The Dark Knight to be multiple AR on Blu-ray

[George Bellefontaine]

Because this was shown in Imax theaters as well as in regular theaters, the director has opted for multiple aspect ratios, switching between 1:85 ( Imax scenes ) to 2:40 ( theatrical scenes ). Some may not mind this, but it totally pisses me off. Aside from the possible distraction of watching the picture change size on your screen, it is a pisser for those of us who have front projection and use mattes on their 1:85 screens for when they watch 2:35/2:40 widescreen movies. I would like to have seen Warner do a 2 disc version with one at the Imax ratio and the other at the regular theatrical 2:40 ratio. Universal did this on dvd with Apollo 13. Anyway, I am now torn between either buying the Blu and living with the changing ARs or going with the standard dvd instead, which will be the same as the 2:40 theatrical version . :x

[impala454]

Isn't it only like one scene? Where he's flying around? Or is it more?

[dyazdani]

That's kind of silly that they allowed something to be produced like that, IMHO. If it's not many scenes, maybe it's fine.

I was planning to buy the BRD version, oh well. I never saw it in the theater so I'm just excited to see it, probably won't mind it changing at this point.

[wettou]

Because this was shown in Imax theaters as well as in regular theaters, the director has opted for multiple aspect ratios, switching between 1:85 ( Imax scenes ) to 2:40 ( theatrical scenes ). Some may not mind this, but it totally pisses me off. Aside from the possible distraction of watching the picture change size on your screen, it is a pisser for those of us who have front projection and use mattes on their 1:85 screens for when they watch 2:35/2:40 widescreen movies. I would like to have seen Warner do a 2 disc version with one at the Imax ratio and the other at the regular theatrical 2:40 ratio. Universal did this on dvd with Apollo 13. Anyway, I am now torn between either buying the Blu and living with the changing ARs or going with the standard dvd instead, which will be the same as the 2:40 theatrical version . :x

That is absurd I will rent it first as I have a 2:35 screen?

[George Bellefontaine]

Isn't it only like one scene? Where he's flying around? Or is it more?

No, apparently it switches aspect ratio throughout the movie. :x

[Ovation]

There are about 24 minutes of IMAX (I saw it in IMAX last summer)--the opening scene (about 6 minutes), a major chase scene in the middle of the film (about 8 minutes) and the other 10 or so minutes are sprinkled in 30 sec. to 2 minute parcels, if I recall correctly.

The IMAX version is the one Nolan favoured and he chose to emulate it as closely as possible on the BD. There are debates about this on various fora with the CIH contingent being the most upset. (I actually loved the IMAX version--the changing AR did not bother me at all--and I look forward to the BD but I understand the frustration some people are having about this issue.)

[wettou]

There are about 24 minutes of IMAX (I saw it in IMAX last summer)--the opening scene (about 6 minutes), a major chase scene in the middle of the film (about 8 minutes) and the other 10 or so minutes are sprinkled in 30 sec. to 2 minute parcels, if I recall correctly.

Whoa this is ridiculous and very distracting why on earth would you do something like that!!!

[Hdale85]

I heard the DVD it's actually cropped. It's silly and if you have a constant height setup then it would quite make me upset.

[impala454]

The CIH people aren't that many in numbers, but what's really stupid is even all the "normal" people who they're trying to please will be pissed. They'll all being asking "how come it only fills up my new HDTV for 24 minutes of the movie???"

[Chris D]

Wait... it switches back and forth as you watch the one actual movie?

No...

dumb...

[Hdale85]

Yes it switches. Why they wouldn't just do 2.35:1 through the whole movie like most other good movies is beyond me....

[George Bellefontaine]

Why they wouldn't just do 2.35:1 through the whole movie like most other good movies

I understand it is this way on standard dvd, so my feeling is that they could have offered two versions on Blu-ray--the Imax AR and the standard 2:40. That way, those who don't want the distraction and other problems of a changing AR could at least have a choice. Warner was a huge leader in the early days of dvd, but they are really out to lunch when it comes to Blu-ray when they do stupid things like this with The Dark Knight along with their not offering lossless audio on most of their releases. :roll:

[Hdale85]

Yeah especially considering The Dark Knight is probably one of the most anticipated movies this year to be released on BD.

