# Dark Knight Blu-ray will swap between 2.35 and 1.78 for Imax scenes! ... now what?!?



## iansilv

 http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080927f.php 


How will CIH setups deal with this?


----------



## _Noah_

Are there more scenes than just the opening 6 minutes that were shot in IMAX? I was under the impression that it was just at the beginning.


----------



## iansilv

No- there were a bunch- every action scene the screen opens up- the car chase scene, the end scene in the building, etc. This is a pretty big deal.


----------



## Zip3kx07

Well in the link it says the Imax footage was shot in a 1:66:1 ratio and the 35mm footage is a 1:78:1 not a 2:35:1.


The Blu-Ray version will have the Imax shifting aspect ratio, the standard DVD will have cropped Imax footage to fit the 1:78:1. I did see TDK at the Imax and the shifting aspect ratio is noticeable. If you picked up Batman Begins on Blu-Ray it has TDK prologue, the first 6 minutes of TDK footage shot on Imax, so that would give you an idea of what the movie will look like come December 9th when TDK is released.


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *_Noah_* /forum/post/14759698
> 
> 
> Are there more scenes than just the opening 6 minutes that were shot in IMAX? I was under the impression that it was just at the beginning.



Over 20 minutes of the movie was shot with Imax cameras.


----------



## sound dropouts




> Quote:
> Well in the link it says the Imax footage was shot in a 1:66:1 ratio and the 35mm footage is a 1:78:1 not a 2:35:1.



???????the link says that the 35 mm footage is 2.35:1


----------



## HogPilot

Weren't all the IMAX sequences shot so that they could be safely cropped to 2.35:1 without losing any important imagery? This same issue came up regarding the normal 35mm release, which was displayed entirely in 2.35:1, and I never noticed any issues with the IMAX->scope cropping.


For us CIH types, if we have the movie vertically stretched to fill the display panel, shouldn't this issue be moot as it will just crop the extra IMAX material during those scenes? Zoomers may notice the switch in AR if they don't have sufficient top and bottom masking, but otherwise the whole thing should be transparent to us.


----------



## Deke6

I'll post the same thing I said in the software forum.


For those of you with CIH setups who are concerned about this, simply watch the Dark Knight IMAX Prologue that is provided on the Batman Begins Blu-ray. It's presented in 1.66:1.


With my setup, I end up losing about 2 inches on either side of the screen. The scaler does a good job and you really lose very little at the top or bottom. Watch it for yourself and decide, but for those with CIH, the aspect ratio changes are going to be essentially transparent.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/14760203
> 
> 
> Weren't all the IMAX sequences shot so that they could be safely cropped to 2.35:1 without losing any important imagery? This same issue came up regarding the normal 35mm release, which was displayed entirely in 2.35:1, and I never noticed any issues with the IMAX->scope cropping.
> 
> 
> For us CIH types, if we have the movie vertically stretched to fill the display panel, shouldn't this issue be moot as it will just crop the extra IMAX material during those scenes? Zoomers may notice the switch in AR if they don't have sufficient top and bottom masking, but otherwise the whole thing should be transparent to us.



Yes, the only issue I see will be with CH setups like mine that will use the zoom method (future PT-AE3000 owner).


I plan on having black velvet curtains behind a custom built 2.35:1 screen for masking, but that still will not be optimal as it still will not perfectly black out the picture info, which can be a distraction.


For those that saw this at IMAX.... was the resolution change to your eyes pretty dramatic when the movie switched from native IMAX material to 35mm? Also, was the 35mm material shown open matte 1.85:1, or was it 2.35:1 closed matte?


----------



## coolrda

I don't like sleds and so I leave my lens in the light path at all time. If this is indeed 1.66/2.40 , then, I will learn where the AR changes, and manually toggle. A little work but should be fun. Only difference is the changes will be in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical. Dave


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/14762790
> 
> 
> I don't like sleds and so I leave my lens in the light path at all time. If this is indeed 1.66/2.40 , then, I will learn where the AR changes, and manually toggle. A little work but should be fun. Only difference is the changes will be in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical. Dave



Sound like a lot of work, and the IMAX scenes would be smaller in scope, which would be a bummer to me.


If you left it in 2.35 mode at all times, the IMAX material is 2.35 safe, so it would be just like going to a "regular" cinema and seeing it. The framing would still be correct, and "OAR".


----------



## Nexus6

Well that's retarded.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nexus6* /forum/post/14762884
> 
> 
> Well that's retarded.



It is just the way the director intended, so if you are into OAR and artistic intent, you can't complain










All joking aside, with a a scope setup it isn't that big of a deal, since you can present it at home just like it was shown in standard theaters at 2.35:1.


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sound dropouts* /forum/post/14760161
> 
> 
> ???????the link says that the 35 mm footage is 2.35:1



I re-read the link (sorry it was early morning when I first read it) and again it doesn't say 2:35...It says 2:40:1











Any who, IMO you have two choices. Fill a 2:35 screen which will crop the Imax footage. Or mask the screen to 16:9 and see the Imax footage intact but the 2:40 footage with black bars. I say try it both ways and see what you like, personally I would probably go with masking the screen and not crop the Imax footage.


----------



## Maestro J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conradjohnsonfan* /forum/post/14762713
> 
> 
> 
> For those that saw this at IMAX.... was the resolution change to your eyes pretty dramatic when the movie switched from native IMAX material to 35mm? Also, was the 35mm material shown open matte 1.85:1, or was it 2.35:1 closed matte?



Yes, it was noticeable. Every time there was an "action" scene, a city pan (from a helicopter), anything of that nature, the AR change was noticeable. Even my wife noticed it and she doesn't know or care about those things.

And it was 2.40:1.


And here I thought going to a scope screen was a no-brainer. But not in this case.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conradjohnsonfan* /forum/post/14762713
> 
> 
> For those that saw this at IMAX.... was the resolution change to your eyes pretty dramatic when the movie switched from native IMAX material to 35mm?



Yes, however the change will probably not be quite as dramatic at home, since both formats are being downconverted to 1080p.



> Quote:
> Also, was the 35mm material shown open matte 1.85:1, or was it 2.35:1 closed matte?



2.35:1.


----------



## coolrda

Actually I have a fixed frame 106 16x9 that lays over my scope (recessed 6") which I can use for IMAX/concerts by removing the lens and only a slight shift is needed. One of the advantage of a VC lens.


----------



## iansilv

Actually- to clear this up- the whole movie except for the imax scenes will be presented in 2.40 AR.


When the Imax scenes show, they will be shown in 1.78, not the original 1.66 they were shot in.


So the problem comes from having a CIH setup dealing with stretching 2.4 out when suddenly 1.78 material kicks in.


and- the IMAX scenes had a noticeably sharper detail than the regular stuff- completely awesome. I might go see it in IMAX again this week actually...


----------



## thebland

This is where masking is nice...


For me with a CIH 2.40 screen and ISCO lens / Cineslide, I imagine if the movie starts out in 1.78, I'll just watch it full panel with the lens out with the screen masked to 16:9.


