The Dark Knight Rises Batman 3 to the i(MAX)!!!

[Russell Nash]

My setup:

Runco LS-5 DLP Projector
Panasonic TH-65PF20U 65'' Professional Series HD Plasma Display
B & W (Bowers & Wilkins) Speakers, 800 Series Diamond (7.1 Setup)
B & W (Bowers & Wilkins) DB1 Subwoofer
Anthem AVM 50v Preamp Processor
Anthem PVA 8 (8 channels, RCA inputs 125 watts per channel)
Modified Oppo BDP-83 Region Free Blu-ray disc player
PS3
XBOX 360
Wii

 

[KalMart]

By your standard, every 4x3 movie is worthless to show in high-definition. It's really not that difficult to understand and I'd hate to be going around in cyclical arguments. The pillarboxed image and the 16x9 image are both technically in 1080.

No, because 4:3 content isn't intended to be bigger than widescreen movies and shown in a theater that extends beyond the field of view in both directions...as if it's surrounding you. IMAX is. If 4:3 movies were, they'd be shot differently, framed differently, screened differently, and would have pushed for a larger/higher resolution viewing technology years ago. They're not worthless in HD, they're just not as wide as 16x9 and 2.35:1 material...but they weren't intended to be. IMAX is intended to be much bigger overall, with a smaller 'widescreen' movie screen as reference......not narrower with black on the sides.

Simply have the Blu-ray of TDK with two different versions of the film. On one disc you have the theatrical version which is consistently shown in 2.35:1. On disc two you have a pillarboxed (the actual term is pillarbox not centerpunching) 1.44:1 version along with the 2.35:1 scenes. If you have a big enough TV, the resolution difference shouldn't matter at all.

No, even if you have a bigger TV, it can matter even more because at a certain point, you're not increasing resolution, you're zooming in to the actual pixels the closer you sit...again, like enlarging a smaller photograph, since the relative size/resolution of the pillared IMAX image is now downsized to fit into the 16x9. What you're basically asking for is a taller, more 1.44:1-like frame that some folks can project on a taller wall/screen...but that doesn't make it a better picture-viewing experience...just a taller one.

By the way, what's the resolution of that 4:3 Runco projector your using for 'home IMAX'?

What your suggesting is an actual recreation of the 1.44:1 IMAX image which is almost impossible given the limitations of modern digital projectors. BTW, just curious, what's your HT set up like?

I have a 47" Panny plasma, Oppo BDP-83 Special Edition BR player, a Denon 3808 AVR used as a pre-pro into a 7-channel Outlaw 7200 power amp and 7 Dynaudio speakers/SVS sub with Audyssey room-eq. Modest, but plenty for a 475-sq-foot room. I also work in film...particulary in post-production from editing to release, so I actually deal with these resolution issues quite often,including preparing DCP's for major theaters.

 

[Russell Nash]

No, because 4:3 content isn't intended to be bigger than widescreen movies and shown in a theater that extends beyond the field of view in both directions...as if it's surrounding you. IMAX is.


No, even if you have a bigger TV, it can matter even more because at a certain point, you're not increasing resolution, you're zooming in to the actual pixels the closer you sit...again, like enlarging a smaller photograph, since the relative size/resolution of the pillared IMAX image is now downsized to fit into the 16x9. What you're basically asking for is a taller, more 1.44:1-like frame that some folks can project on a taller wall/screen...but that doesn't make it a better picture-viewing experience...just a taller one.

By the way, what's the resolution of that 4:3 Runco projector your using for 'home IMAX'?


I have a 47" Panny plasma, Oppo BDP-83 Special Edition BR player, a Denon 3808 AVR used as a pre-pro into a 7-channel Outlaw 7200 power amp and 7 Dynaudio speakers/SVS sub with Audyssey room-eq. Modest, but plenty for a 475-sq-foot room. I also work in film...particulary in post-production from editing to release, so I actually deal with these resolution issues quite often,including preparing DCP's for major theaters.

Are you dense or something? I'd assume since you allegedly work in the industry that you should know more on the topic. I simply want a pillarboxed version of TDK that isn't cropped to hell to view at home.