[impala454]

It's going to especially piss off the "normal" people if the opening scene is 1.85 and fills their whole screen, then it squeezes back down to 2.35.

Though I suppose that won't stop me from buying it heheh. This Tuesday right?

[Hdale85]

Yep the 9th.

[PewterTA]

I love the fact that everyone is sooo positive that it's going to be terrible. When in fact no one has seen it yet. To be honest, from the demo I saw of the changes (actual footage of the film in a place it changes), the changing ratios were not bad and I actually thought it made a neat effect and can't wait for it.

[littlesaint]

For most viewers it won't be terrible. For front projection people it's a terrible decision. It's a terrible decision in general. You do not switch screen formats in the middle of a film. They should have released two versions.

[George Bellefontaine]

They should have released two versions.

Exactly. I may watch something like this once for the novelty of it, but this is a movie I will probably watch several times. Unless Warner changes its mind an releases a 2:40 constant AR Blu version later, looks like I will have to go with the lower rez standard dvd.

[David Meek]

My Blu-Ray has been on order for a couple of months, and I'm getting impatient. That Christopher Nolan chose to hop ratios from scene-to-scene seems odd at best. Two versions in constant ratio would have been much more elegant, especially for such a high-profile movie. I'll hold any more judgements until after I've actually seen the BD.

<standing by door, looking down driveway, tapping foot impatiently...>

[George Bellefontaine]

Hey, Tex. I don't think the changing aspect ratio thing will bother you too much on your 50" Plasma. People like me who use mattes on a front projection system, or someone with a constant height setup, will find the whole thing rather annoying.

[David Meek]

So true Sir George. I wasn't trying to minimalize there - matting/CIH set-ups like yours are in for it.

[Ovation]

How many of you saw it in the IMAX version at the cinema? I saw it there, as well as in the regular "scope" version. I found it WAAAAAYYYYY better in the IMAX version (and the AR varied throughout the film at the IMAX presentation--in a packed theatre, I heard NO complaints). Moreover, the IMAX presentation is what Nolan considers the optimal form (and it's his baby). Recognizing that home HD displays are NOT in the full IMAX AR, Nolan chose to have the BD approximate the IMAX version as much as possible (as far as he is concerned--some disagree with his particular approach at recreating the IMAX version, but that's for another debate). Nolan, unlike most filmmakers, negotiated the rights to decide which form the home release would present in the best medium currently available (Blu-ray). He either did not get that option for the SD DVD or chose not to do so because he believes (erroneously or not) that most people opting for the SD DVD will not have large HD displays.

I've been part of a debate on another forum about this issue, so I'll summarize my views here. None of us has a RIGHT to be satisfied with the artistic decisions of any artist (filmmaker or otherwise). We do have the right to express our dismay, either verbally or, more forcefully, with our wallets. But the artistic endeavour does NOT belong to the viewers/listeners/readers. It belongs to its creator(s)/rights owners. As such, they are free to distribute the artistic endeavour in any form they wish. Rightly or wrongly, Nolan believes the IMAX version, complete with variable AR, is the best format and, further, he has obtained the right to decide how HIS creation should be presented to the public (at least in part). If I were an artist (in any medium), I would want the same option (to choose what I consider is the optimal presentation of my artistic endeavour)--REGARDLESS of what the public thinks. The public can exercise ITS right of approval/disapproval but it has NO RIGHT to be satisfied with the choices of the creator beforehand.

Someone in that other discussion mentioned a number of 70mm 2.20:1 AR "roadshow" versions of major films that were seen on a tiny number of screens across the country (in the 50s to the early 70s, mostly) whereas the vast majority of saw these same films were seen in 2:35 "scope". Today, the overwhelming majority of people who care about OAR clamour for the 70mm 2.20:1 version as the "correct" version. I see no difference with the Dark Knight and its variable AR (with the possible exception that the BD does not exactly replicate the IMAX cinema variable AR owing to the decision to accommodate the overwhelming majority of HD displays that are 1.78:1 rather than the IMAX 1.44:1 AR).