Then when the 2.40 aspect kicks in, I have a 2.40 macro in my remote that will reconfigure my Radiance for 2.40 squeeze, open the masking from 1.78 to 2.40 and slide the lens into place... So, 1 button press to get the 2.40 transition right.


I guess I'll just have to manually go between 1.78 and 2.40 as I see the AR change on the screen. Fortunately, the Cineslide moves the lens in about 1 second.


But zero button presses would be better. When the Radiance gets the feature to read the meta data on the disc, it will move my lens and change the AR automatically as it reads the AR meta data (now if I could tie that into my Stewart BRIC masking microprocessor, then my masking would automatically open up. I am sure there's a way)..


----------



## Mr Ian B

I only wished that the bluray came with the regular theater version and the IMAX version separately.


Mr Ian B


----------



## Steve Carr

thebland, let us know how it turns out when you get the disc..(BD)


Steve


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/14766135
> 
> 
> I only wished that the bluray came with the regular theater version and the IMAX version separately.
> 
> 
> Mr Ian B



Strange that it doesn't.


----------



## CAVX

I think bringing the IMAX experience home is pointless unless we all adaopt 1.66:1 screens. Changing from CinemaScope to 1.66:1 works in IMAX because of the screen height, but this does not work on a fixed height system like real cinema or CIH at home and would be even worse on a Plasma or LCD where these screens would have black bars top and bottom, then switch to have then at the sides. From what I understand from someone that went to see Dark Night in an IMAX (and he owns a very nice CIH system), that the presentation was kind of more like CIW, where you just didn't really notice the black bars top and bottom because of the image height, but had those moments of "full screen" to totally give you the WOW effect that only IMAX can do.


So personally, I just want to see a 2.40:1 BD...


Mark


----------



## iansilv

the non 2.4 part of the movie- the Imax part of the movie is not shown in 1.66, it is shown in 1.78.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/14766868
> 
> 
> the non 2.4 part of the movie- the Imax part of the movie is not shown in 1.66, it is shown in 1.78.



Fine. Then it will be no different to what I saw in the cinema on my system, where I will simply crop those scenes to keep it all CIH...


Mark


----------



## iansilv

Well yeah, but I am asking if there is a solution to showing both- they did it in the theater, so ti should be able to be done at home.


----------



## shamus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14766635
> 
> 
> I think bringing the IMAX experience home is pointless unless we all adaopt 1.66:1 screens. Changing from CinemaScope to 1.66:1 works in IMAX because of the screen height, but this does not work on a fixed height system like real cinema or CIH at home and would be even worse on a Plasma or LCD where these screens would have black bars top and bottom, then switch to have then at the sides. From what I understand from someone that went to see Dark Night in an IMAX (and he owns a very nice CIH system), that the presentation was kind of more like CIW, where you just didn't really notice the black bars top and bottom because of the image height, but had those moments of "full screen" to totally give you the WOW effect that only IMAX can do.
> 
> 
> So personally, I just want to see a 2.40:1 BD...
> 
> 
> Mark



Yep... leave it set for scope and forget about it. Check out the IMAX scenes in the extras when your done. You wont have time to switch it back and forth as its usually during an action scene and you're just going to be distracted. The effect will work better for regular 16X9 setups cause at least the image will get bigger (though pretty seamless at the theater it could be distracting on smaller displays). Us CIH guys will only be shrinking the image and doing the exact opposite of what is intended.

If you absolutely have to see the switch, watch the entire thing in 16X9, but I don't think its worth ruining 2 hours of scope for 20 minutes of IMAX scenes.

Of course hopefully the 2.40 was preserved in the center or we'll all be screwed.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shamus* /forum/post/14766949
> 
> 
> Of course hopefully the 2.40 was preserved in the center or we'll all be screwed.



It is Warner Bros and they seem to have their act together when it comes to BD transfers...


Mark


----------



## Erik Garci




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shamus* /forum/post/14766949
> 
> 
> Of course hopefully the 2.40 was preserved in the center or we'll all be screwed.



I suppose that someone could compare the IMAX scenes to the 2.40 theatrical release, to find out how each scene was cropped originally. Then maybe a scaler could be programmed to match the original cropping on a scene-by-scene basis, if it was not always in the center.


According to digitalbits.com, the DVD will have the constant 2.40 aspect ratio that was shown in non-IMAX theaters, so it could be compared to the Blu-ray.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/14765448
> 
> 
> I guess I'll just have to manually go between 1.78 and 2.40 as I see the AR change on the screen. Fortunately, the Cineslide moves the lens in about 1 second.



The problem with this is that there are numerous instances when the movie switches to IMAX for a single establishing shot at the beginning of a scene and then switches right back to 2.35:1 a few seconds later.


Also, if you're defaulting to viewing the movie in scope with the letterbox bars cropped off, how will you even know when there's an aspect ratio switch?


----------



## shamus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14767402
> 
> 
> It is Warner Bros and they seem to have their act together when it comes to BD transfers...
> 
> 
> Mark



I didn't mean that, though now that you mention it Batman Begins had a bigger bar on the bottom as opposed to the top (image was shifted slightly upward for some reason).

I'm worried that the 2.40 that was taken from the IMAX film for regular theaters will not be the exact center of the screen. What if the 2.40 image was taken from the top of one IMAX scene and the bottom of another. We will be getting heads chopped off if we watch it in scope.

I did throw in the IMAX begining TDK on Batman Begins BD and ran it in scope last night. I felt it wasn't centered right (though it could of been in my head), but good enough IMO.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14769458
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that there are numerous instances when the movie switches to IMAX for a single establishing shot at the beginning of a scene and then switches right back to 2.35:1 a few seconds later.
> 
> 
> Also, if you're defaulting to viewing the movie in scope with the letterbox bars cropped off, how will you even know when there's an aspect ratio switch?



I expect you would not notice the aspect change unless you see framing problems like chopped off heads and feat.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/14769458
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that there are numerous instances when the movie switches to IMAX for a single establishing shot at the beginning of a scene and then switches right back to 2.35:1 a few seconds later.
> 
> 
> Also, if you're defaulting to viewing the movie in scope with the letterbox bars cropped off, how will you even know when there's an aspect ratio switch?



That is a great point, Josh.. you would never know when to switch out of scope. The presentation in scope will be seamless. No changes will be visible at all to those watching in scope.


----------



## Zip3kx07

Also Transformers: Revenge of the fallen will have select shots in Imax like TDK did, and Iron Man 2 is slated to be shot with Imax cameras, possibly in 3D. So TDK will not be the only movie with shifting aspect ratios, its the beginning of many more to come.


