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

[Russell Nash]

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.

I only go to the theater because of necessity (wanting to see new releases). I actually have a TV behind my projector as well for instances like this. I simply want to watch a motion picture in the way it was meant to be seen by the director.

 

[ggghhh]

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.

Thanks, yeah it sounds like it's usually the top that gets lopped off rather than a bit at both ends.

 

[Russell Nash]

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.

I couldn't agree more, truly horrible. I didn't want to bring it up since most of the conversation was about IMAX and the OAR.

 

[jm9843]

All of this hand wringing is pointless. Native IMAX is the most stunning thing on celluloid and there is no doubt that Nolan should employ the technology as much as he possibly can. The idea that it can only ever be experienced that way in an IMAX theater makes it even more special. TDKR is not a straight to DVD release and is meant to be seen, primarily, in a theater. It shouldn't be any other way.

 

[KalMart]

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.

Yeah. it'd have to be another disc...and probably a higher price altogether....but for something where you get a 'smaller' square frame center-punched into your 16x9 screen (it all has to be put into a 1920 x 1080 frame). Yeah, you'd be getting the 'full frame', but not necessarily the actual picture quality of it.

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.

Again, it's not just about the actual aspect ratio, but the increased resolution/depth of shooting on a larger piece of celluloid. Even if an IMAX frame were 1.78:1, you're still shooting to a piece of film that has more surface area than 35mm, so cropping really isn't a compromise unless you compare it to a very specific and comparatively rare presentation circumstance...in this case, a full true IMAX projection in an IMAX theater. Of course, he could ultimately intend the film to be seen in IMAX for greatest effect...but he's already 'compromising' that by having to shoot some stuff in 35mm. And when it comes down to it, we're all compromising when we watch on even the best HDTV systems anyway, because they're only 1920x1080, whereas mastering formats are 2K and 4K for 35mm, never mind IMAX.

So unless you're actually watching a true IMAX projection, you're already getting a downres'd version of the original. Even if you had a 4k projector or monitor (which cost more than many cars out there), you're still getting 35mm quality at best, in terms of 'pixel-for-pixel' presentation as far as can be determined.

So don't let the technical tidbits that you pick up from discussions/articles/etc. about IMAX get to you too much. Our standard, as far as the consumer/home end, is HD...so 'original' frame size is rather moot compared to picture detail and resolution when it's all being converted to just under 35mm quality, and still compressed at that. The filmmakers understand that as well, and by shooting in IMAX, they're providing a high-end venue for viewing the film, but they're not compromising anything when it comes to 'normal' 35/digital theaters.

They're not composing with any essential information in the extreme top or bottom of the original IMAX frame that will somehow detract from the story if it's cropped out. It's more about taking advantage of the 'atmospheric' viewing experience when watching in an IMAX theater....something you won't get from any 35/digital theater or home theater experience anyway, so you're not 'losing out' on anything that you can't really use to begin with. It's kinda' like having a race-track suspension/differential setting on a car, but never taking it to a race track. An IMAX theater could be analgous to actually going to a race-track to drive their performance car there, but at home and around town it's a different story. You can still enjoy much of the car's performance, but it's still not the same as a track.

 

[Russell Nash]

Seeing how TDK was one of the highest selling Blu-rays of all time, I think it's important to discuss the aspects of viewing the film in a home theater.

With the release of TDKR and the extensive use of IMAX, it makes me wonder how it will be presented on Blu-ray and in traditional non-IMAX theaters.

Kal, I understand the resolution issues regarding the release of any film. The best Blu-ray will never look as good as a master print for any film (depending on the condition). What matters though is Christopher Nolan's preferred intent for the aspect ratio in non-IMAX circumstances. This was a presentation of TDK in 2.35:1 in standard theatrical releases. The Blu-ray really should have had an option for viewing the film.

 

[Anita18]

Thanks, yeah it sounds like it's usually the top that gets lopped off rather than a bit at both ends.

Yeah they actually went through it shot-by-shot to do the cropping, so it wasn't like they just arbitrarily cut off the top 10% of every IMAX sequence.

They're not composing with any essential information in the extreme top or bottom of the original IMAX frame that will somehow detract from the story if it's cropped out. It's more about taking advantage of the 'atmospheric' viewing experience when watching in an IMAX theater....something you won't get from any 35/digital theater or home theater experience anyway, so you're not 'losing out' on anything that you can't really use to begin with. It's kinda' like having a race-track suspension/differential setting on a car, but never taking it to a race track. An IMAX theater could be analgous to actually going to a race-track to drive their performance car there, but at home and around town it's a different story. You can still enjoy much of the car's performance, but it's still not the same as a track.

That's exactly what it is - Nolan's approaching it from an "atmospheric viewing experience" which is why filling the screen was first priority for him and why they elected to release the Blu-ray with a non-IMAX aspect ratio so it'd fill the screen for the maximum number of HDTVs.