I understand the frustrations some people have, particularly the CIH contingent, and I too would prefer a dual release that includes the scope version with the VAR version. However, I also accept that a creator or owner of an artistic endeavour owes me nothing in terms of satisfaction. He/they put out their endeavour for the public to judge worthy or not of support (financially or otherwise). That is, in my opinion, the healthiest relationship between artist and public, even if that sometimes (or often--depending on both the art form and individual taste) leads to disappointment. So while I sympathize with the complaints, I would urge people to view it before pronouncing final judgement and I stand with the creators (if at all possible) or the owners of an artistic endeavour in terms of deciding how to present it to the public in various formats.

[Ovation]

My Blu-Ray has been on order for a couple of months, and I'm getting impatient. That Christopher Nolan chose to hop ratios from scene-to-scene seems odd at best. Two versions in constant ratio would have been much more elegant, especially for such a high-profile movie. I'll hold any more judgements until after I've actually seen the BD.

<standing by door, looking down driveway, tapping foot impatiently...>

Only the scope version (NOT preferred by Nolan) was in constant ratio. The IMAX version was variable even at IMAX screens, so the variable AR is a close approximation of that experience.

[George Bellefontaine]

An elegantly put argument for artistic licence, Ovation and I completely agree with the point you make. However, I do disagree with the director in this case and the only way I can get any satisfaction out of my disagreement is not to purchase the Blu-ray. I'm sure those who won't be bothered by the changing aspect ratios will thoroughly enjoy Mr. Nolan's vision.

[Ovation]

I understand your disagreement--I was always disappointed with the Kubrick insistence for open matte presentations of his work on home video (and I'm a fervent admirer of Kubrick's work, so it was doubly disappointing for years). Now I have the five releases on HD DVD, each with a closer to the OAR presentation than before (still not exact for the most part but much more to my liking).

But I would suggest at least viewing the BD before making a final decision.

[littlesaint]

I'm all for directors being allowed to show their vision, but that's what a Director's Cut is for. If I want to see IMAX, I'll go to an IMAX theater. Put the IMAX version on a second disc if it doesn't fit on one, and leave the standard AR in there. How hard is that?

[Kevin P]

How was the variable AR handled in IMAX theaters? By varying the height? For most viewers, the BD will be the same way, black bars at top & bottom for the 2.20 parts of the film, and none for the 1.85 parts (assuming a 16:9 screen).

I guess for those with constant height setups it could be a problem (a minority of users). Perhaps some manufacturer of video processors, scalers, or projectors could offer a "fixed height" mode, where the image is scaled horizontally to maintain a constant output height, adding bars on the sides as needed in those parts that are a narrower AR than the screen (the AR can be determined by sensing the black/grey bars in the input image).

For those who matte their screens based on AR, just set your mattes for 1.85.

[George Bellefontaine]

For those who matte their screens based on AR, just set your mattes for 1.85.

From what I understand, the majority of the film is projected at a 2:40 aspect ratio, so removing my mattes to expose the 1:85 screen is not an option. I use mattes because they block emitted light from the dark grey bars above and below the 2:40/35 image on a 1:85 screen. But that is only one issue I have with this Blu-ray release. I would find the changing aspect ratios distracting.

[Kevin P]

Here's the solution to your problems... just put these on during the 2.40:1 parts, and take them off during the 1.85:1 parts.

[George Bellefontaine]

You know what, Kevin, that just might work... :lol:

[Ovation]

I'm all for directors being allowed to show their vision, but that's what a Director's Cut is for. If I want to see IMAX, I'll go to an IMAX theater. Put the IMAX version on a second disc if it doesn't fit on one, and leave the standard AR in there. How hard is that?

The difficulty of doing what you ask is irrelevant. Nolan did not want a fixed AR release for BD and he exercised his contractual rights to prevent such a release. A director's cut implies a different cut, and that is not what is going on here. The creator (in this case Nolan) has NO obligation to give you what you want. Your only right is to vote with your wallet and express your disappointment.