----------



## Steve Bruzonsky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/14765448
> 
> 
> This is where masking is nice...
> 
> 
> For me with a CIH 2.40 screen and ISCO lens / Cineslide, I imagine if the movie starts out in 1.78, I'll just watch it full panel with the lens out with the screen masked to 16:9.
> 
> 
> Then when the 2.40 aspect kicks in, I have a 2.40 macro in my remote that will reconfigure my Radiance for 2.40 squeeze, open the masking from 1.78 to 2.40 and slide the lens into place... So, 1 button press to get the 2.40 transition right.
> 
> 
> I guess I'll just have to manually go between 1.78 and 2.40 as I see the AR change on the screen. Fortunately, the Cineslide moves the lens in about 1 second.
> 
> 
> But zero button presses would be better. When the Radiance gets the feature to read the meta data on the disc, it will move my lens and change the AR automatically as it reads the AR meta data (now if I could tie that into my Stewart BRIC masking microprocessor, then my masking would automatically open up. I am sure there's a way)..



Yup, I've gotta Radiance and I'll do what Jeff does!!!


----------



## tausifs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/14765073
> 
> 
> Actually- to clear this up- the whole movie except for the imax scenes will be presented in 2.40 AR.
> 
> 
> When the Imax scenes show, they will be shown in 1.78, not the original 1.66 they were shot in.
> 
> 
> So the problem comes from having a CIH setup dealing with stretching 2.4 out when suddenly 1.78 material kicks in.
> 
> 
> and- the IMAX scenes had a noticeably sharper detail than the regular stuff- completely awesome. I might go see it in IMAX again this week actually...



Agree. In fact Chris Nolan is on record as saying he believes the IMAX footage of TDK will bring unprecedented image quality to BD particularly as there is minimal grain.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zip3kx07* /forum/post/14782834
> 
> 
> Also Transformers: Revenge of the fallen will have select shots in Imax like TDK did, and Iron Man 2 is slated to be shot with Imax cameras, possibly in 3D. So TDK will not be the only movie with shifting aspect ratios, its the beginning of many more to come.



This is not good news







(guess will just have to watch these films conventionally)


----------



## syncguy

It is nice if they frame in a such a way that it can be watched on scope screens. There are thousands of scope screens around the world but not many IMAX screens.


----------



## syncguy

What would be the future of IMAX. Are they performing well, business wise? It is harder to build few stories high IMAXs everywhere unless there is sufficient return.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/14784021
> 
> 
> It is nice if they frame in a such a way that it can be watched on scope screens. There are thousands of scope screens around the world but not many IMAX screens.




And that is exactly the case with TDK. It is framed that way. I imagine that ALL the upcoming movies with shifting AR's will be framed that way for exhibition at the thousands of "conventional" 35mm theaters.


----------



## iansilv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Bruzonsky* /forum/post/14783266
> 
> 
> Yup, I've gotta Radiance and I'll do what Jeff does!!!



So the radiance is a scaler that works with CIH equipment? depending on how fast a prismasonic can flip on and off, this might work...


Although, I think it would be a distraction. See, the killer thing about the Imax presentation of the Dark knight is that the top and bottom just opened up- no scaling, no change of the existing watchable image, it just instantly revealed more of the image on top and bottom- and it happened right at a scene change to an action scene- so the scene changes, music builds up- bam- 1.66:1 full screen 8 stories tall. You don't notice the transition, but you are instantly drawn in to the movie's scene.


I think any sort of CIH cutting back to a larger 16:9 AR would kill the effect. To be honest, I think the only way to watch the Imax stuff on the bluray as intended would be to forgo CIH completely- not a good choice really. And if you do use a 1.78 screen, you could not use a curved screen because it has not horizontal masking, or really any masking because it would not be quick enough for the transition.


Then there is the problem- what happens when the scaler is stretching out the image to kill the black bars, and suddenly it gets the signal that the image is full frame- does it stop the stretch? Now you hae the lens stretching things out...


I guess the idea here is to see it in the theaters in Imax as much as possible...


----------



## John Ballentine

I think you will have to forgo CIH completely for these Blu-ray IMAX releases. Guess you could always watch it in CIH on reg DVD.


----------



## syncguy

If it is framed for Scope, no need to go for regular DVD, blu-ray would fit nicely on a 2.35:1 screen. It will not be possible to experience multistory IMAX impact in a home theater, therefore, CIH would work well provided the movie is framed for Scope.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/14798981
> 
> 
> I think you will have to forgo CIH completely for these Blu-ray IMAX releases. Guess you could always watch it in CIH on reg DVD.



why? The IMAX scenes were shot so that they could be shown in standard 2.4 scope as well.


No different for a home scope setup. You would see the movie exactly as it was exhibited in thousands of theaters around the globe.


The regular DVD would be the exact same framing you would get watching the blu-ray in scope mode. It would make no sense whatsoever to do that anymore than any other movie.


----------



## Kabal223




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conradjohnsonfan* /forum/post/14799435
> 
> 
> The regular DVD would be the exact same framing you would get watching the blu-ray in scope mode.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kabal223* /forum/post/14799782
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?



Yes.


Scope users should not see a difference. The only way that it would cause an issue is if the 2.4 protected area of the IMAX shots is something other than the middle of the frame.


----------



## Kabal223




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conradjohnsonfan* /forum/post/14800446
> 
> 
> The only way that it would cause an issue is if the 2.4 protected area of the IMAX shots is something other than the middle of the frame.



Thats my point, we cant tell for sure that the center of the IMAX shots its the 2.40 area in all scenes.


The only way to be sure will be a side by side comparison with the dvd.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kabal223* /forum/post/14801167
> 
> 
> Thats my point, we cant tell for sure that the center of the IMAX shots its the 2.40 area in all scenes.
> 
> 
> The only way to be sure will be a side by side comparison with the dvd.



I would be very surprised if it were something other than the center of the frame. It if were say, at the bottom or top of the frame, way too much important picture information would be lost in the 2.35 version.


The other alternative would be a pan and scan of the IMAX frame based on where the most important information in the frame is. Admitting not to be any kind of expert, but this seems unlikely as it seems that since our eyes gravitate towards the middle of the screen, the most important info would be shot in the middle of each frame.


----------



## syncguy

The Scope frame cuts off top 12.5% and bottom 12.5% of 16x9 frame. It is hard to believe the important information would be in these areas. If it is, I would call it "poor framing".


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conradjohnsonfan* /forum/post/14806346
> 
> 
> The other alternative would be a pan and scan of the IMAX frame based on where the most important information in the frame is. Admitting not to be any kind of expert, but this seems unlikely as it seems that since our eyes gravitate towards the middle of the screen, the most important info would be shot in the middle of each frame.



This is true of traditional movie theaters, but in IMAX our eyes will gravitate toward the bottom of the screen. Many IMAX documentaries have their opening credits in the lower half of the frame (the shots are usually reframed for home video to move them up).


----------



## hakujin

Lots of back and forth on this, but were the 35mm parts shot in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. I'm inclined to believe it's 2.40:1 based off what various sites are reporting but I keep seeing people mention 2.35:1


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hakujin* /forum/post/15121520
> 
> 
> Lots of back and forth on this, but were the 35mm parts shot in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. I'm inclined to believe it's 2.40:1 based off what various sites are reporting but I keep seeing people mention 2.35:1



35mm was all shot in 2.40:1.


