|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: The Dark Knight changing aspect |
|
|
The Dark Knight
For those of us running CIH I can say this is one annoying movie if you do not effective masking above and below the screen during aspect changes. Anyone remember what the director's reasoning was on this front? Since i do not go to the public movie houses I wonder how this was handled there.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I know it wasn't that way at the in the theater. I think they thought it would be cool to make all the scenes that were shot with an IMAX camera 1:85 and leave the other stuff scope. BTW those shots IMO do look amazing. It also effects poor folks like me that have masking system. My mask is black velvet so it soaks up most of the light but I still see some some spill. Also it only really effects "Zoomers" people with A-Lens don't have a problem because they stretch the image and crop out the top and bottom.
I actually wrote an App that can mask the top and bottom on an HTPC so it could solve the issue if your using an HTPC, however for one movie it doesn't really seem like it makes any sense. I guess you also could have another memory setup on your projector that cranks in more blanking on the top and bottom...If your talking about a CRT...I'm not sure blanking has the range to go that far...I'll have to try it out.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the standard theatrical presentations, the film was matted to scope, while it was presented just like the Blu-ray in IMAX theaters. The viewers in the IMAX saw the upconverted scope shots mixed in with the native 70mm IMAX shots (which of course looked smokin' hot. So, for those of us with 16:9 screens, we get something like the "IMAX" experience and it looks kick-ass, while the "zoomers" with scope screens get the shaft. 
Seriously, I think it's awesome. The idea that a movie can only be shot on - and presented in - only one aspect ratio, just to be compatible the 1% of Blu-ray buyers with scope screens is silly. That said, they should make the matted theatrical version available for the scope folks and anyone else who (for whatever reason) finds the AR changes annoying.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron W
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 860
Location: Mississauga
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | As far as I know it wasn't that way at the in the theater. I think they thought it would be cool to make all the scenes that were shot with an IMAX camera 1:85 and leave the other stuff scope. BTW those shots IMO do look amazing. It also effects poor folks like me that have masking system. My mask is black velvet so it soaks up most of the light but I still see some some spill. Also it only really effects "Zoomers" people with A-Lens don't have a problem because they stretch the image and crop out the top and bottom.
I actually wrote an App that can mask the top and bottom on an HTPC so it could solve the issue if your using an HTPC, however for one movie it doesn't really seem like it makes any sense. I guess you also could have another memory setup on your projector that cranks in more blanking on the top and bottom...If your talking about a CRT...I'm not sure blanking has the range to go that far...I'll have to try it out.
Mike |
That is exactly the case with this movie. When I first purchased it I wondered about the same thing, however, when I was in my favorite video store at the time, I happened to meet one of the technicians who worked for IMAX(The HO is just across the highway from me as the crow flies)and he mentioned they intermixed the IMAX version(1.85) with the regular theatrical version on the BR disc essentially as a novelty because it never been done before in this manner.
The regular theatrical version would have been in the normal 2:35 to 1 ratio.
Quite frankly, I wish they would have just left the whole movie in 1:85 to 1 since it was taken from the original IMAX master and as we see the picture is quite stunning.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | For the standard theatrical presentations, the film was matted to scope, while it was presented just like the Blu-ray in IMAX theaters. The viewers in the IMAX saw the upconverted scope shots mixed in with the native 70mm IMAX shots (which of course looked smokin' hot. So, for those of us with 16:9 screens, we get something like the "IMAX" experience and it looks kick-ass, while the "zoomers" with scope screens get the shaft.
Seriously, I think it's awesome. The idea that a movie can only be shot on - and presented in - only one aspect ratio, just to be compatible the 1% of Blu-ray buyers with scope screens is silly. That said, they should make the matted theatrical version available for the scope folks and anyone else who (for whatever reason) finds the AR changes annoying.
SC |
This seems like the perfect movie for lens memory on CIH like the Panny 4000.
Not sure how fast it recognizes and changes though...and it may be a bit distracting. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: |
This seems like the perfect movie for lens memory on CIH like the Panny 4000.
Not sure how fast it recognizes and changes though...and it may be a bit distracting. |
I think it also displays a message on the screen while it's adjusting...So I would would call that very distracting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do8ABfqByxM&feature=related
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | For the standard theatrical presentations, the film was matted to scope, while it was presented just like the Blu-ray in IMAX theaters. The viewers in the IMAX saw the upconverted scope shots mixed in with the native 70mm IMAX shots (which of course looked smokin' hot. So, for those of us with 16:9 screens, we get something like the "IMAX" experience and it looks kick-ass, while the "zoomers" with scope screens get the shaft.
Seriously, I think it's awesome. The idea that a movie can only be shot on - and presented in - only one aspect ratio, just to be compatible the 1% of Blu-ray buyers with scope screens is silly. That said, they should make the matted theatrical version available for the scope folks and anyone else who (for whatever reason) finds the AR changes annoying.
SC |
+1. It's being presented the way it was intended. IMAX BABY 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron W wrote: | | ...he mentioned they intermixed the IMAX version(1.85) with the regular theatrical version on the BR disc essentially as a novelty because it never been done before in this manner. |
Either you misunderstood, or the technician was mistaken. They didn't "intermix the IMAX version with the regular theatrical version" as you say... The version on the Blu-ray disc is the version of the film screened in IMAX theaters.
| Ron W wrote: | | The regular theatrical version would have been in the normal 2:35 to 1 ratio. |
Correct.
| Ron W wrote: | | Quite frankly, I wish they would have just left the whole movie in 1:85 to 1 since it was taken from the original IMAX master and as we see the picture is quite stunning. |
As I alluded to before, the whole movie wasn't shot in 1.78... Most of the movie was shot in scope, while the major action scenes were shot on IMAX 1.44.