My projector has a contrast ratio of 15000:1 and has a native resolution of 1920x1080 that is projected on a 1.33:1 screen. You can never get the "true resolution" of the IMAX scenes because there is no consumer based model that can show it. The pillarboxed 1.44:1 image would still technically be only 1080. The 1.78:1 image is ALSO only going to be in 1080. I would rather see the entire image instead of a cropped version of the film. The argument of filling the "entire screen" is on par with a child wanting to watch a pan and scanned VHS on a old CRT TV.

On TNT right now, they're showing TDK with a constant aspect ratio of 1.78:1, even the non IMAX scenes. Meaning majority of the film is ruined! If you want to watch the IMAX version at home (which you really can't), it should at least be in the proper aspect ratio. Beyond that, the film should be a consistent 2.35:1 for all other releases.

 

[KalMart]

Are you dense or something? I'd assume since you allegedly work in the industry that you should know more on the topic. I simply want a pillarboxed version of TDK that isn't cropped to hell to view at home.

My projector has a contrast ratio of 15000:1 and has a native resolution of 1920x1080 that is projected on a 1.33:1 screen. You can never get the "true resolution" of the IMAX scenes because there is no consumer based model that can show it. The pillarboxed 1.44:1 image would still technically be only 1080. The 1.78:1 image is ALSO only going to be in 1080. I would rather see the entire image instead of a cropped version of the film. The argument of filling the "entire screen" is on par with a child wanting to watch a pan and scanned VHS on a old CRT TV. [/QUOTE]
So...a pillared 1.44:1 will still have black on each side and won't be as wide as the 'smaller' format 35mm footage. And the 'entire' image is now even smaller and reduced in reference size. Yeah, it's taller and in the original ratio...but it's narrower where it's supposed to be just as wide as the rest...so the particulars of the image are smaller in relation to screen size. Nice work, there.

I'm sure that' what the filmmakers intended.

On TNT right now, they're showing TDK with a constant aspect ratio of 1.78:1, even the non IMAX scenes. Meaning majority of the film is ruined!

So you're a self-proclaimed 'videophile'....and you're watching TDK on TNT? Alrighty.

If you want to watch the IMAX version at home (which you really can't), it should at least be in the proper aspect ratio. Beyond that, the film should be a consistent 2.35:1 for all other releases.

The whole point of IMAX is to give you an experience that you CAN'T get at home, not to mention regular movie theaters. If you want at least some of that at home, you should push for higher-resolution 1.44:1 4K+ projectors and formats....or at least 1920 x 1333 TV's/projectors (with a very thin strip of picture for the 2.35 material), and prepare a room where the vertical and horizontal edges extend out of your field of view. The width of the picture throughout should not change from left-to right screen edges...only the height should. If you can't do that, it's just posing...in a very odd way. But if that makes you happy, maybe there is a market for that.

 

[KalMart]

Basically Russell, I know what you're after, but it's just not a really good idea for anyone except those who somehow want to project a taller image than the 2.35 frame like you're doing. It still gives you a narrower picture when it goes to the IMAX stuff, like the bottom example in the pic below....

...whereas if you look at the cropped version for full 16x9, what are you really missing? More space above his head? It's much more bothersome to sudden;y go to a narrower picture frame, even if taller.

Instead, maybe you should push for something that somehow increases in height projection/resolution when the shots call for it...or a new higher overall picture projection size for movies with IMAX footage in it, with the only downside being a very narrow 2.35:1 picture.

...not that there are a lot of movies aside from TDK and TDKR that use a lot of IMAX footage. But overall, tat one example with the pillared/sidebars of black is the least desirable thing you want to see out of all the options...even if projected....if for nothing else that it's combined with other compositions which are wider. It makes it look/feel like there's something missing from the sides. The side-to-side size should stay the same throughout the presentation...that's what they're shooting/composing for. The extra height are for screens/projectors that are equipped to do that while keeping it the same width as the other stuff....not to squeeze narrower into a rectangle. That would certainly bother the heck out of me if I was in a theater, and the picture would get narrower for some shots...regardless if it was taller. To get what you're going for, it's better to hope for a larger/taller format and more IMAX-originated material...or at least all-IMAX-shot movies that stay all in the 1.44:1 IMAX ratio. Otherwise, might as well utilize the entire screen area/width (the larger of the two dimensions) of your projector's/HDTV's native resolution and not fret about extra image material that's cropped out if there's nothing there to begin with.

