Dark Knight, aspect ratio hell

[zinfamous]

I know this is old news, but I only now saw this confirmation. Not sure if it was posted before, but I remember hearing about this and misinterpreting as an issue concerning the IMAX showings when TDK was still in theaters.

I haven't paid attention to the issue as I haven't given the flick much thought after seeing it.

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.ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=6466

so...yeah. This means that those of us with 16:9 sets will get shifting aspect ratios throughout, when switching from IMAX cameras to the normal. Shouldn't really been an issue for those with Screens, I'm guessing.

awesome. I mean...no. that is terrible. Cry all you want about how "It's the director's intent," but sometimes you have to accept that directors can make ridiculous mistakes.

This is a staggering "4th wall" violation for a flick that absolutely needs to maintain that wall.

another discussion:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb...d.php?t=1086815&page=2

and yes, several have already received their BD copies...

 

[s44]

Naah, remember: the rest of the movie was in scope, so the IMAX bits basically opened up the top and the bottom of the shots... Same thing will happen on your HD set: you'll go from letterbox to full-frame then back, but it's all additional info. No messing with shots being a different size from how they were supposed to appear.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: s44
Naah, remember: the rest of the movie was in scope, so the IMAX bits basically opened up the top and the bottom of the shots... Same thing will happen on your HD set: you'll go from letterbox to full-frame then back, but it's all additional info. No messing with shots being a different size from how they were supposed to appear.

um, exactly. you go from full frame (on 16:9) to black bars throughout the flick. back and forth.

the point is not that the aspect ratios are maintained, it's that they switch; well, that they ARE maintained. This is undeniably retarded, having 2 ASPECT RATIOS in a film.

again, breaking the 4th wall.

and your still taking the "how the director wanted it bit" without some real critical analysis. I love Nolan, I think he's fantastic. This decision, however, is terrible.

 

[erwos]

I'm a little surprised that they aren't including "regular ratio" versions of the "IMAX-enabled" parts. That way, you would get the choice of watching it in a steady aspect ratio _or_ as how the director intended. 50gb is a lot of space for that sort of thing...

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: s44
Naah, remember: the rest of the movie was in scope, so the IMAX bits basically opened up the top and the bottom of the shots... Same thing will happen on your HD set: you'll go from letterbox to full-frame then back, but it's all additional info. No messing with shots being a different size from how they were supposed to appear.

um, exactly. you go from full frame (on 16:9) to black bars throughout the flick. back and forth.

the point is not that the aspect ratios are maintained, it's that they switch; well, that they ARE maintained. This is undeniably retarded, having 2 ASPECT RATIOS in a film.

again, breaking the 4th wall.

and your still taking the "how the director wanted it bit" without some real critical analysis. I love Nolan, I think he's fantastic. This decision, however, is terrible.

You know, I saw the movie on Imax, and you really barely noticed the shift when it happened. Often times I'd catch it a minute later and realize "oh, ok, we're done with the Imax part again", so it wasn't anything jolting at all.

 

[krotchy]

Want a tissue?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: s44
Naah, remember: the rest of the movie was in scope, so the IMAX bits basically opened up the top and the bottom of the shots... Same thing will happen on your HD set: you'll go from letterbox to full-frame then back, but it's all additional info. No messing with shots being a different size from how they were supposed to appear.

um, exactly. you go from full frame (on 16:9) to black bars throughout the flick. back and forth.

the point is not that the aspect ratios are maintained, it's that they switch; well, that they ARE maintained. This is undeniably retarded, having 2 ASPECT RATIOS in a film.

again, breaking the 4th wall.

and your still taking the "how the director wanted it bit" without some real critical analysis. I love Nolan, I think he's fantastic. This decision, however, is terrible.

You know, I saw the movie on Imax, and you really barely noticed the shift when it happened. Often times I'd catch it a minute later and realize "oh, ok, we're done with the Imax part again", so it wasn't anything jolting at all.

