 35mm footage is cropped to the IMAX 1.44:1 aspect ratio, a la what was done to Attack of the Clones and Apollo 13. However, this seems to contradict statements from the studio made elsewhere.

 

[Cam Man]



Quote:
the 35mm footage is cropped to the IMAX 1.44:1 aspect ratio, a la what was done to Attack of the Clones and Apollo 13.

Interesting. I have only seen Apollo 13 on IMAX...and was very impressed in just about every way. I was shocked at how tame the grain structure was on the giant screen. I don't recall the aspect ratio, but it was quite pleasing. I would think this is easier to do with Apollo 13 because it is a Super 35 film; they have a lot of negative area to use...presuming they protected above and below the 2.40 lines. We try to protect those areas, but sometimes when the bullet hits the bone, you take something in there (like a bit of a flag, mic, etc). You can't do that with anamorphic; what you see in the viewfinder is what you get on the film. The frame line between anamorphic frames is razor thin.


I saw a still of the IMAX frame where Mr. Bale is face to face with his cowl. It is the one with a lot of head room. There is a chunk of the corner a four-by solid (flag) in the picture between camera and actor. I guess there is the chance that it is a production still rather than an actual IMAX frame (I'm sure it's not in the movie). My point is that there is often stuff photographed outside the planned frame lines when it's too big a deal to take the time to make it otherwise.


I will see the IMAX TDK Sunday.

 

[sound dropouts]

I DONT want to see a cropped version of a movie...sadly, the way this was filmed, it looks like it will HAVE to be cropped.

 

[LilGator]

From this review it seems it was presented in multi-AR, though it's hard to say for sure: http://www.reddit.com/info/6s18c/comments/#c04pqop

 

[Cam Man]



Quote:
I DONT want to see a cropped version of a movie...sadly, the way this was filmed, it looks like it will HAVE to be cropped.

If you are seeing the same frame the camera operator used to frame with, you are not getting a "cropped" movie (Super 35, 1.85, etc). With an oversized format/negative like IMAX, it is a matter of what to protect during photography and what to extract for release. TDK uses two formats with very different aspect ratios and potential experiences due to the great difference in negative area of the two formats. Cropping does not degrade IMAX per se. It only may change its aspect ratio and overall scope/scale. Any cropping of the smaller anamorphic frame, then enlarging it to a scale for which it is not intended, is the wild card. We'll have to see how well they pull it off. Let's hope they keep all the scale they can without trashing the 35 anamorphic portions.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/14299585


Interesting. I have only seen Apollo 13 on IMAX...and was very impressed in just about every way. I was shocked at how tame the grain structure was on the giant screen. I don't recall the aspect ratio, but it was quite pleasing. I would think this is easier to do with Apollo 13 because it is a Super 35 film; they have a lot of negative area to use...presuming they protected above and below the 2.40 lines.

Apollo 13 was a mix of open matte (for most live action footage) and cropping (for most VFX shots).


IIRC, Attack of the Clones was shot at 16:9 in the digital cameras, then matted for realease. However, almost every single shot in the movie has CGI elements which were only rendered for the 2.35:1 frame. The IMAX release was a straight-up pan&scan job.


From the time of Matrix Reloaded forward, all subsequent IMAX DMR presentations have been projected in their movies' original aspect ratios. If Dark Knight really is cropped (which remains to be seen), it would be the first time that's happened since Attack of the Clones. I think the movie would be much more effective with alternating aspect ratios on the IMAX screen, but who knows what they're really planning? When it comes to Blu-ray, the altnernating aspect ratios would likely be too distracting and I'll probably zoom the whole thing to 2.35:1.

 

[CAVX]

I went to see Dark Knight tonight and must say, I really enjoyed it.


The idea of croping this film from 2.35:1 back to 1.44:1 is going to leave some wondering what exactly is going on as there are a few scenes where the actors are conversing from hard left and hard right (all dialogue comes from centre). If the film was cropped back to say 1.85:1, you might find that you are not able to see the actors in these sceens at all, much less trying to watch it in 1.44:1 for IMAX. Of course, it it was shot in Super 35, then this shouldn't be an issue...


Mark

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The image will not be cropped in IMAX theatres. Those 4 specific scenes were shot in IMAX 1:33, 1:44 or whatever it is with everything elses "letterboxed" to maintain 2:35. But I believe the image will be cropped in a "normal" theatre when showing the IMAX scenes, cropping top and bottom to adapt to 2:35. I'm not sure but I believe Dark Knight is shot anamorphic, like Batman Begins.

 

[UUronl]

More here:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tech...ects/9677.html



"The final film, reported Keighley, cuts between 2.40:1 and 1.33:1 more than a dozen times. “Sometimes it’s very evident, and sometimes you don’t even notice it,” said Keighley, who emphasized the testing Nolan did before he went forward. “His vision was correct.” "



I also thought it was interesting that they reveal the scene from "Batman Begins" when he is thrown out of the truck in China had a 6K ingest from the 70mm DMR. That scene always struck me with its splendor... I guess that helps explain it. I always chalked it up to DI finishing.


EDIT - I see it in IMAX on Tuesday...

 

[Steve Carr]

I saw the film this morning at 9am in an IMAX Theatre. I wanted to see what the hype was all about IMAX.. was it the PQ? the SQ? the "GIANT SCREEN"? well I thought it was all that. First of all the Movie was great

. When I sat down I thought well its one big giant 4:3 screen. When it started I saw the black bars and I said to myself. What the "HELL" this is IMAX great

. So I started looking around the back walls at the surround speakers and they were all across the back and side walls. This movie has a great audio track. The surrounds were working overtime in this movie. The LFE in House also sounded good. I got caught up in the movie and all of a sudden I was like what "HELL" just happen did I see the screen "MOVE". WOW, this crazy

IMAX version jumps around the "A/R" (aspect ratio). WOW, awesome you know it seems like they were using like a 4:3 projector with a cinemascope movie with the black bars showing and all of a sudden the movie turns into 4:3 black bars disappear and back again with the black bars. So this is what all the hype is all about pretty

...


Steve

 

[UUronl]

You probably already know this... but IMAX is like a triple frame of 70mm... So for the "regular" 2.40:1 stuff it's like a 70mm print. For the 1.33:1 it's the full frame.

It is refreshing to see this focus on large negatives. I won't argue that digital cinema is gorgeous - even with 2K projection. However, we could be doing so much more - even more than the 4K projectors popping up. A long time ago, the biggest movies were shot and projected in 70mm for the lucky folks who had access to movie houses that big. It's nice to see that the idea hasn't died.


http://www.redballoon.net/70mmfilmlist.html

 

[syncguy]

IMO, the 70mm version is pleasing rather than the IMX box aspect.