We're talking about two very specific examples...these Batman movies...both of which are shot to be great in IMAX, but not to be lessened by what you don't see in full IMAX. But yeah, if you think there should beBluRays that stay in 2.35:1 the whole time, sure. I say have a setting that will put the letterbox bars in if you want them, but go full 16x9 if you don't.

 

[Russell Nash]

So...a pillared 1.44:1 will still have black on each side and won't be as wide as the 'smaller' format 35mm footage. And the 'entire' image is now even smaller and reduced in reference size. Yeah, it's taller and in the original ratio...but it's narrower where it's supposed to be just as wide as the rest...so the particulars of the image are smaller in relation to screen size. Nice work, there.

I'm sure that' what the filmmakers intended.

The filmmakers intended for movie goers to see the movie in IMAX, regular theaters, and buy the DVD and Blu-ray MULTIPLE TIMES OVER. If Christopher Nolan doesn't like the aspect ratio of IMAX, perhaps he should't use it for scenes in his movie. It adds nothing if you don't see it in an IMAX theater, which isn't available to the consumer market.

So you're a self-proclaimed 'videophile'....and you're watching TDK on TNT? Alrighty.

If you needed to know, I was watching my DVR of last weeks Curb Your Enthusiasm and saw that TDK was on TNT. I was just pointing out how cropping the film is incredibly moronic. Also, I think it's in the nature of hypers like yourself to be intentionally difficult and facetious. Some sort of power thing people get from being anonymous on the internet. Whatever floats your boat buddy!

The whole point of IMAX is to give you an experience that you CAN'T get at home, not to mention regular movie theaters. If you want at least some of that at home, you should push for higher-resolution 1.44:1 4K+ projectors and formats....or at least 1920 x 1333 TV's/projectors (with a very thin strip of picture for the 2.35 material), and prepare a room where the vertical and horizontal edges extend out of your field of view. The width of the picture throughout should not change from left-to right screen edges...only the height should. If you can't do that, it's just posing...in a very odd way. But if that makes you happy, maybe there is a market for that.

Cropping the film from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1 doesn't give you the IMAX experience either. That's the point, it's a gimmick like 3D to inflate ticket sales. When watching a movie, I want to see the whole picture that was filmed. The only practical and feasible way of doing that is presenting the IMAX scenes in their proper aspect ratio via pillarboxing. Christopher Nolan is the KING of pretentiousness, and this is proven when he films a Batman movie with IMAX cameras. This isn't the Grand Canyon adventure to give grandma heart palpitations and an epileptic seizure. A crime drama/superhero film should be shot in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 and presented that way.

Nolan's choice to film even more scenes with IMAX for TDKR is more of the same problematic gimmick. The shifting aspect ratio is meant to capture the filmed image, the Blu-ray fails at this and more.

 

[Russell Nash]

People who also complain about pillarboxing usually fail to realize that NOTHING IS LOST! It's the same technique used as letterbox, which there is nothing wrong with. It is also a "bad idea" to crop the movie in any way.

Also, NO CONSUMER PROJECTOR EXISTS THAT CAN DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!

 

[KalMart]

Honestly...I think somewhere down the road, it won't be locked-ratio solid screens anymore. It'll be some sort of data delivery/storage and projection technology that will just have thins in ideal resolutions for whatever ratios....maybe even holographic...and it'll adapt to your viewing/seating position so that yo won't feel that anything is cropped...it'll feel like the natural edge-to-edge aspect ratio for whatever you put in. But there could still be issues if you mix 4:3 with 16x9 or 2.35....and the whole point of going to wider screens were to give movies an edge over television.