----------



## gman99

Just leave it set to scope. You'll just mask it down like this:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/07/14/...ght-went-imax/ 




Try it on the prologue on the Batman Begins disk. It works and looks fine.


----------



## Mr Ian B

For the ones that already got the blu ray, how about some screen shots with CIH non-IMAX scenes and CIH IMAX screen shots.


Mr Ian B


----------



## John Ballentine

So you can watch in scope - and maybe not even notice the IMAX ratio switching in and out...?


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15125159
> 
> 
> So you can watch in scope - and maybe not even notice the IMAX ratio switching in and out...?



I expect that this is the case.


----------



## Terrantula

From what I have heard and seen (screenshots), you will have the choice between the IMAX version and a normal 2.35/2.40 (whichever it is) version. If you choose the IMAX version, it will show those shots in 16x9 but if you choose the 2.40 version, it will show it 2.40 throughout. Below is an example of what I have seen. Hope this eases some folks minds.

 

 



Terrantula


----------



## CollinViegas

That would be strange because everyone else that has received there bluray copy early has said it comes only with the one version on it and that version is the IMAX one.


Now how do people using the Zoom method like Panasonic 3000 users and many other combat this. I haven't gotten around to picking up my lens yet or masking system. I am using the zoom method in my theater and I think I am screwed as I see no way of me being able to work around this.


My entire family was and still is looking forward to this release, It's kind of hard to convince the wife that the theater was a good investment when problems like this arise. Any suggestions on how the zoomers can handle this movie on there 2.35 screens?


----------



## Terrantula

Yeah, I have seen others posting on the Blu-ray also. Maybe they were talking about the dvd version only. I have to say that the screenshots posted were definitely HQ images though, and they claimed that it was from the Blu-ray. I think some of the people wear pirate hats and have a parrot on their shoulder though if you know what I mean so who knows what the source really is ;(


----------



## syncguy

It is so silly not to include the scope version on the blu-ray that could have been achieved with seamless branching. I am not sure why they (disc authors/studios) have this tunnel vision that everyone uses 16x9 screens with blackbars. How can they forget their customers who would zoom on FP displays as well as CIH displays.


----------



## rmccormack

just think when more commercial movies are shot on Imax


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmccormack* /forum/post/15137290
> 
> 
> just think when more commercial movies are shot on Imax



What difference will that make? There is easily 20 multiplex (8 - 12 screens) cinemas within 50KM to my home, and only one supports IMAX or 70mm, so even if they do decide to start adding the IMAX scenes to films (Trnasformers 2 is supposed to be filmed this way), most cinemas (and their audiences) are not going to see them anyway.


CinemaScope was used to get people AWAY from their TVs. IMAX once again makes the cinema experience a little "special", but given IMAX is a speciallty screening venue, it will never replace Cinema Scope as mainstream format for 35mm film.


CIH still rules...


Mark


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Terrantula* /forum/post/15126777
> 
> 
> From what I have heard and seen (screenshots), you will have the choice between the IMAX version and a normal 2.35/2.40 (whichever it is) version. If you choose the IMAX version, it will show those shots in 16x9 but if you choose the 2.40 version, it will show it 2.40 throughout. Below is an example of what I have seen. Hope this eases some folks minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrantula



Batman: The Dark Knight, Blu-Ray Review.

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/The_Da...ay_Review/3864 


"As it did on the IMAX release prints, the aspect ratio for The Dark Knight does change at several points in the film. While a majority of the film maintains the 2.4:1 ratio of the non-IMAX parts, the scenes shot in the big-screen format have been reformatted for Blu-ray to the 1.78:1 ratio, resulting in slight cropping on the top and bottom of the image. Unless you know the image inside and out, you shouldn't be bothered by this modification. The image on the IMAX sections is absolutely beautiful, and the shifting aspect ratios never prove to be a distraction. If anything, it drew me further into the onscreen action, which if I'm not mistaken, was Nolan's intention in the first place. "


----------



## Mark_H

Do we know whether the aspect ratio changes are handled with pillarboxing or letterboxing? At the cinema the image, as far as I recall, was constant height, not constant width. So they handled it ok. As long as they use pillarboxing there should be no issues with our CIH setups? Many of the blu-ray releases that are smaller than 1.78 use pillarboxing so hopefully Dark Knight will follow that - with 2.4:1 being the full width and the 1.78:1 stuff pillarboxed within the 2.4:1 frame as it would be at the cinema?


Mark


----------



## Cristobal

I think the deal is that it will be letterboxed in 2.4:1 with black bars above and below, and then the image will widen out top and bottom for the IMAX sections filling in the 1.78:1 image area completely. An effect that will probably look nice on a plasma or lcd flat panel tv (the majority of people purchasing this disc I'm sure.) So, for CIH people using a scaler, the top and bottom thirds of the IMAX image will be cut off, I'm hoping this will look ok.


For Constant Height people using the zoom method however, this will look pretty terrible as they will have the image spilling off above and below their screens.


----------



## hdblu

Have they done this on the DVD with the IMAX, I have ordered this on blu ray


----------



## jayrader

This really sucks for those of us doing zoom method. I mean I can't really enjoy the movie now. I can't believe they don't let you choose.


I know the arguments for OAR but when I saw it in the theater there was no flip flopping of aspect ratio.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15150759
> 
> 
> I know the arguments for OAR but when I saw it in the theater there was no flip flopping of aspect ratio.



It is not really OAR anyway given that they have cropped the IMAX scenes back to 1.78:1 from their original 1.44(?):1.


I agree in part with Jayrader, I don't see the point is switching ARs for the video release. In the cinema I saw this in, the image was CinemaScope and so it will be when viewed that way on my system...


Mark


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15150759
> 
> 
> This really sucks for those of us doing zoom method. I mean I can't really enjoy the movie now. I can't believe they don't let you choose.
> 
> 
> I know the arguments for OAR but when I saw it in the theater there was no flip flopping of aspect ratio.



I am in the zoom method group as well, and I am really thinking of getting the DVD and not the Blu-ray of this movie now.


I watched the IMAX Dark Knight prologue on the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and, while the picture looks great, I can see where this is going to look like crap when the aspect ratio switches. The IMAX ratio is slightly smaller (narrower) than 16:9 on my screen, so if I leave it showing the entire height of the image, the 2.40:1 scenes will be in the center of my screen, with white screen on all sides of the picture.


Not happy with this at all, and I am a big OAR advocate to all my friends.


