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

I guess Stanley Kubrick isn't worth his weight in salt then according to you.
If you're referring to the BluRays with the 'original aspect ratios' that are pillared, the entire film was shot with that intended aspect ratio...not a mix of that and 2.35 or 1.78. Apples and oranges...but nice try nonetheless.

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.
It's meant to be done as much as the format allows while still maintaining a constant width...it was not meant to fully simulate the IMAX experience, since the screen cannot suddenly increase in height to a full 1.44:1 while keeping the same picture width (which would entail doing it properly). If you notice on the actual BD box/case, it does not advertise itself as 'the IMAX edition', or what have you.

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."
It's not 'the IMAX cut', nor is it intended to be a full simulation of an IMAX viewing....that was for IMAX theaters. Think, McFly. :O
 
Last edited:
Just enjoy the movie, however you watch it, yo?! ;)
 
If you're referring to the BluRays with the 'original aspect ratios' that are pillared, the entire film was shot with that intended aspect ratio...not a mix of that and 2.35 or 1.78. Apples and oranges...but nice try nonetheless.

I was actually talking about the changing aspect ratios found on the original DVD of Dr. Strangelove (1.33 and 1.66) contrasted to the recent Blu-ray with a consistent 1.66:1 ratio (At least the U.S. release, the one from Sony is 1.78:1). Stanley Kubrick shot most of his movies open matte 1.33:1.

DVD first release:

Blu-ray US:

Blu-ray Sony:


The actual aspect ratio he would want it in? God only knows now.

To put this conversation to a close, the Blu-ray of TDK should have simply had the theatrical aspect ratio consistent with the 35 mm print seeing how it's practically impossible to replicate the IMAX experience at all (Pillarboxing or non-existent technology). Most people saw the film in 2.35:1 so it would make sense if it were released that way as well. No version of the film was shown theatrically in 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. The Blu-ray is the only one to have it.
 
Last edited:
I was actually talking about the changing aspect ratios found on the original DVD of Dr. Strangelove (1.33 and 1.66) contrasted to the recent Blu-ray with a consistent 1.66:1 ratio (At least the U.S. release, the one from Sony is 1.78:1). Stanley Kubrick shot most of his movies open matte 1.33:1. The actual aspect ratio he would want it in? God only knows now.
I only have the 2001 special edition DVD, with the original 1.33:1 camera ratio throughout. But yeah, there has been a bit of 'mystery' surrounding Strangelove when it comes to that.

Still apples and oranges, especially since we do know how TDK was intended for 35mm theaters, IMAX, and home video....and Strangelove was made before home video existed.

To put this conversation to a close, the Blu-ray of TDK should have simply had the theatrical aspect ratio consistent with the 35 mm print seeing how it's practically impossible to replicate the IMAX experience at all (Pillarboxing or non-existent technology). Most people saw the film in 2.35:1 so it would make sense if it were released that way as well.
By that reasoning, it would make even less sense to include pillared IMAX shots, since that doesn't reflect the 35mm OR IMAX print either, and would be even more distracting than switching from 2.35:1 to 16x9 like on the BluRay...yet you still pined for it. As it stands, the full 16x9 sequences were a nice bonus, without necessarily having to fully reflect the IMAX experience. 'Enhanced home viewing', if you will...but it would be nice to have the option to turn it of for those who would find it distracting.

Now it can close. Thanks for coming, and congrats on the avatar. ;) :up:
 
Last edited:
http://***********/#!/Freddie_Z_Roche/status/113686463081758720
#thedarkknightrises technical info: They are shooting on #IMAX Yes But shooting with the film in portrait! so essentially 105mm.
 
I must say I've been educated quite a bit on the last 2 pages about resolutions. I never really thought about the difference it makes on the movie.
 
I ran into this video recently: http://vimeo.com/28792404

Although I agree with the continuous 180° rule problem highlighted here, the minor continuity errors the narrator points out can be found in just about EVERY film. One should also consider the incredible limitations of filming this particular chase sequence with huge and noisy IMAX cameras (e.g. I would assume the two-shot the narrator suggests for inside the Police Van just wouldn't be possible). DP Wally Pfister even stated they had to custom build rigs to achieve certain angles when shooting with IMAX equipment. What do you all think?
 
Last edited:
i just watched that chase analysis... sorry but the guy is ridiculous.. its impossible to film something like that without continuity errors.. and even with them, you simply dont notice them normally. With the exeption you are a film geek and watch this stuff over and over again.. i do.. and i still dont care ^^

i saw that chase many times and had never a problem follow. there is a caravan heading in one direction and followed by bad guys basically.. all in the same direction.. how can you be confused by that!?
 
....One should also consider the incredible limitations of filming this particular chase sequence with huge and noisy IMAX cameras (e.g. I would assume the two-shot the narrator suggests for inside the Police Van just wouldn't be possible)...

i dont know the intentions of nolan and pfister but i think you could shoot that with a two shot with imax cameras.. you could cut the van in half and rig or weld it on somthing you can shake. then you have enough space.
 
Does anyone remember how long the TDK prologue was? I went for their initial screening and remembered it going by so fast.
 
Man, IMAX tickets sure are expensive in other cities.

I'm planning on seeing the prologue and TDKR at Muvico of Cityplace.

$12.75 a ticket.
 
I wonder what scene it will be.... if its the Pittsburgh Heinz Field scene, I'm gonna go and hopefully see myself and my friends in the cut!

But I'm guessing it'll be something to tie TDKR with TDK?
 
As it stands, the full 16x9 sequences were a nice bonus, without necessarily having to fully reflect the IMAX experience. 'Enhanced home viewing', if you will...but it would be nice to have the option to turn it of for those who would find it distracting.
Agreed. I’m glad that TDK Blu-ray included the IMAX sequences. As you say, it was a nice bonus. We got the complete picture in those scenes with nothing cropped from them. However, I do like having one comprehensive ratio ala the DVD as well because it’s more conventional. Hopefully WB releases both versions in HD next time.
 
i personally love the imax portions of the blu ray. you can def tell the difference in clarity and i love that it fills the full 60" of my screen. i wish the whole movie was shot in imax
 
i personally love the imax portions of the blu ray. you can def tell the difference in clarity and i love that it fills the full 60" of my screen. i wish the whole movie was shot in imax

Agreed. All the IMAX sequences look fantastic and I love that they fill up the entire screen. :up:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,346
Messages
22,089,161
Members
45,887
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"