Maybe movies need to go taller again to separate them from HDTV...more like IMAX. t:

 

[KalMart]

If you needed to know, I was watching my DVR of last weeks Curb Your Enthusiasm and saw that TDK was on TNT. I was just pointing out how cropping the film is incredibly moronic. Also, I think it's in the nature of hypers like yourself to be intentionally difficult and facetious. Some sort of power thing people get from being anonymous on the internet. Whatever floats your boat buddy![/QUOTE]
And you still take issue with a movie being shown on a cable network...not even a major movie one without censorship or commercials...for upsizing to fill in the 16x9 frame?

.....TNT.....?

Trust me, I went easy on you, champ.

Also, general consumers like to avoid letterboxing when possible. Those who are more interested in the film-watching and the original 2.35:1 go with BluRays and such. Those who want to project their movies and have it taller but narrower/pillared because they think they're getting more of the intended IMAX experience...well, they'll have to sign the petition with you. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

People who also complain about pillarboxing usually fail to realize that NOTHING IS LOST! It's the same technique used as letterbox, which there is nothing wrong with. It is also a "bad idea" to crop the movie in any way.

Only if they realize that it's the original format/aspect. Not everyone knows or cares...and again, in this case, you're only getting extra space/atmosphere that's designed for....ta-daaahhh!...the IMAX theater.

Also, NO CONSUMER PROJECTOR EXISTS THAT CAN DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!

I never said there did (helloo???). All the more reason to understand that what you see as 'compromise' is still the best solution for what we DO have. And honestly...again in this particular case...Nolan isn' shooting in IMAX for people's homes. And he's not doing it to make the home experience any lesser by not seeing the whole frame. So to demand that from these particular releases is barking up the wrong tree. You're asking it to accommodate something that it was never intended for.

 

[Russell Nash]

BTW, I fixed your little diagrams...





The only way to present the IMAX version in it's OAR to the consumer market is to pillarbox the scenes. NUFF SAID!

 

[KalMart]

BTW, I fixed your little diagrams...

No you didn't, actually. But nice try.

The only way to present the IMAX version in it's OAR to the consumer market is to pillarbox the scenes. NUFF SAID!

Which takes away the original intended presentation aspect of it being the same width as the letterboxed stuff. Brilliant. Nuff said, indeed.


Did you happen to get the part about the full IMAX stuff not being intended for consumer systems to begin with?

 

[Russell Nash]

No you didn't, actually. But nice try.


Which takes away the original intended presentation aspect of it being the same width as the letterboxed stuff. Brilliant. Nuff said, indeed.

There is no way to do what you're saying using displays available on the consumer market. The ONLY way to preserve Nolan's idiotic IMAX scenes are to pillarbox the scenes preserving the OAR. The original presentation is impossible to replicate exactly as the IMAX version people saw at their god-damn zoo's. The "black bars" take nothing away from the experience because it should still have the same mise en scéne and composition as the IMAX version. If those pesky black bars bother you, perhaps you should just record TDK from TNT and watch it on your DVR.

Most importantly, the fact remains that majority TDKR is going to be cropped when released theatrically and on Blu-ray.

 

[bgates87]

I don't really have anything to contribute to this thread, but in the thread title shouldn't the "i" be in parentheses instead of "MAX?" People say "to the MAX!" not "to the I!" Parentheses are used to set apart non-essential information, and the "I" is the non-essential part here. It would make sense without the "I" but not without the "MAX."

Anyways how about that Batman huh? He's a pretty cool guy.

 

[KalMart]

There is no way to do what you're saying using displays available on the consumer market.

That's the point...it's not supposed to work for consumer systems...because consumer systems don't do that. My lord...!

Russell....I know you have good intentions, so I'll put it to you simply and directly.


If you want to see what the filmmaker intended with the IMAX ratio as used in the film....go see it in an IMAX theater.



That's what they were designed for. If you're only interested in seeing the original aspect ratio of the IMAX shots on your consumer system...then your idea will be fine, but the introduction of a narrower picture compared to the rest is NOT what was intended for the film. Top-bottom cropping IS for non-IMAX screens. So you're introducing another set of (even more disturbing) compromises by seemingly eliminating those others. If that's what you're after, then kudos.