Seeing how TDK was one of the highest selling Blu-rays of all time, I think it's important to discuss the aspects of viewing the film in a home theater.

With the release of TDKR and the extensive use of IMAX, it makes me wonder how it will be presented on Blu-ray and in traditional non-IMAX theaters.

Probably the same as TDK - crop it for 35mm presentations and do the same for the Blu-ray release. I only hope they do the same for DVD releases as well. We might not be able to see it in the highest res possible, but dagnabit I wanna see it fill my screeeeen!

 

[KalMart]

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.

And that's partly due to the compression needed to fit the movies onto a sing;e BD-50 disc...especially one that's over two hours, with multiple hi-res audio tracks, commentary, and features. If we wanted to even approach viewing something close to an IMAX or even 35mm master quality, it would require equipment costs that could probably buy you a nice apartment.

Even the DCPs (digital cinema packages) that are delivered to major theaters for 4k projection are JPEG 2000 that can fit onto one 1TB drive....and that's compressed as well. A DPX DI/master takes up a huge amount of drive space and requires come pretty hardware to play in real time. So basically, anything we can feasibly get our hands on won't be giving you IMAX-quality images to begin with, so why shrink the resolution down even further so we can fit the square into a rectangle?

 

[Anita18]

Kal, I understand the resolution issues regarding the release of any film. The best Blu-ray will never look as good as a master print for any film (depending on the condition). What matters though is Christopher Nolan's preferred intent for the aspect ratio in non-IMAX circumstances. This was a presentation of TDK in 2.35:1 in standard theatrical releases. The Blu-ray really should have had an option for viewing the film.

Chris's intent is to fill the screen. Wally's pretty much said it straight-up - they want the largest, highest-res image on screen. To fill a screen with the biggest possible image in a space that's a little wider than the IMAX shot, you have to cut off the image a little bit. That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[KalMart]

Seeing how TDK was one of the highest selling Blu-rays of all time, I think it's important to discuss the aspects of viewing the film in a home theater.

With the release of TDKR and the extensive use of IMAX, it makes me wonder how it will be presented on Blu-ray and in traditional non-IMAX theaters.

The same as TDK was....to incredible success.

Kal, I understand the resolution issues regarding the release of any film. The best Blu-ray will never look as good as a master print for any film (depending on the condition). What matters though is Christopher Nolan's preferred intent for the aspect ratio in non-IMAX circumstances. This was a presentation of TDK in 2.35:1 in standard theatrical releases. The Blu-ray really should have had an option for viewing the film.

So would you prefer that the BluRay stay only in 2.35:1, so as not to remind you of its 'limitations' when it switches to the 16x9 cropped IMAX shots?

 

[Russell Nash]

Like I said, for most Blu-ray releases of IMAX films they crop it as well (1.44:1 to 1.78:1). It's just a pet-peeve when I lose image. The DNR issues on the TDK disc however are atrocious when watching on a projector. A movie shouldn't look worse when watching it on a God-damn Runco!

 

[Russell Nash]

The same as TDK was....to incredible success.


So would you prefer that the BluRay stay only in 2.35:1, so as not to remind you of its 'limitations' when it switches to the 16x9 cropped IMAX shots?

I want the option of watching the movie in 1.44:1 with 2.35:1 scenes when projected and a 2.35:1 option for watching it on a regular 16x9 HDTV.

 

[KalMart]

Like I said, for most Blu-ray releases of IMAX films they crop it as well (1.44:1 to 1.78:1). It's just a pet-peeve when I lose image. The DNR issues on the TDK disc however are atrocious when watching on a projector. A movie shouldn't look worse when watching it on a God-damn Runco!

But you're not losing image quality....you're only 'losing' picture information that's atmospheric and intended for a viewing venue that you don't have.

 

[Russell Nash]

But you're not losing image quality....you're only 'losing' picture information that's atmospheric and intended for a viewing venue that you don't have. All you'd be seeing is more space above an actor's head, or more of top

Listen, I'm the type of person who has to remove over-scan on an HDTV in my kitchen, a real video-phile *******. When viewing a film I want as little distortion of the filmed image as possible replicated to my screen.

 

[KalMart]

I want the option of watching the movie in 1.44:1 with 2.35:1 scenes when projected and a 2.35:1 option for watching it on a regular 16x9 HDTV.

But again...do you have a viewing system that stretches your vertical resolution more than 1080? If not, then there's no point, as the 1.44:1 frame will have less overall final picture area than the 2.35:1 will. The images/details will be smaller and less distinct than intended (center-punched into the rectangle), and even more compressed. It's defeating the purposes of them.

 

[KalMart]

Listen, I'm the type of person who has to remove over-scan on an HDTV in my kitchen, a real video-phile *******. When viewing a film I want as little distortion of the filmed image as possible replicated to my screen.