The director, Christopher Nolan, used the IMAX version of the film for the Blu-ray, because with BD, there was enough resolution that you could see the aspect ratio change, and even the difference between the sharpness and grain structure of 35mm and 70mm IMAX shots.
If you've got a really good display, the IMAX are very noticeably sharper and less grainy than the 35mm shots.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | This seems like the perfect movie for lens memory on CIH like the Panny 4000.
Not sure how fast it recognizes and changes though...and it may be a bit distracting. |
It's definitely too distracting to do on the fly. A) I don't think it's automatic, so you'd have to hit the "AR memory" button, switch AR's, and hit enter, all the time with menus on the screen. Perhaps with serial control, you could do it blind, but I'm not even sure about that. B) It takes a few seconds to zoom and shift.
Definitely not something you'd want to do on the fly multiple times during a movie.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keep in mind that I am the type of person that is easily distracted. In my last theater I had all of the components in a closet and used an RF remote in order to not hear fans, see LEDs, etc.
I think I can get the right black velvet and have some curtains made (I found a tailor!), which I'll then install above and below the screen for the full width. Unfortunately, though, this means when watching this movie again I run the risk chopping--but my overall experience will be as the studios obviously wanted for folks in home theaters.
I make that a poignant note because I do not know of anyone with a projector+screen setup with dynamic aspect changes setup on the fly. And if one is to not mask, then one is to suffer in another area of the overall presentation. I am not complaining about 1.85 (in terms of vs. 2.35/2.4), but just that it should have maintain one aspect.
But, since this is a one-off title I'll give it a B for distracting me away from the movie. 
BTW, I watched this movie like 3-4 times since I owned it and I just realized that one of the mobsters (Gambol, he died) was Spawn!
Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV: "Paul's sister? Paul is Muad'Dib?"
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | greg_mitch wrote: | This seems like the perfect movie for lens memory on CIH like the Panny 4000.
Not sure how fast it recognizes and changes though...and it may be a bit distracting. |
It's definitely too distracting to do on the fly. A) I don't think it's automatic, so you'd have to hit the "AR memory" button, switch AR's, and hit enter, all the time with menus on the screen. Perhaps with serial control, you could do it blind, but I'm not even sure about that. B) It takes a few seconds to zoom and shift.
Definitely not something you'd want to do on the fly multiple times during a movie.
SC |
It is auto switching, but it does show "processing" in the middle of the screen...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisWiggles
Opinionated SOB
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2529
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron W wrote: |
That is exactly the case with this movie. When I first purchased it I wondered about the same thing, however, when I was in my favorite video store at the time, I happened to meet one of the technicians who worked for IMAX(The HO is just across the highway from me as the crow flies)and he mentioned they intermixed the IMAX version(1.85) with the regular theatrical version on the BR disc essentially as a novelty because it never been done before in this manner.
The regular theatrical version would have been in the normal 2:35 to 1 ratio.
Quite frankly, I wish they would have just left the whole movie in 1:85 to 1 since it was taken from the original IMAX master and as we see the picture is quite stunning. |
I think you misunderstood the Imax technician.
This film was shot on two different film stocks at two different aspect ratios. Most of the film is scope 2.35:1 standard 35mm. Specific portions of the film were shot in 4:3 IMAX, which is a 65mm film format. The presentation at Imax shows exactly this: portions shot originally in IMAX are seen in the full 4:3 Aspect Ratio with full glorious IMAX resolution to boot. The rest of the movie was 2.35:1 and printed out onto the IMAX film stock via the IMAX DMR noise-reduction/blowup process.
I saw it in IMAX, and it was exactly this, the film alternates between 4:3 and 2.35:1.
I did not see it in a standard theater, but my understanding is that the standard 35mm release was simply 2.35:1, and all the IMAX portions were cropped down to 2.35:1 and printed out on 35mm.
The BD disc is kind of a compromise between the two. The IMAX portions are actually being cropped down to 16:9 (since IMAX is taller than 16:9), and the 35mm stuff (the rest) is 2.35:1.
The technician was saying that the disc is an intermix of IMAX footage with 35mm footage, which is what the film is. It was intermixed in this way when shown at IMAX. It's not a mix of what was shown at IMAX and what was shown elsewhere. It is just the IMAX version, with the IMAX portions cropped down to 16:9.
If they were to have produced this in true OAR to what was shown in IMAX, everyone would have flipped out, because the disc would have been pillarboxed 4:3 for all the IMAX portion, and then presumably letterboxed down to 2.35:1 inside that, postage-stamp style. ICK!
I think the BD they released is a great compromise that maintains most of the impressiveness of the switch to the larger IMAX format for those scenes where it is present. While it's not technically OAR as seen in IMAX, it's probably the closest compromise IMO.
I didn't really care for the film, but seeing it in IMAX was friggin awesome (the IMAX portions anyway, the 35mm stuff gets kind of stomped-on by the IMAX DMR process).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