 

[KalMart]

I don't really have anything to contribute to this thread, but in the thread title shouldn't the "i" be in parentheses instead of "MAX?" People say "to the MAX!" not "to the I!" Parentheses are used to set apart non-essential information, and the "I" is the non-essential part here. It would make sense without the "I" but not without the "MAX."

In a word....yes.

But who knows...some may prefer that the i be in its full, un-parentheses'd aspect ratio.


j/k

 

[Russell Nash]

Placing the image in an area with "black bars" on the top and the sides are synonymous. Also, there are displays that have aspect ratio's in 2.35:1. Everything that isn't wider is pillarboxed to fit the screen.



I fail to see how that is a "disturbing compromise." NTSC standards and manufacturers decided to produce the majority of HDTV sets with an aspect ratio of 16x9. If Nolan doesn't want to film his movie with that in mind, I guess he'll have to settle on the disturbing compromise of keeping his OAR.

 

[KalMart]

Placing the image in an area with "black bars" on the top and the sides are synonymous. Also, there are displays that have aspect ratio's in 2.35:1. Everything that isn't wider is pillarboxed to fit the screen.

Because the whole widescreen movement was meant to be wider and more panoramic than a 4:3 TV screen after TV took away some of the movies' thunder. It's also still taking advantage of the largest dimension of the screen.

Also, those displays are for those who don't like the letterboxes...so by that measure, they should make 1.44 HDTVs for...well...folks like you who are obsessed with the IMAX shots' aspect ratio in TDK/TDKR.

How popular are those 2.35 TV's, by the way?

I fail to see how that is a "disturbing compromise." NTSC standards decided to produce the majority of HDTV sets with an aspect ratio of 16x9. If Nolan doesn't want to film his movie with that in mind, I guess he'll have to settle on the disturbing compromise of keeping his OAR.

Read above. It's about keeping the width of the frame and taking advantage of that resolution when it comes to non-IMAX screens and home viewing. IMAX is supposed to ADD both more width and height in comparison to what we're used to seeing in theaters....not bring the sides in to fit into that. It's meant to be combined with a screen that's physically bigger. Now...if you were ONLY seeing the IMAX shots on the BluRay, sure, you could feel like you're projecting a large screen...but then, the non-IMAX shots would be wider than it...it defeats the purpose of IMAX even though it accommodates the technical frame aspect ratio.

You're looking at the whole aspect ratio thing as sort of an altrusim in itself, when its intent is supposed to be in context with other images that are just as wide, but narrower top-to-bottom. The IMAX shots are supposed to look much bigger, not just squarer. Maintaining a constant frame width is essential to that....if you don't, you lose the point of it.

The IMAX stuff is intended by the filmmakers a 'bonus feature' of sorts to be fully experienced in IMAX theaters, but the frame composition et al isn't as such that you'd lose essential story information if you didn't watch it in IMAX.

Again....if you want to see what the filmmaker intended with the IMAX ratio as used in the finished film....go see it in an IMAX theater.

 

[Russell Nash]

Broken record Kal, broken record.

I'm running out of ways of telling you that altering the OAR is actually worse than using the pillarbox method.

Would you feel fully immersed in the image? No. Do you feel immersed in the image by cropping it to 1.78:1? No.

The problem is WB and Nolan should have released their "cropped IMAX special edition" along with the theatrical version of the film if they truly cared about the presentation of TDK. The only way to show TDK in it's original aspect ratio is to pillarbox the IMAX (ruining it in the process) or simply have all the scenes in the theatrical 2.35:1. The resolution is also technically the same on the pillarboxed 1.44:1 and the 1.78:1 image. Both are presented in a 16x9 1920x1080 image.

Cropping the image solves absolutely nothing. The only reason they did it with TDK was so when Millennials go home to watch the movie on their 720p TV's off of a PS3 they don't say, "Why are the IMAX scenes small?"

 

[KalMart]

Broken record Kal, broken record.

I'm running out of ways of telling you that altering the OAR is actually worse than using the pillarbox method.