--John


----------



## hdblu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15152316
> 
> 
> I am in the zoom method group as well, and I am really thinking of getting the DVD and not the Blu-ray of this movie now.
> 
> 
> I watched the IMAX Dark Knight prologue on the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and, while the picture looks great, I can see where this is going to look like crap when the aspect ratio switches. The IMAX ratio is slightly smaller (narrower) than 16:9 on my screen, so if I leave it showing the entire height of the image, the 2.40:1 scenes will be in the center of my screen, with white screen on all sides of the picture.
> 
> 
> Not happy with this at all, and I am a big OAR advocate to all my friends.
> 
> 
> --John



I'm in the zoom method group to & I do not like what they have done to the blu ray release I what to cancel it but I'm a sound nut & the DVD will not have Dolby true HD what so ever. I bet Warner will release it again in about a year time with it will being 2.35.1 all the way thought it.


----------



## lchiu7

I haven't seen the BD yet since it hasn't been released generally. But I did see it at an Imax theatre and the width stayed the same but the height changed when the Imax scenes were shown.


As noted in American Cinematographer and as I quoted in the BD Software Forum the 35mm anamorphic print was created as follows:

_After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way, DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith. That process resulted in a 35mm anamorphic negative, which was combined with effects shots and used to generate 35mm release prints.


To bring scenes shot in 35mm to Imax screens, where images are projected in 1.43:1, DKP 70mm scanned the 35mm interpositive at 4K, and an Imax team in Toronto applied digital DMR (Digital Remastering) processing to degrain and sharpen the images. The process stayed at 4K until the images were filmed out onto 65mm back at Keighley's facility and combined with the Imax material for print. The final Imax print combined the 4K DMR filmout, 5.6K and 8K Imax filmouts, and 18K contact prints from the Imax negative, says Keighley._


So for you CIH guys, you probably would have preferred the 35mm anamorphic version to be used for the BD release while those who watch 2.4:1 movies in letterbox format on our projectors or HDTV's would prefer how it was actually presented since we gain use of the screen that is otherwise dark.


Of course the best solution is to offer both on the BD. Perhaps that might occur one day in some deluxe edition


Larry


----------



## iansilv

I don't understand what the problem is- if you have a CIH setup and you use a scaler, as long as the scaler does not squeeze the picture down when the full frame stuff is shown, then you will just see 2.4 throughout and the center 2.4 of a 1.78 image when the imax scenes are being shown.


If you zoom, well, then that means the extra picture that shows up in the imax scenes will still not who on your screen- it will spill off, but i your walls are dark, it will simply absorb.


I think this is a good thing for those who want it, and for those who don't nothing will really change.


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the problem is-
> 
> 
> 
> If you zoom, well, then that means the extra picture that shows up in the imax scenes will still not who on your screen- it will spill off, but i your walls are dark, it will simply absorb.



That is exactly the problem! My wall behind the screen is Black GOM, but I can still see the picture a bit. It doesn't completely absorb the picture as you suggest. This is incredibly distracting. It's similar to the subtitle issue on 2.35:1 screens. I can see the subtitles, but they're hard to make out.


Just my 2 cents.


--John


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15154398
> 
> 
> That is exactly the problem! My wall behind the screen is Black GOM, but I can still see the picture a bit. It doesn't completely absorb the picture as you suggest. This is incredibly distracting. It's similar to the subtitle issue on 2.35:1 screens. I can see the subtitles, but they're hard to make out.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> 
> --John



Similar problem. I have my equipment rack and center channel speaker right below my screen. Its gonna shine right on there and be distracting and look like I didn't frame the movie correctly.


I can't believe they didn't offer this as optional. I'm gonna have to miss out on one of the best movies of the year. Its not like they did this to Hancock or something.


----------



## JonesyG

Seems to me that the 2nd best option is to un-zoom your projector and watch TDK in 16:9 with black bars on the top & bottom during the 2.4:1 scenes. Not perfect, but not the end of the world either.


The best option of course is to go see TDK in IMAX in January when it gets re-released.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/10/...ax-in-january/


----------



## Mr Ian B

Just watched it on my 104" scope screen and God, what a treat. I think the IMAX scenes are so 3d-real looking and detailed that it makes the rest of the scenes look soft. I will be going over some cracks on my walls tomorrow due to the pounding sound from the audio(lol). It is definitely reference material. I tried looking for the EE but, guess what, I was so into the movie that forgot about it and enjoyed the whole 2.5 hrs. I had seen this movie at the theater and a second time at the IMAX. If I had not gone to IMAX, I would not have known when to expect the aspect ratio changes as I have no black bars on my scope screen. I will be featuring it tomorrow night with friends and family and Sunday when I am doing a dinner and a movie night.


Ian B


----------



## CAVX

The more I think about this, the more I think it is a lame marketing attempt just like that Smilely Box thing. IMAX is a very special screening "event" and simply filling the 16:9 panel with image in no way recreates the effect of true IMAX...


Mark


----------



## Cristobal

Thanks for the report Mr Ian!


I'm really looking forward to this disc, I'm glad to hear that the aspect ratio change isn't going to be a distraction on a 2.4:1 setup.


I've got two screens so I'm sure I'll try this disc out on the 16:9 screen at some point just to see what it looks like, I'm guessing it will indeed feel pretty gimmicky.


Dark Knight comes out here in Spain on 16th December, right in time for Christmas holidays.


----------



## John Ballentine

Yes. Thanks for the report! So you CAN watch this just like any other 2:40 film and the missing IMAX image (above and below) is not noticeable? If so - then what was all the fuss about?


----------



## KMR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15162412
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the report! So you CAN watch this just like any other 2:40 film and the missing IMAX image (above and below) is not noticeable? If so - *then what was all the fuss about?*



For those of us that zoom to create a poor-man's scope effect, the zooming will leave a spilled-over image on top and bottom of the screen during the IMAX footage sequences.


I am looking to get a lens now; but my setup is very awkward and a lens may not work in my situation.


----------



## John Ballentine

Yes - I understand that zooming this title would definitely be problematic. The lower expanded IMAX footage would be plastered on my center speaker just below my screen







. If I were a zoomer - I'd just leave it in 16:9


----------



## Mr Ian B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15162412
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the report! So you CAN watch this just like any other 2:40 film and the missing IMAX image (above and below) is not noticeable? If so - then what was all the fuss about?




I replayed the movie on a 32" lcd and it was not a distraction to me since I was all into the movie. I knew which scenes were the IMAX ones, so I knew and noticed the upcoming change in aspect ratio but, after 1-2 scenes of noticing it, I forgot about it and enjoyed the rest of the movie.


You know, there are people that if they are not complaining about something, they are not happy. People need to get over the fact of it is what it is and, either not buy the blu ray, buy the regular dvd which is 2:40 all the way through or just rent it.


Just my 2 cents,


Mr Ian B


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/15164143
> 
> 
> I replayed the movie on a 32" lcd and it was not a distraction to me since I was all into the movie. I knew which scenes were the IMAX ones, so I knew and noticed the upcoming change in aspect ratio but, after 1-2 scenes of noticing it, I forgot about it and enjoyed the rest of the movie.
> 
> 
> You know, there are people that if they are not complaining about something, they are not happy. People need to get over the fact of it is what it is and, either not buy the blu ray, buy the regular dvd which is 2:40 all the way through or just rent it.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> 
> 
> Mr Ian B



With all due respect, Mr. Ian B, but this is the 2.35:1 CIH thread. Very few of us here are planning to watch this on a 32" LCD. I have a 46" LCD that I COULD watch TDK on, but I would PREFER to watch it on my 9' scope screen in all its glory. I wish I could afford a anamorphic lens at this time, but the CFO (my wife) would have me in divorce court.