But you're not grasping the true idea of what you're 'asking' for. If you don't have a TV/projection system that somehow increases/stretches its vertical area/resolution beyond the standard 1080 (and I don't mean zooming up the projection size), then you don't have what it takes to take advantage of the bigger/taller IMAX aspect ratio....because you're not increasing actual pixel resolution. that 1920x1080 is a final resolution that all HDTV/BluRay content has to be delivered as, so anything that's originally 'taller' has to be shrunk into a smaller resolution to fit. If you really were a 'videophile', you'd understand that.

 

[Russell Nash]

The same argument can be made for watching movies in 2.35:1 since it doesn't truly have a resolution more than 1080. The total screen is 1080, but the image seen isn't.

I have a giant 1.33:1 screen in my basement home theater. My Runco projector would do a pretty close job of replicating the IMAX screen size (disregarding true resolution) with minimum problems. I am fully aware that the projected image wouldn't be 1080 because the dimensions of an IMAX presentation are different.

 

[Anita18]

The same argument can be made for watching movies in 2.35:1 since it doesn't truly have a resolution more than 1080. The total screen is 1080, but the image seen isn't.

I have a giant 1.33:1 screen in my basement home theater. My Runco projector would do a pretty close job of replicating the IMAX screen size (disregarding true resolution) with minimum pillarboxing.

But you're not most people. WB is a business - they only cater to what most people will take advantage of.

Most people that own a Blu-ray player own a corresponding HDTV of a particular proportion that does not match the native aspect ratio of IMAX. Therefore, they will change the ratio of the IMAX sequences because the director's first priority is to fill the screen.

I don't think they plan on releasing a special edition Blu-ray with full IMAX ratio just for people with badass projectors.

 

[KalMart]

The same argument can be made for watching movies in 2.35:1 since it doesn't truly have a resolution more than 1080. The total screen is 1080, but the image seen isn't.

I have a giant 1.33:1 screen in my basement home theater. My Runco projector would do a pretty close job of replicating the IMAX screen size (disregarding true resolution) with minimum pillarboxing. I am fully aware that the projected image wouldn't be 1080 because the dimensions of an IMAX presentation are different.

But your projector doesn't have the actual resolution of an IMAX or even 2K projector...so it doesn't matter how big you can project the picture on a home screen. It's like if you took a 300x200 JPEG, and enlarged it to the size of 1200x800.....will it look as good as an original 1200x800 jpeg?

Again, with what you'd 'gain' in seeing the 'whole frame', you'd end up losing much more in actual picture quality in terms of actual resolution. Yeah, you'd have more space above actors' heads, or more sky/road in a chase scene...but the actors' faces or the cars wouldn't be as sharp as it would be if cropped into a 16x9....and all for shots that are primarily framed for 16x9/2.35:1 in terms of essential information.

Heck, if I were a filmmaker and intended a taller frame to be seen in an IMAX theater for best effect, I certainly wouldn't want that transferred as a smaller centerpunched image for home release. I'd push for projectors and TV's that actually do have more vertical resolution to more faithfully represent what the taller frames were intended for.

It's not the same as letterboxing, because the approach to framing the 16x9/2.35:1 while shooting isn't the same as when they're shooting the IMAX stuff. You'll see two opposing faces at opposite horizontal ends of a 2.35:1 frame, but you won't see an eyeline at the upper edge of an IMAX frame in this case, or lines of text that are supposed to be read, etc.

 

[Russell Nash]

It will never have the resolution of an IMAX projector, the idea is to "replicate" it for a home theater viewing experience as close as possible.

This is exactly my problem with Nolan shooting these movies in IMAX. You can only properly view the film at an IMAX theater. Everything else is either cropping the image or "getting close" to the dimensions of an IMAX screen. It's easier if there is only the theatrical version of 2.35:1 and the IMAX version.

What aspect ratio do they show TDK in on HBO and TNT?

 

[KalMart]

It will never have the resolution of an IMAX projector, the idea is to "replicate" it for a home theater viewing experience as close as possible.

But again, you're only 'replicating'...more like 'approximating', the aspect ratio. And in doing so, you're decreasing what's really important about IMAX, which is the picture quality. Don't you get that? If that's the case, you might as well play an old Atari game on a huge screen...so you can get the 'full effect' of those 8-bit graphics. Sure, you'll project a taller frame, but it'll have fuzzier facial features, or blurrier little cars driving the streets as seen from above. But hey...if size matters....

This is exactly my problem with Nolan shooting these movies in IMAX. You can only properly view the film at an IMAX theater. Everything else is either cropping the image or "getting close" to the dimensions of an IMAX screen. It's easier if there is only the theatrical version of 2.35:1 and the IMAX version.

What aspect ratio do they show TDK in on HBO and TNT?