Worse only in regards to the actual aspect ratio...but the squarish aspect ratio isn't just what it's about. I don't know why you can't (or won't) grasp that. That's what's 'broken', yo?

Would you feel fully immersed in the image? No. Do you feel immersed in the image by cropping it to 1.78:1? No.

You're not going to anyway if you're not watching it in an IMAX theater....helloooo??!!!

The IMAX shots supposed to be bigger, not just squarer.

The problem is WB and Nolan should have released their "cropped IMAX special edition" along with the theatrical version of the film if they truly cared about the presentation of TDK.

They do...and that's the key phrase...the presentation as A WHOLE. the film is designed not only as an IMAX presentation, but as one that doesn't play in IMAX...meaning that you're not meant to be missing anything from the taller frame if your home or theater system can't do a taller 1.44:1 frame while keeping the image the same width. Cropping happens a lot for films throughout...some are shot in 16X9 and then cropped for 2.35. Yo just don't know about it because yo didn't follow it when t was being made like with TDK.

Any filmmaker worth his salt, and certainly Nolan, wouldn't shoot a square-format that would somehow make the final film butchered by only having a 2.35 or 16x9 frame to work with. IMAX is intended as an 'enhanced' version of viewing the film, whereas the regular 2.35:1 is the core high-standard version that still includes every aspect of the storytelling and visual flow of what's intended AS A PRESENTATION. That 'care' is taken in how the IMAX shots are framed/composed, to fully maintain that artistic information for a widescreen/cropped presentation...with the added frame in IMAX being not a gimmick, per se, but an enhancement specialized for IMAX venues. This is NOT the same case as pan-scan cropping or what have you. This is a widescreen film that keeps the same width throughout all its shots, but adds some extra top-bottom in selected theaters with that capability.

THAT is what's intended as a film..as a completed presentation. Not an adjusted version to accommodate the IMAX shots into a constant-height home screen.

 

[KalMart]

But anyway, yeah, it's getting redundant. If seeing the full IMAX aspect ratio at home is really what you want, I hope you get it somehow. But it's most likely not going to be something released widely as a 'special home projector edition' or what have you. But by all means, do whatever you can do to see it in a true IMAX theater. It should be an awesome experience. :Up:

 

[Russell Nash]

Worse only in regards to the actual aspect ratio...but the squarish aspect ratio isn't just what it's about. I don't know why you can't (or won't) grasp that. That's what's 'broken', yo?


You're not going to anyway if you're not watching it in an IMAX theater....helloooo??!!!

The IMAX shots supposed to be bigger, not just squarer.


They do...and that's the key phrase...the presentation as A WHOLE. the film is designed not only as an IMAX presentation, but as one that doesn't play in IMAX...meaning that you're not meant to be missing anything from the taller frame if your home or theater system can't do a taller 1.44:1 frame while keeping the image the same width. Cropping happens a lot for films throughout...some are shot in 16X9 and then cropped for 2.35. Yo just don't know about it because yo didn't follow it when t was being made like with TDK.

Any filmmaker worth his salt, and certainly Nolan, wouldn't shoot a square-format that would somehow make the final film butchered by only having a 2.35 or 16x9 frame to work with. IMAX is intended as an 'enhanced' version of viewing the film, whereas the regular 2.35:1 is the core high-standard version that still includes every aspect of the storytelling and visual flow of what's intended AS A PRESENTATION. That 'care' is taken in how the IMAX shots are framed/composed, to fully maintain that artistic information for a widescreen/cropped presentation...with the added frame in IMAX being not a gimmick, per se, but an enhancement specialized for IMAX venues. This is NOT the same case as pan-scan cropping or what have you. This is a widescreen film that keeps the same width throughout all its shots, but adds some extra top-bottom in selected theaters with that capability.

THAT is what's intended as a film..as a completed presentation. Not an adjusted version to accommodate the IMAX shots into a constant-height home screen.

I guess Stanley Kubrick isn't worth his weight in salt then according to you. The version on Blu-ray is already adjusted to accommodate the IMAX shots so why not do it properly? Cropping a 1.44:1 image to 1.78:1 adds NOTHING to watching TDK on Blu-ray.

