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

[Russell Nash]

What the entire movie should look like without any loss of image or cropping on a 16x9 HDTV screen...

IMAX (1.44:1):

35 mm (2.35:1)

 

[antsman41]

Best way to imagine the comparison...

13" laptop screen = IMAX
4" (horizontal) cell phone screen = 35mm

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What the entire movie should look like without any loss of image or cropping on a 16x9 HDTV screen...

IMAX (1.44:1):

35 mm (2.35:1)

That's incorrect. IMAX will fill the entire screen - no black areas.

EDIT:
Compare the beginning part of this scene to the montage and the ending. You'll see the difference. Set it to 1080p for the full effect.

 

[Russell Nash]

That's incorrect. IMAX will fill the entire screen - no black areas.

EDIT:
Compare the beginning part of this scene to the montage and the ending. You'll see the difference. Set it to 1080p for the full effect.

Actually you're incorrect. The IMAX scenes for the Blu-ray have been cropped from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1. The correct way to present the film on a 16x9 HDTV without losing any picture is a 1.44:1 image pillarboxed. I'm talking about the proper aspect ratio to present the film in. The movie was shot in 1.44:1 (IMAX) and 2.35:1 (35 mm) and it should be presented as such as well.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I don't remember it being that tall in IMAX.

 

[Anita18]

Actually you're incorrect. The IMAX scenes for the Blu-ray have been cropped from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1. The correct way to present the film on a 16x9 HDTV without losing any picture is a 1.44:1 image pillarboxed. I'm talking about the proper aspect ratio to present the film in. The movie was shot in 1.44:1 (IMAX) and 2.35:1 (35 mm) and it should be presented as such as well.

Like I mentioned earlier, Nolan's intent was to fill the screen, for whatever screen you have. Since nobody has HDTVs in the proper IMAX ratio, he opted to slightly crop the image instead of presenting it with black bars.

That was Nolan's approach, and I think it's a legitimate approach.

I don't remember it being that tall in IMAX.

That's cause it was that awesome.

 

[Russell Nash]

Made this, I hope it helps...



The idea of altering the aspect ratio unnerves me. It's synonymous to the argumentation used to pan and scan movies for old CRT TV's. I have a projector so the whole "fits your TV argument" doesn't work for me. I want the entire image that was shot.

 

[Anita18]

The idea altering the aspect ratio unnerves me. It's synonymous to the argumentation used to pan and scan movies for old CRT TV's. I have a projector so the whole "fits your TV argument" doesn't work for me. I want the entire image that was shot.

Well most people don't have projectors.

Although, I do wish that they'd make all the aspect ratios available in DVD and Blu-ray so people can buy what they want to watch. I didn't keep my TDK DVD because I wanted the IMAX aspect ratio in-line with the movie, which they didn't have. And I wasn't about to buy a giant HDTV and a Blu-ray player just to watch TDK in the format I wanted.

 

[Russell Nash]

From what I know of the production on The Dark Knight Rises, even more footage will be shot using 70 mm IMAX film stock (1.44:1). Will Nolan crop the image again to 16x9 (1.78:1) for the Blu-ray release? Or will he pillarbox majority of the film? How are they even going to show the movie in a standard theatrical (non-IMAX) release?

It's all very complicated. It would be easier is they didn't even bother filming in IMAX to begin with.

 

[KalMart]

Actually you're incorrect. The IMAX scenes for the Blu-ray have been cropped from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1. The correct way to present the film on a 16x9 HDTV without losing any picture is a 1.44:1 image pillarboxed. I'm talking about the proper aspect ratio to present the film in. The movie was shot in 1.44:1 (IMAX) and 2.35:1 (35 mm) and it should be presented as such as well.

If they did that in the theater, you'd be looking at massive shifts from a very tall/square fullscreen image to what would seem like a narrow horizontal strip of picture. It could be very distracting, so going from 2.35:1 to 16x9 is less of a /jump', and more sensible for HDTV's...and even movie screens. Even with a 'cropped' IMAX image at 16x9, you're still getting the benefits of more overall initial/captured resolution than 35.

The idea altering the aspect ratio unnerves me. It's synonymous to the argumentation used to pan and scan movies for old CRT TV's. I have a projector so the whole "fits your TV argument" doesn't work for me. I want the entire image that was shot.

Well, you'll have to deal with it if you want the 'full frames' of both the 35mm and IMAX in the same movie. Otherwise, say you have a full 1.44:1 IMAX frame....if you want the 35mm to fill that completely, you'll have to zoom in and centercrop the 35, which would make that look even worse.

IMAX was never really designed to be combined with other formats. and the 'tallness' of the frame is really for true IMAX theaters where audiences can feel like they're 'suspended' in the middle of the image, with both the vertical and horizontal edges just beyond the field of view. But it's just not sensible to only release the film in true IMAX theaters, even if it was all shot on IMAX. So in order to present it in regular 35/digital theaters, with screens/theaters designed around 35mm projection screens...the IMAX would have to be 'center-punched', to fit the full 'square' frame inside the rectangular screen.....

...which would give you the 'full' original IMAX frame, but you'd effectively be shrinking/downres'ing the image even more, negating the actual re****ion/image quality advantage that IMAX offers in the first place. It a better choice to crop the IMAX vertically to fit the full width.