So I need to zoom my picture.


I, for one, am not a complainer about much. I love my set-up, but this whole Blu-ray/IMAX decision by Warner and Nolan is an issue for some of us. I will buy the SD version and MAY revisit purchasing the BD at some later point. I just wish it could have been in my preferred format in a way that I could derive the maximum enjoyment.


Enjoy your day!


--John


edit: Saw that you mentioned you had a 104" scope screen in an earlier post and you enjoyed it very much. I assume you have an anamorphic lens/scaler set-up! Hope your friends and family enjoyed the show.


----------



## Mr Ian B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15166204
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Mr. Ian B, but this is the 2.35:1 CIH thread. Very few of us here are planning to watch this on a 32" LCD. I have a 46" LCD that I COULD watch TDK on, but I would PREFER to watch it on my 9' scope screen in all its glory. I wish I could afford a anamorphic lens at this time, but the CFO (my wife) would have me in divorce court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I need to zoom my picture.
> 
> 
> I, for one, am not a complainer about much. I love my set-up, but this whole Blu-ray/IMAX decision by Warner and Nolan is an issue for some of us. I will buy the SD version and MAY revisit purchasing the BD at some later point. I just wish it could have been in my preferred format in a way that I could derive the maximum enjoyment.
> 
> 
> Enjoy your day!
> 
> 
> --John
> 
> 
> edit: Saw that you mentioned you had a 104" scope screen in an earlier post and you enjoyed it very much. I assume you have an anamorphic lens/scaler set-up! Hope your friends and family enjoyed the show.



Point taken J. My point was to show that regardless whether I watched it on my 104" screen or my 32" lcd, the changing of the aspect ratio on the blu ray was not intrusive to me.


Mr Ian B


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KMR* /forum/post/15162553
> 
> 
> For those of us that zoom to create a poor-man's scope effect, the zooming will leave a spilled-over image on top and bottom of the screen during the IMAX footage sequences.
> 
> 
> I am looking to get a lens now; but my setup is very awkward and a lens may not work in my situation.



My setup would be difficult to use a lens, but I'm getting great results using the shrink method with a VP (Lumagen HDP) In my scope configuration, I use electronic masking from the VP all the time (long story as to why) On TDK, the 1.78 scenes will simply be cropped to 2.35 just like using a lens. Or I'll have the option to switch ARs with the push of a button.


----------



## KMR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15166917
> 
> 
> My setup would be difficult to use a lens, but I'm getting great results using the shrink method with a VP (Lumagen HDP) In my scope configuration, *I use electronic masking from the VP all the time* (long story as to why) On TDK, the 1.78 scenes will simply be cropped to 2.35 just like using a lens. Or I'll have the option to switch ARs with the push of a button.



Electronic masking is all I really need. Do all video processors have this option? My old HD1000 projector had it in the menu, but I've since replaced it with something else.


----------



## JeffY

Electric masking on the Lumagen was my feature request, I knew it would come in handy one day.


----------



## hakujin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Terrantula* /forum/post/15130615
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have seen others posting on the Blu-ray also. Maybe they were talking about the dvd version only. I have to say that the screenshots posted were definitely HQ images though, and they claimed that it was from the Blu-ray. I think some of the people wear pirate hats and have a parrot on their shoulder though if you know what I mean so who knows what the source really is ;(



There's no choice. The screenshots you posted was some rls. group (i.e. pirates) that manually cropped the imax scenes, from the bluray disc., for a fluid 2.4 throughout.


----------



## popechild

For all the zoomers in a huff about the imax scenes spilling off of your screen, why not just do what the theaters used to do (still do?) for 2.35 stuff - use a mask in front of the lens. It shouldn't be too hard, though obviously it'll take a little time in advance of when you're watching the movie. But if you're having people over and are afraid you'll be embarrassed by the spillage, just cut a 2.35 hole in a piece of cardboard and position it beforehand directly in front of your lens so that it correctly masks your screen. Then the spillage hits the cardboard, not your wall.


Presto.


FWIW, I don't know that I really see it as a gimmick, though I don't see why they wouldn't do a seamless branch on it anyway. It is OAR after all. (Or if not exactly OAR compared to the 1.66 imax, it's at least the director's BD OAR.)


----------



## JeffKB

For those who have seen the bluray (or the IMAX presentation), how much of the the film is actually in the IMAX aspect ratio?


I have not seen the film yet, and have waited a long time for the BD release. I don't use a CIH setup, but instead I'm one of the rare few who use an anamorphic lens with screen masking and a constant width setup (i.e. I use a VC lens and mask the top of the screen when watching widescreen movies).


I can either watch it in full 16:9 unmasked (which means I'll get the dreaded black bars for the 2.4:1 content), or watch it masked 2.4:1 (which means I'll lose out on the larger image). I'm having a hard time deciding which to do, and knowing how much of the film is in one AR versus the other would really help that decision.


----------



## JSwarce

JeffKB:


I had read somewhere that about 20% of the shots were in the IMAX format.


Popechild:


Thanks for the tip, but I think I will stay with the SD DVD and hope the upconvert will be OK. If they decide to revisit the BD/IMAX version and incorporate seamless branching, then I'll revisit my decision.


--John


----------



## Drexler

How can getting rid of the black bars be more important than getting the FAR superior picture quality of the BD?!?!?!?


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15243389
> 
> 
> How can getting rid of the black bars be more important than getting the FAR superior picture quality of the BD?!?!?!?



Drexler:


It's not just getting rid of the black bars. I've been watching movies in widescreen for years on a 4:3 TV and they never bothered me. Calibrated correctly, the bars disappear at night.


Now I have the large screen, and I can't deal with the IMAX spillover onto my wall if I zoom to the 2.35:1 ratio for the rest of the movie. I can zoom for the IMAX height, but then I will have the picture much smaller than my screen size, with black bars all around! That is what is bugging me (and others).


SD DVD's don't look like crap on my screen, thanks to the upconversion. Granted, Blu-rays look outstanding, but this is one compromise I can't make.


--John


----------



## ilsiu

Even though I zoom, I still will get the Blu-ray version over the dvd. I'm not sure if I'd prefer to fill the 2.4 screen (and let the IMAX scenes overflow) or watch it in CIW 16:9.


I think there's a strong case that the proper way to watch it is in CIW. The IMAX scenes are clearly meant to be bigger/taller than the scope scenes.


----------



## ryoohki

By the look of it the DVD version look awful Lot's of compression..