To put it lightly, there shouldn't be an IMAX cut if you don't want to show it in it's OAR. If you're going to crop the image and concerned about the "PRESENTATION" you crop it or matte it to 2.35:1. Do one or the other. WB did what they did exactly because of people like you who complain about the "black bars."

 

[Godzilla2014]

Basically Russell, I know what you're after, but it's just not a really good idea for anyone except those who somehow want to project a taller image than the 2.35 frame like you're doing. It still gives you a narrower picture when it goes to the IMAX stuff, like the bottom example in the pic below....

...whereas if you look at the cropped version for full 16x9, what are you really missing? More space above his head? It's much more bothersome to sudden;y go to a narrower picture frame, even if taller.

Instead, maybe you should push for something that somehow increases in height projection/resolution when the shots call for it...or a new higher overall picture projection size for movies with IMAX footage in it, with the only downside being a very narrow 2.35:1 picture.

...not that there are a lot of movies aside from TDK and TDKR that use a lot of IMAX footage. But overall, tat one example with the pillared/sidebars of black is the least desirable thing you want to see out of all the options...even if projected....if for nothing else that it's combined with other compositions which are wider. It makes it look/feel like there's something missing from the sides. The side-to-side size should stay the same throughout the presentation...that's what they're shooting/composing for. The extra height are for screens/projectors that are equipped to do that while keeping it the same width as the other stuff....not to squeeze narrower into a rectangle. That would certainly bother the heck out of me if I was in a theater, and the picture would get narrower for some shots...regardless if it was taller. To get what you're going for, it's better to hope for a larger/taller format and more IMAX-originated material...or at least all-IMAX-shot movies that stay all in the 1.44:1 IMAX ratio. Otherwise, might as well utilize the entire screen area/width (the larger of the two dimensions) of your projector's/HDTV's native resolution and not fret about extra image material that's cropped out if there's nothing there to begin with.

We're talking about two very specific examples...these Batman movies...both of which are shot to be great in IMAX, but not to be lessened by what you don't see in full IMAX. But yeah, if you think there should beBluRays that stay in 2.35:1 the whole time, sure. I say have a setting that will put the letterbox bars in if you want them, but go full 16x9 if you don't.

I agree. I neither need nor do I want the overall image shrunk down to have bars taken out of it, just to show a bit of extra space.

BTW, I fixed your little diagrams...





The only way to present the IMAX version in it's OAR to the consumer market is to pillarbox the scenes. NUFF SAID!

Unlike you, I do not worship at the altar of the almighty Original Aspect Ratio. I care most about what's in the image. There's nothing cut out of of the IMAX picture in the standard theatrical picture that I feel really detracts from the latter.

 

[Russell Nash]

But anyway, yeah, it's getting redundant. If seeing the full IMAX aspect ratio at home is really what you want, I hope you get it somehow. But it's most likely not going to be something released widely as a 'special home projector edition' or what have you. But by all means, do whatever you can do to see it in a true IMAX theater. It should be an awesome experience. :Up:

C'est la vie, c'est la vie.

[YT]GSj0DZ0Vcm8[/YT]

At least I got to increase my post count because of this.t:

 

[Russell Nash]

Unlike you, I do not worship at the altar of the almighty Original Aspect Ratio. I care most about what's in the image. There's nothing cut out of of the IMAX picture in the standard theatrical picture that I feel really detracts from the latter.

It's just a matter of personal integrity I guess then.

 

[Godzilla2014]

It's just a matter of personal integrity I guess then.

It's not a matter of personal integrity, it's a matter of personal preference. As I do not have a projector, but an HD TV, I have screen constraints. For your suggestion of an IMAX/Original Aspect Ratio DVD, my TV would display a smaller, less detailed image with bars taking out portions of my screen, all for a few more details, such as more space above Bozo/Joker's head and more of his shirt. These things are extraneous, and to me, not worth the sacrifice in the detail and size of the common portion of the image.

If you want an original aspect ratio DVD, then go ahead and show Warner Bros. that there would be demand for it. I'm just telling you that I wouldn't buy it.