The overwhelming philosophical view held of HT among its enthusiasts is the desire to approximate, as much as possible, the theatrical experience. As such, it has become expected by HT enthusiasts that whatever copy of a film they possess, it should let them recreate that experience as closely as possible. However much this expectation has been satisfied and expressed, its satisfaction is NOT a right.

There is another philosophical outlook on HT; one that argues that a home set up CANNOT precisely reproduce the cinematic effect. In this view, modifying the presentation for home use is seen as desirable. Of course, this is a nearly universally reviled point of view among HT enthusiasts (it leads to pan and scan, among other nastiness). Nevertheless, from the point of view of "rights", it is perfectly defensible. The owners/creators of an artistic endeavour can select whichever presentation form they wish--they own it. Kubrick wanted open matte presentations. Soderbergh wanted an Academy ratio for the home release of The Good German (to make it more like the homage to 40s films it is intended to be--I believe some cinemas presented it this way when possible, but a 1.85:1 print was released, protected for 1.37:1 screenings, for those cinemas not equipped to show an Academy ratio). Nolan wants the variable AR on BD. Storraro has convinced directors like Bertolucci and Coppola to offer a modified AR as definitive HOME presentations for The Last Emperor and Apocalypse Now. In each case (and there are many others), controversy and disappointment from the viewing public have ensued. None of this changes the fact that creators/owners have the final say. We, the public, are owed nothing. We don't own the artistic endeavour in question.

Again, I think a viewing is called for before making a final judgement. I loved the IMAX version and look forward to the BD as is. However, it is possible I will find the home version unsatisfactory. Regardless, the right of presentation remains with the creator/owner.

[littlesaint]

...and express your disappointment.

...

Seems to me that's what we're doing here, but your replies suggest we are wrong for doing it. No one is saying Nolan should "give us what we want". If he thinks changing AR in the middle of a film is necessary for his vision, great, but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a bad decision when looked at from a technical standpoint for home theater.

[George Bellefontaine]

Your only right is to vote with your wallet and express your disappointment.

The overwhelming philosophical view held of HT among its enthusiasts is the desire to approximate, as much as possible, the theatrical experience.

Yes to about voting with your wallet. It's what I intend to do, but Nolan will still win because I will be buying ( not that I want to ) the standard dvd with a constant 2:40 AR, which is one of the two theatrical experiences Nolan offered to the theater-going public. He should have given the same choice to to those who wanted to purchase his movie on hi-definition media.

[Ovation]

Seems to me that's what we're doing here, but your replies suggest we are wrong for doing it. No one is saying Nolan should "give us what we want". If he thinks changing AR in the middle of a film is necessary for his vision, great, but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a bad decision when looked at from a technical standpoint for home theater.

No one is wrong for complaining about the lack of the other format (the fixed AR). It was not my intention to suggest otherwise. I guess I was replying more generically (as I've discussed this in a number of fora) as I've read many complaints that argued we have a right to have the fixed AR version and that director's wishes should be secondary to that. My apologies if it seemed I was telling people they have no right to complain at all.

[Ovation]

Yes to about voting with your wallet. It's what I intend to do, but Nolan will still win because I will be buying ( not that I want to ) the standard dvd with a constant 2:40 AR, which is one of the two theatrical experiences Nolan offered to the theater-going public. He should have given the same choice to to those who wanted to purchase his movie on hi-definition media.

In this case, I think Warner wins, not Nolan (in principle--monetarily, I'm sure Nolan benefits from the SD sales as well). From a number of interviews I've read, he would, in an ideal world (as he views it) only release the variable AR version (as he would have preferred only the IMAX version be screened). This is somewhat similar to what happened with The Good German. My understanding (I did not get to see it at the cinema) is that Soderbergh wanted it projected in the cinema at the Academy AR (and, if I recall correctly, some cinemas accommodated this, but not all--I guess some are unable to screen an Academy AR). He was able to have the home release in the Academy AR. As far as I know, it's the only version available. In each case, the creator/owner is deciding the optimal presentation format, as is their right. I don't recall a big brouhaha over the non-OAR version of The Good German, despite the reasons for it being non-OAR being nearly identical to the BD release of TDK.