----------



## leonp

I must saw I saw TDK in IMAX and it was just incredible. I remember notcing the IMAX scenes were taller and used the full height of the screen, versus the rest of the movie did not use the top and bottom of the screen. It sounds like the BD version will do the same thing. I just got a Panny AE3000 and a 2.35:1 screen. I must say I am disappointment that this movie will "thwart" my setup. I won't gripe though. Considering the entire audience, there are very few of us watching in this manner. It makes sense to cater to the masses and not the few. I'll grin and bear it.


leonp


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15250746
> 
> 
> Now I have the large screen, and I can't deal with the IMAX spillover onto my wall if I zoom to the 2.35:1 ratio for the rest of the movie. I can zoom for the IMAX height, but then I will have the picture much smaller than my screen size, with black bars all around! That is what is bugging me (and others).
> 
> 
> SD DVD's don't look like crap on my screen, thanks to the upconversion. Granted, Blu-rays look outstanding, but this is one compromise I can't make.
> 
> 
> --John



To me its a no-brainer. I would definitely choose the BD version then zoom the 16:9 picture to fill the height of the screen, and move the sofa closer to compensate for the smaller picture. Then I'd just live we the absence of masking for this one movie. (The theathers didn't have masking either, did they? How could they otherwise swap ARs?)


In my experience, watching a DVD is like watching a movie with my dads glasses on. -Everything seem blurry and out of focus. I'd give up image size and masking in a second for the superior quaility of the BD. Also, in this way you get to see the movie as the director intended







(with the changing aspect ratios).


By the way: what is the point of having a bigger picture if it is derived from a DVD? You can't sit that close to the screen anyway do to the poor resolution and artefacts.


----------



## Steve Carr

Well, the movie is here... I'll check my HV first before trying to buy it in blu-ray. Though they only get 1-2 copies whats up with that..







anyway for all of us True CIH playa's with HE LENS will this be a WOW FACTOR or NOT (IMAX) ver. in Blu-ray... SD full screen or SD widescreen your not in the game sorry... got to get a blu-ray player to play







. I'm guessing we are to leave it in scope mode with black bars showing and when IMAX scenes kick in they will disappear... 2.4:1 to 1.78:1.


To all you NON-BD Player and POORMANS CIH Owners just having some fun with you... Don't be







now, have a coke and







... put some chips away and lets get in the GAME.


Steve


----------



## CAVX

Just to put everyone at ease, this film works with CIH and lens perfectly










The IMAX scenes are simply way cleaner than the standard 35mm footage, so you will know when they come around. It is a good film, so enjoy...


Mark


----------



## Steve Carr

Hey Mark,


Thanks for the screening update My HV is out of copies... they have a total of (4) they are moving up now... LOL


Steve


----------



## John Ballentine

Thanks Mark!

I asked that question many times but never did get a simple definitive answer.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15258272
> 
> 
> Thanks Mark!
> 
> I asked that question many times but never did get a simple definitive answer.



Your welcome John. I have also made a page on my site about how one might go about to allow both Scope and IMAX co-exist in the same room...


Mark


----------



## cal87

So, after watching the film at 2.40 with lens, is it worthwhile to watch it at 16:9 on my scope screen to see what I am missing in the IMAX scenes?


----------



## JeffKB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15243337
> 
> 
> JeffKB:
> 
> 
> I had read somewhere that about 20% of the shots were in the IMAX format.



Thanks for the info JSwarce. Although that only works out to be about 1/2 hour (and I've already seen the 1st 7 minutes on the _Batman Begins_ bonus track), it sounds like not using masking and going full 16:9 sounds like the thing to do in my particular setup. It will replicate what was shown in IMAX.


I watched the prologue contained in the _Batman Begins_ BD both masked and unmasked, and as previously mentioned by CAVX, it will work well in a CIH setup - framing will be just fine and you won't be aware of missing any info.


----------



## joe12south

Just finished watching on a 2.4:1 screen and an AE3000 and I have to say that all of this hue and cry is overblown.


Yes, certain scenes spill over, but it's relatively easy to ignore and there is no important visual information outside of the `scope framing. It is very clear that the shots were framed knowing that the vast majority of moviegoers would see them cropped to `scope.


I watched a bit of it on my plasma to see if the aspect ratio changes added anything to the presentation, and they really don't. The difference between `scope and 16:9 just isn't as drastic as the difference between IMAX and `scope. Ultimately, jumping in and out of 16:9 comes off as little more than a gimmick.


PS. It's a great transfer, and, of course, a great movie. You'd be making a huge mistake picking DVD over Blu-Ray just for the aspect ratio differences.


----------



## d.cortez

i honestly thought something was wrong with my HDTV/BD Player setup...now i know why some scenes had the top/bottom black bars and other scenes were full screen. so IMAX must be the full screen shots... nonetheless, i enjoyed the movie!


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15259074
> 
> 
> Your welcome John. I have also made a page on my site about how one might go about to allow both Scope and IMAX co-exist in the same room...
> 
> 
> Mark



Yes - interesting page. I wonder how many more of these BD/IMAX releases are on the horizon (or is this just a fad).


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15250746
> 
> 
> Now I have the large screen, and I can't deal with the IMAX spillover onto my wall if I zoom to the 2.35:1 ratio for the rest of the movie. I can zoom for the IMAX height, but then I will have the picture much smaller than my screen size, with black bars all around! That is what is bugging me (and others).
> 
> 
> SD DVD's don't look like crap on my screen, thanks to the upconversion. Granted, Blu-rays look outstanding, but this is one compromise I can't make.
> 
> 
> --John



The "compromise" in image and sound quality between the DVD and the Blu_Ray disc far overshadows a little spillover. There's truly nothing of consequence in the extra area. Yes, it's annoying, and not *perfect*, and I wish they hadn't done it, but it really is *minor.* But don't trust me, just rent it and see for yourself.


----------



## TSHA222

Do any of you that use the zoom method for CIH have blanking abilities on your projectors? I have no idea about the features in other models, but my last DPI 3 Chip and my current DPI 3 Chip allow me to add blanking to the image to create a sharp border that matches my frame perfectly. If you have this feature, then you can easily set the blanking up using a frame from a scope section of the film them the IMAX shot will be blanked to match. Just a thought.


----------



## collinp

Last night I compared a bit of the IMAX footage cropped to 2.35 by my CIH setup and the 2.35 framing of the same scenes on the DVD. Generally the center cropping of the CIH setup is very close to the DVD framing with only minor vertical pan differences. There are however shots where a more extreme pan was chosen on the DVD and things look a bit off on the CIH cropping. The film is deliberately shot in a pretty sloppy framing so the effect thankfully isn't that noticeable on the rare shots that are cropped improperly on a CIH setup.


The Blu-Ray transfer is excellent, particularly during the IMAX sourced sequences. The difference between the Blu-Ray and DVD is dramatic, more so than a lot of other Blu-Ray upgrades in my collection. I would of course prefer a properly framed 2.35 HD transfer, but given the options available the CIH cropped Blu-Ray is my preferred way of viewing the film.