It's best to not worry about what's 'missing' from the original 1.44:1 frame...you're still get a great-quality image with extended depth and detail with what you have left. It's also better to just immerse yourself in the story and what's going on, rather than think too much about how it was done while watching the movie.

 

[Russell Nash]

To alleviate the problem all together, WB should have released TDK with optional viewing preferences like the 2-disc Blu-ray of How the West Was Won (SmileBox presentation). One disc would have been the theatrical presentation of a consistent 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The other disc would have the IMAX version with both the 1.78:1 cropped image and the 1.44:1 original aspect ratio via seamless branching.

It really comes down to the directors intent regarding the original aspect ratio. If Nolan wanted to utilize the immensity of the IMAX frame, he shouldn't need to crop the image at all (Mise en scéne). Seems strange. To give WB and Nolan some credit though, most IMAX Blu-ray's have been altered (Grand Canyon Adventure, Under the Sea, Space Station). I guess it's more of a larger problem with presenting IMAX features at home. Most people can't come close to the original IMAX presentation at home. It's more or less a compromise. A compromise I'd rather not make.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Is there any way to get the un-cropped footage from TDK?

 

[Anita18]

It's all very complicated. It would be easier is they didn't even bother filming in IMAX to begin with.

NEVAH!!!

At any rate, a great theatrical presentation is what Nolan and Co are obviously focused on. (I've heard Wally Pfister speak and it's quite clear when he talks about their work - they want a great image in the theater.) Unfortunately they don't put quite as much effort into the home theater release. Or at least it comes in second after the theater experience.

 

[Anita18]

Is there any way to get the un-cropped footage from TDK?

Not unless you sneak into WB's vault and steal an IMAX print yourself. Bring a truck.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

I thought Nolan said that IMAX cameras were too loud for quiet scenes, so he wouldn't use them.

 

[Russell Nash]

Not unless you sneak into WB's vault and steal an IMAX print yourself. Bring a truck.

No kidding, the IMAX reels are HUGE!

 

[Anita18]

I thought Nolan said that IMAX cameras were too loud for quiet scenes, so he wouldn't use them.

I dunno, there's talk that IMAX will comprise 80% of TDKR. I'm VERY dubious of that percentage myself (it popped up in the Fb group), but we won't know if they're really going for it until someone sees it in action in an interior dialogue shoot.

 

[Russell Nash]

I thought Nolan said that IMAX cameras were too loud for quiet scenes, so he wouldn't use them.

For dialogue scenes, Nolan's using standard 35 mm. The stuff with Bane, Batpod, Lobster-Wing will be shot with IMAX cameras because all of the sound is added via ADR/Foley in post.

 

[Russell Nash]

I dunno, there's talk that IMAX will comprise 80% of TDKR. I'm VERY dubious of that percentage myself (it popped up in the Fb group), but we won't know if they're really going for it until someone sees it in action in an interior dialogue shoot.

80% sounds high to me as well.

 

[ggghhh]

Even though it's IMAX they most likely take 16:9 cropping into consideration when framing the shots, so they don't have to resort to pan & scan afterwards. You won't be losing much important from the picture, although the CGI artists who spent weeks on rendering intricate details for those out of frame portions might cry a little.

 

[Russell Nash]

If they take into consideration that the film is going to be cropped into 16x9, why not just film the rest of the movie that way instead of 2.35:1?

I forget, how does HBO and TNT show the film in HD on TV? If my memory's right, the entire film is in 16x9.

 

[Anita18]

Even though it's IMAX they most likely take 16:9 cropping into consideration when framing the shots, so they don't have to resort to pan & scan afterwards. You won't be losing much important from the picture, although the CGI artists who spent weeks on rendering intricate details for those out of frame portions might cry a little.

You have to frame things entirely differently for IMAX than you do 35mm. For one thing, they often put faces in the upper half of the screen for 35mm, but it has to be a lot lower for IMAX.

For TDK, Nolan and his editor personally cropped each IMAX sequence for 35mm presentation themselves, so losing anything important won't be a concern.

 

[Anita18]

If they take into consideration that the film is going to be cropped into 16x9, why not just film the rest of the movie that way?

I forget, how does HBO and TNT show the film in HD on TV? If my memory's right, the entire film is in 16x9.

Um, do you NOT want the largest, most high-res presentation in the theater? Or do you not go to the theater at all anymore and watch everything on your projector?

Even though I don't even have a TV, I'm grateful for having had the experience of watching TDK on a true-blue IMAX screen. It's something I won't forget.

 

[Russell Nash]

Seeing how the true IMAX experience can never be replicated at home and what you say about Nolan personally cropping it to 2.35:1, it should be released that way. It's like how they made Evil Dead 1.85:1 when it was filmed with 16 mm at 1.33:1. The 1.85:1 transfer is director specified.

The real question is, did Nolan specify that the Blu-ray release be cropped to 1.78:1 (16x9) or only the theatrical release of 2.35:1?

 

[jm9843]

The biggest problem with The Dark Knight Blu-ray wasn't the cropping of the IMAX sequences to 1.78:1 but in using the IMAX DMR master for the 35 mm portion. The dnr and edge enhancement looks bad. Hopefully they rerelease TDK and avoid the same mistake with the TDKR Blu-ray.

Sorry projector owners, but cropping the IMAX sequences to 1.78:1 is the best option for a home presentation. That said, I do wish they'd provide the option to watch the IMAX sequences in the native IMAX aspect ratio with pillarboxes too.