But you see, Nolan/Pfister isn't 'disadvantaging' viewers who can only see the 2.35:1 ratio, though. They frame the action so that it feels and looks right, and not 'cut-off' in the 2.35 frame...and within that 2.35 frame, you're also benefitting from the higher image quality of the IMAX's larger horizontal resolution per area during capture. It's like using better microphones and recording media to capture musical performances, even though you'd be listening to it on an iPod through earbuds. It helps the SONGS sound better, even if you're not listening to an uncompressed recording through full-range monitors in a sound-treated room.

Again...don't fret about it. You're only looking at things in the most rudimentary way, but what you're getting is actually a more ideal package for the presentation capabilities that you and I have. And that's been thought out and executed specifically by the filmmakers. They know that it'll eventually end up in regular theaters and on BluRay, so they're not about to let the 'special' stuff detract from the experience if it's not there in non-IMAX presentations. It's probably the most ideal implementation and release of mixed formats we've seen.

 

[Anita18]

It will never have the resolution of an IMAX projector, the idea is to "replicate" it for a home theater viewing experience as close as possible.

This is exactly my problem with Nolan shooting these movies in IMAX. You can only properly view the film at an IMAX theater. Everything else is either cropping the image or "getting close" to the dimensions of an IMAX screen. It's easier if there is only the theatrical version of 2.35:1 and the IMAX version.

What aspect ratio do they show TDK in on HBO and TNT?

So what? To Nolan and Pfister, the most important thing is to get the best image in a theater. They don't care what the experience is like watching at home, or at least they certainly don't think about it when they're making the movie.

They don't even use digital intermediates and Wally poo-poo'ed any digital projector that was 2K, which is...pretty much every digital projector out there. They don't like digital, period. They are old-school filmmakers who believe in film as the best viewing experience for a film.

It's like you're blaming them for wanting to get the best image they can. Even if they can't make the experience completely replicable for home theater use, it did once exist in glorious IMAX size and resolution. Isn't that enough? Maybe that's why you're calling yourself a videophile instead of a filmophile.

 

[Russell Nash]

The best comparison I can come up with is the Blu-ray of a film that's presented in 1.33:1 (The Third Man). The image you're seeing isn't in 1080 because the dimensions are different, but that doesn't mean it isn't in high-definition. You can't replicate the original resolution of the master, but you can get close.

The IMAX parts of TDK are just like this and can be presented without cropping/altering the original image. You can still get a sense of the "scope" of the scene if you have it on a large enough screen. To someone with a TV below say 65', then I can see why it might be a problem. The real problem however is that people should man up and get a big ass TV or projector!

 

[KalMart]

The best comparison I can come up with is the Blu-ray of a film that's presented in 1.33:1 (The Third Man). The image you're seeing isn't in 1080 because the dimensions are different, but that doesn't mean it isn't in high-definition. You can't replicate the original resolution of the master, but you can get close.

The IMAX parts of TDK are just like this and can be presented without cropping/altering the original image. You can still get a sense of the "scope" of the scene if you have it on a large enough screen. To someone with a TV below say 65', then I can see why it might be a problem. The real problem however is that people should man up and get a big ass TV or projector!

No, the difference is that you're still not simulating the intended IMAX experience of watching the film....in that the IMAX parts take up the entire big 1.44 screen, whereas the 35mm parts are then narrower top-to-bottom, but the same width. The picture in the IMAX theaters doesn't get wider for the 2.35:1 shots with the same height....but it does when centerpunching an IMAX frame into a 16x9 frame. And again, IMAX isn't just about screen size, it's the resolution of the picture on that big screen...which is much higher per capita than a regular 35 one. What you're simulating' is taking a regular 35mm and blowing it up on a larger screen than what's optimal...hardly even a 'poor-man's IMAX'. 4:3 movies like The Third Man or what have you...so you have a big 4:3 frame...but it's still missing the sides that would be there if you popped in a full 16x9 BluRay.

If you really want to simulate IMAX...take one of your regular BluRays in 16x9....then project it as large as you can in your house/home theater with the highest quality HD projector whilst retaining a good size-to-viewing distance ratio. Now.....take that same screen...and extend it 50% higher on the top and bottom, but don't zoom the picture up.

So if you want something like IMAX at home...you need to 'man up' and knock out the ceiling above and the floor below of your viewing room, then get two more projectors to fill in that top and bottom space....or buy a projector that can play higher than 4K and source material that's also higher than 4k. Otherwise, all you're doing is stuffing more socks in your pants, or wearing magnifying goggles to make your food look bigger. Doing a BluRay with centerpunched 1.44 'IMAX' shots for people who want to project on a bigger wall would be akin to just providing you with the extra socks....for that wonderful 'pretend IMAX' experience.

 

[Russell Nash]

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.

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.

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?