I think it would be great if you had the option to turn this "feature" on or off. That would be perfect.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: s44
Naah, remember: the rest of the movie was in scope, so the IMAX bits basically opened up the top and the bottom of the shots... Same thing will happen on your HD set: you'll go from letterbox to full-frame then back, but it's all additional info. No messing with shots being a different size from how they were supposed to appear.

um, exactly. you go from full frame (on 16:9) to black bars throughout the flick. back and forth.

the point is not that the aspect ratios are maintained, it's that they switch; well, that they ARE maintained. This is undeniably retarded, having 2 ASPECT RATIOS in a film.

again, breaking the 4th wall.

and your still taking the "how the director wanted it bit" without some real critical analysis. I love Nolan, I think he's fantastic. This decision, however, is terrible.

You know, I saw the movie on Imax, and you really barely noticed the shift when it happened. Often times I'd catch it a minute later and realize "oh, ok, we're done with the Imax part again", so it wasn't anything jolting at all.

I think it would be great if you had the option to turn this "feature" on or off. That would be perfect.

yeah. it wouldn't be so noticeable on a gigantic IMAX. your home set or screen is a different matter. The AVS folk are already setting their matts to 16:9, b/c when set at 2.35:1 and it jumps to the IMAX sequences, half the picture disappears.

 

[pennylane]

Yeah, I really don't care. I would think that it would be more obvious in IMAX, where the aspect ratio changes from 2.35:1 to 1:1 (or so it seemed). On blu-ray, it changes from 2.35:1 to 16:9. That doesn't seem as bad.

 

[PurdueRy]

I don't know why people would want the director to cut off part of the frame of the video simply to maintain one aspect ratio if that wasn't the original intent. Isn't that why we hate full-screen so much?

 

[biggestmuff]

That's really dumb of him to do. I use to like Nolan's film for the visual style that he and his DP created; Momento. He and Gore Verbinski had similar styles that helped to refresh cinematography. This, however, is unprofessional and immature. It really is a step back.

I didn't read the link, but what exactly is happening with the aspect ratios?

Switching back and forth between 2.4:1 and 16:9 (to fill an HD screen) or switching between 2.4:1 and 1.43:1 (native IMAX AR, which would pillar-box on an HD screen)? If it's the first (between 2.4:1 and 16:9) then he's still chopping off part of the IMAX shot, unless they didn't film full-frame IMAX.

The whole thing is rather screwy. Just another way to confuse poor, ol' Joe Six Pack.

"Somethins wrong with my Bluray DVD. The picture keeps gettin' chopped off!"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I don't know why people would want the director to cut off part of the frame of the video simply to maintain one aspect ratio if that wasn't the original intent. Isn't that why we hate full-screen so much?

I don't think you understand the issue.

It's not about asking him to cut off material. in the normal theatrical presentation, the IMAX stock was still used, but scaled. to fit the 2.35 AR. no info lost, no pan and scan, of course.

People who have already watched the BD, and compared to their seeing it at IMAX mention that it is far more noticeable at home than it was at IMAX.

also, those with screens will have to set their matts at 16:9, or they will get serious cropping when the bulk of the film (non-IMAX) material hits. This has already been confirmed.

either way, the heart of the issue, I think, is that Nolan made a poor decision to begin with. I imagine he saw an opportunity to film the whole thing in 70mm (which would have been sweet), but Warner was "WTF are you thinking? you want us to fork over 50mil just for the freaking stock???" So, rather than suck it up, he chose to shoot a few grand scenes in 70mm, the bulk at 35mm.

So watching this on your flat screen, either you can deal with the full frame presentation jumping back and forth with black bars or not.

I've never had a problem with maintaining aspect ratios. again, I've been buying "widescreen," as it's been called, whenever it was available on VHS, back when the majority would always bitch about the bars. ...This is not the same issue.