In any event, I await the arrival of the BD with impatience (it is the first and, thus far, only film I've ever pre-ordered). I've also said my piece in defence of artistic rights, so I'll conclude on that note.

[Gremal]

I will be buying ( not that I want to ) the standard dvd with a constant 2:40 AR, which is one of the two theatrical experiences Nolan offered to the theater-going public. He should have given the same choice to to those who wanted to purchase his movie on hi-definition media.

Nolan would have preferred everyone see it at an IMAX theater, but that's not an option. The only reason for the 2:40 fixed AR was to get it in non-IMAX theaters. I'm glad the Blu-ray shows it closer to the way Nolan shot it and intended it to be seen, and I wish all studios would honor the filmmakers' intentions in this way.

For what it's worth, I feel sorry for anyone who has to watch the NTSC version. The BD is incredible.

[wettou]

Yes to about voting with your wallet. It's what I intend to do, but Nolan will still win because I will be buying ( not that I want to ) the standard dvd with a constant 2:40 AR, which is one of the two theatrical experiences Nolan offered to the theater-going public. He should have given the same choice to to those who wanted to purchase his movie on hi-definition media.

Forget, it I will rent it and in six month when they re-release it on blu ray with 2:40 aspect ratio fixed, I will buy it then at $15 at Costco:B

[Ovation]

Forget, it I will rent it and in six month when they re-release it on blu ray with 2:40 aspect ratio fixed, I will buy it then at $15 at Costco:B

I'd place a friendly wager that such a re-release won't happen until, at the earliest, until the sequel is near its release. And even then, I wouldn't consider it a sure thing as long as Nolan's contract is in force. I hope for those who want the fixed AR on BD that I'm wrong, though.

[impala454]

Are they actually doing another one? I had heard they decided they couldn't top TDK and decided not to do another one.

[George Bellefontaine]

For what it's worth, I feel sorry for anyone who has to watch the NTSC version. The BD is incredible.

Don't feel sorry for me. I don't HAVE to watch the standard version, I simply choose to. And if it never comes to Blu it isn't the end of the world. I have well over 1000 dvds in my library that look pretty darn good upconverted on my projector. I go back to these old chestnuts over and over again and marvel at how beautiful they look with today's better upconversion technology.

[Gremal]

I say I feel sorry for you because I've had the BD for a couple weeks and I assure you it surpasses what DVD can do, both visually and sonically. I watched it with a friend who didn't notice the shifting aspect ratio and it still took her a few minutes to figure out what was changing even after I pointed it out to her and explained it. To say the shifting AR is unobtrusive is an understatement. It's not a point of criticism, that's for sure. For those who feel filmmakers should get more say than studios or "spec dictators" in home video, the shifting AR on this BD is really a triumph.

[George Bellefontaine]

I say I feel sorry for you because I've had the BD for a couple weeks and I assure you it surpasses what DVD can do, both visually and sonically.

Don't doubt that for a minute, but it doesn't alter the fact that not everyone wants what they would consider a distraction. For those of you who don't have a problem with the changing aspect ratios, I say fine:watch and enjoy. It's just not for me so I'll take the dvd .

[Race Car Driver]

Are they actually doing another one? I had heard they decided they couldn't top TDK and decided not to do another one.

Heh, while that may be true, I sure hope not.

[Hdale85]

TDK was a good movie no doubt but I still kind of like Batman Begins better. It's not a lot better or anything thought just a little. I love both movies regardless.

[Gremal]

They were very different movies. Batman Begins focused on Bruce Wayne's character development and motivation to fight evil. TDK focused on what it takes to fight evil in the modern world and the main character development was spent on Harvey Dent/Two-Face and how he was influenced by good and evil.

There's definitely going to be a Batman 3. When a studio stands to make as much money as Warner is now making off the Batman franchise, it's a foregone conclusion that a sequel with Nolan/Bale is coming. Just a matter of when.