I don't mind experimenting with film--I wouldn't enjoy it so much if it weren't a true art form, but you don't apply postmodern experimentation on this type of fun-time brainless action flick...which is all TDK is. It's not philosophy, there is nothing deep or metaphysical to be found in this story. You shouldn't have the medium itself constantly reminding you that you're watching an image, taring you from the fantasy world.

I guarantee where it not for Nolan's previous work having proven his ability, no studio or producer would have let him use various stock.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
That's really dumb of him to do. I use to like Nolan's film for the visual style that he and his DP created; Momento. He and Gore Verbinski had similar styles that helped to refresh cinematography. This, however, is unprofessional and immature. It really is a step back.

I didn't read the link, but what exactly is happening with the aspect ratios?

Switching back and forth between 2.4:1 and 16:9 (to fill an HD screen) or switching between 2.4:1 and 1.43:1 (native IMAX AR, which would pillar-box on an HD screen)? If it's the first (between 2.4:1 and 16:9) then he's still chopping off part of the IMAX shot, unless they didn't film full-frame IMAX.

The whole thing is rather screwy. Just another way to confuse poor, ol' Joe Six Pack.

"Somethins wrong with my Bluray DVD. The picture keeps gettin' chopped off!"

:thumsbup; finally...someone knows what I'm talking about! :beer:

yeah, so what happens on the current BD release is that the IMAX shots will be full-frame on 1.75:1 AR (16:9 screens). the bulk of the film, at 2.35:1, will appear, of course, with the horizontal bars. And it will switch back and forth throughout, and you WILL notice this. No info is lost.

Nolan does claim that the grain is more detailed with the 70mm footage, you'd hope so. But this is a Warner release, and reports are already coming in of DNR tomfoolery wiping out all that glorious grain, which, in the end, makes presenting this in 70mm completely useless.

The DVD widescreen release maintains the 2.35 that people saw in regular theaters. again, no Info lost. Though, I'm not sure if the IMAX shots will appear stretched. It didn't appear that way to me in the theater

 

[PurdueRy]

Still not understanding the big deal. I saw the film on Imax and I most certainly noticed the aspect ratio switch. So I'll notice it also on my home TV. What's the big deal? It's going from 16:9 to 2.35:1. IIRC, the Imax scenes were rather sparse anyway. They looked great when they were there, but I was disappointed with how few there were.

I really could care less whether it was displayed with pillar black bars which is what I am assuming you want or filled to the 16:9 screen. I think it would look pretty weird if the Imax aspect ratio image was surrounded by a black box. This is what would occur if you fit the imax aspect ratio into the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The thing about those Imax scenes was that the size of them were impressive. I think you would lose the impressiveness if you smashed the imax image into a tiny window.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I don't know why people would want the director to cut off part of the frame of the video simply to maintain one aspect ratio if that wasn't the original intent. Isn't that why we hate full-screen so much?

I don't think you understand the issue.

It's not about asking him to cut off material. in the normal theatrical presentation, the IMAX stock was still used, but scaled. to fit the 2.35 AR. no info lost, no pan and scan, of course.

So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't scale IMAX to fit scope. They simply lopped off big chunks of the image (top and bottom) for non-IMAX presentation. What IMAX showed was the full, "real" version. Blu-Ray is still somewhat cut, because 16:9 isn't as tall as IMAX so it doesn't open up as much. But what you want is an even more cut version. Just because that's what regular theaters showed doesn't mean it's magically no longer cut and info hasn't been lost.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I don't know why people would want the director to cut off part of the frame of the video simply to maintain one aspect ratio if that wasn't the original intent. Isn't that why we hate full-screen so much?

I don't think you understand the issue.

It's not about asking him to cut off material. in the normal theatrical presentation, the IMAX stock was still used, but scaled. to fit the 2.35 AR. no info lost, no pan and scan, of course.

So, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't scale IMAX to fit scope. They simply lopped off big chunks of the image (top and bottom) for non-IMAX presentation. What IMAX showed was the full, "real" version. Blu-Ray is still somewhat cut, because 16:9 isn't as tall as IMAX so it doesn't open up as much. But what you want is an even more cut version. Just because that's what regular theaters showed doesn't mean it's magically no longer cut and info hasn't been lost.

You can actually...but it will be a picture inside a black border...and that picture will be pretty tiny. Thereby losing all the impact those large open shots were supposed to have.

 

[vi edit]

I actually got around to watching this last weekend and it was a little annoying. There were a handful of times where the movie would go from a letterboxed 2.35 to a full screen 16:9 and then back.

Probably the single most impressive shot in the movie PQ wise was when Fox was in the lobby of the Chinese guy's building. That was shot in 16:9 and the colors and sharpness were amazing.

 

[Slick5150]

I thought the AR changes were as seemless as when I saw the movie on the IMAX screen. I don't get the "annoyance" of it at all.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
I thought the AR changes were as seemless as when I saw the movie on the IMAX screen. I don't get the "annoyance" of it at all.

When watching it at home on my PS3 and HDTV you'd have a letterboxed picture for half an hour then it would quick flip over to a full screen shot for about 20 seconds and then flip back over to letter box. Rinse and repeat this a handful of times.

It's just makes for a very unfinished feeling product.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Slick5150
I thought the AR changes were as seemless as when I saw the movie on the IMAX screen. I don't get the "annoyance" of it at all.

When watching it at home on my PS3 and HDTV you'd have a letterboxed picture for half an hour then it would quick flip over to a full screen shot for about 20 seconds and then flip back over to letter box. Rinse and repeat this a handful of times.

It's just makes for a very unfinished feeling product.

If I hadn't read about it on here, I might not have even noticed. My dad (who is unaware of this "controversy") never said anything so I doubt he noticed.

 

[Spoooon]

It was noticeable in the sense that I knew the aspect ratio had changed, but it was not jarring enough that I got pulled out of the movie. I think there were just a few scenes where there did not seem to be much point to having the imax shot.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

I think this would be quite annoying for someone like me with a masking system in place.

If I have it set up for 2.35:1 for the movie
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/sp...point35to1%20Angle.JPG
and then the aspect ratio changes, I'm going to be shooting image onto my masking system. This will not be a good thing, as the whole point of the material I used is that it's incredibly black and almost nothing shows up on it.

Example of what an image looks like projected onto some cloth:
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/sp...System/07%20Velvet.JPG
(There's a portion of the "wrong" side of the fabric on the upper part of the right and left sides that you can still see the image on)

 

[erwos]

I watched TDK the other week for the first time, and I gotta say, the AR shifts didn't really bother me so much on my SXRD.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
It was noticeable in the sense that I knew the aspect ratio had changed, but it was not jarring enough that I got pulled out of the movie. I think there were just a few scenes where there did not seem to be much point to having the imax shot.

The switch didn't have much impact in darker scenes, but there were two, maybe three that really did bug me.

It's not a huge deal, but I wish they hadn't done it this way.

 

[Tegeril]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
I think this would be quite annoying for someone like me with a masking system in place.

If I have it set up for 2.35:1 for the movie
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/spmclaughlin/web/7%20DIY%20Screen/4%20Finished/6%202point35to1%20Angle.JPG">https://mywebspace.wisc.edu......t35to1%20Angle.JPG</a>
and then the aspect ratio changes, I'm going to be shooting image onto my masking system. This will not be a good thing, as the whole point of the material I used is that it's incredibly black and almost nothing shows up on it.

Example of what an image looks like projected onto some cloth:
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/spmclaughlin/web/7%20DIY%20Screen/3%20Border%20and%20Masking%20System/07%20Velvet.JPG">https://mywebspace.wisc.edu......em/07%20Velvet.JPG</a>
(There's a portion of the "wrong" side of the fabric on the upper part of the right and left sides that you can still see the image on)

Setups like that are the exception, not the rule.