I watched about half the movie in the changing aspect ratio mode and I can't say I care for it. I'm all for directors trying new ideas, but there seems to be no real rhyme or reason for the aspect ratio changes. This definitely isn't Gance's Napoleon. It doesn't feel like the director got to decide on every shot what the best aspect ratio was and how it would work thematically; rather it feels like the budget was such that they could only afford to shoot some sequences in IMAX and then the movie was cut together with the cheaper 35mm footage. Not surprising since this sounds like exactly what happened.


- Collin


----------



## John Ballentine

Collin,

Nice post.


----------



## collinp

Here's one example of a shot which doesn't frame that well on CIH. Attached are photos which show the framing differences between CIH, DVD, & IMAX. Photo quality is lousy, I know, but you can clearly see that a lot more of the bank manager's legs are chopped off in the CIH shot.


Notice that even on the DVD/IMAX shot there is a bit of his feet chopped off. This is an example of the deliberately sloppy framing I mentioned in my post above which makes these sort of poorly framed CIH shots less distracting.


- Collin


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *collinp* /forum/post/15264170
> 
> 
> I'm all for directors trying new ideas, but there seems to be no real rhyme or reason for the aspect ratio changes. This definitely isn't Gance's Napoleon. It doesn't feel like the director got to decide on every shot what the best aspect ratio was and how it would work thematically; rather it feels like the budget was such that they could only afford to shoot some sequences in IMAX and then the movie was cut together with the cheaper 35mm footage. Not surprising since this sounds like exactly what happened.



IMAX cameras are huge, cumbersome, and extremely noisy. They are not practical for dialogue scenes. Nolan used IMAX for the bigger action set-pieces and for establishing shots. The intent behind each switch is perfectly clear, IMO.


----------



## joe12south

I understand doing the big "set pieces" in IMAX, and holding the format change for the duration of the sequence, but there are a few format changes that only last for a shot, a few seconds at most. These short instances really felt arbitrary to me and added nothing.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/15265859
> 
> 
> IMAX cameras are huge, cumbersome, and extremely noisy. They are not practical for dialogue scenes. Nolan used IMAX for the bigger action set-pieces and for establishing shots. The intent behind each switch is perfectly clear, IMO.



I know thats right... for those who did not get a chance to see this film in an IMAX Theater and experience the giant screen will not feel the same way we did. By watching this movie at home on our CIH setups is only "alittle" taste of what happened in the theater it was awesome very










Steve


----------



## jayrader

I am really dissapointed. Perhaps its because I just got my zoom method CIH setup going and it was sweet. This movie spills all over the wall below and my center channel speaker. It looks bush league. Anyone have any suggestions?


Is there any way I can make something to put over the lens to mask it in a clean straight line? I held a few different materials up there and it just looked horrible.


I almost don't even want to watch the thing. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive but its spilling all over the walls and it looks like a monkey is working the projection booth.


Edit: This is with the new panny 3000. I'm going to go into the software on it and see if I can blank it out, but I doubt it.


----------



## lchiu7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15266972
> 
> 
> I know thats right... for those who did not get a chance to see this film in an IMAX Theater and experience the giant screen will not feel the same way we did. By watching this movie at home on our CIH setups is only "alittle" taste of what happened in the theater it was awesome very
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve



I think if he could have Nolan would have done the whole movie in Imax. The fact the camera's are noisy is not an issue - ADR fixes that and/or a blimp around the camera. The changing AR didn't bother me when I saw the movie in a good Imax theatre. I think it would have been a much better presentation than in a regular theatre.


----------



## jayrader

Are there any other movies that do this all the way through? I know there are a few that do this for effect or per directors intent, but any back and forth the whole presentation?


This sucks. Would a scaler with masking solve this?


----------



## joe12south

Jayrader,

I don't think the AE3000 has any sort of digital image masking...at least not that I noticed in the menus.


You'll never get a hard-edged mask putting something close to the lens, the laws of physics and all. ;-)


----------



## John Ballentine

Yup. That's the BIG problem w/ zooming this title. Best for you to watch in 16X9 format.


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15267629
> 
> 
> This sucks. Would a scaler with masking solve this?



Yes, there are dedicated scalers, or HTPC software, that can do the masking. That's a big expense/hassle for one movie, though.


I really think that this issue merits an online petition. Unless studios like WB are made aware that this is an issue for the very people most likely to shell out the extra bucks for Blu-Ray, then the situation is going to stay the same the next time a director experiments like this. And rest assured, Hollywood is going to explore every gimmick (IMAX, 3D, etc.) to try to get more butts in theaters. Which is fine, but the technology is there to have easily given the home theater user the choice of which theatrical version to enjoy at home.


Personally, I really don't think that the 16:9 scenes added any impact to the Blu-Ray version. The difference in size just isn't enough to bother. Certainly nothing at all like those scenes were on the IMAX screen where they really were something to behold.


----------



## joe12south

I've created a petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dkbluray/


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15267744
> 
> 
> Yup. That's the BIG problem w/ zooming this title. Best for you to watch in 16X9 format.



You are totally right, but I tried it for about 20 min and 80% of the movie is this tiny 2:35 image in the center of my huge 2:35 screen. It made me want to scream and I shut it off.


I currently don't have any masking solution, but I thinking this weekend I might try to make some side masking panels for my screen so I can have a 16:9 screen. That or I could hang up my old 16:9 dalite for this ONE MOVIE. GAH.


Such a shame they didn't offer a choice.


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15267878
> 
> 
> I've created a petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dkbluray/



Good work!


I am sensitive to the fact that 99% of the people with HD sets have 16:9 shaped sets. And to them, when the ratio changes, they probably think its a treat. To me, I just see wasted space.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15267878
> 
> 
> I've created a petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dkbluray/




PETITION....WOW... LOL














I think you need to take your ball and go home its not that SERIOUS put some chips away and get a lens and or maybe just watch it in SD Full Screen







you must be joking right? if not goodness wow


Steve


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15268554
> 
> 
> PETITION....WOW... LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take your ball and go home its not that SERIOUS put some chips away and get a lens and or maybe just watch it in SD Full Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be joking right? if not goodness wow



Complaining about this is better than doing nothing. And a lens doesn't solve the problem as you're still just cropping the top and bottom without regard for where the action is.


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15267878
> 
> 
> I've created a petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dkbluray/



Petition?



The shifting aspect ratio bothers you that bad?



No offense, but get use to it. Transformers 2 is going to have some IMAX shots & Ironman 2 is rumored to be using IMAX cameras.


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zip3kx07* /forum/post/15269109
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but get use to it. Transformers 2 is going to have some IMAX shots & Ironman 2 is rumored to be using IMAX cameras.



That does it! I am re-doing the basement theater, trashing the out-moded scope screen, blowing out the floor above and installing a 20' IMAX screen! Who says we need a kitchen and living room, anyway?

















--John


----------



## Zip3kx07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JSwarce* /forum/post/15269529
> 
> 
> That does it! I am re-doing the basement theater, trashing the out-moded scope screen, blowing out the floor above and installing a 20' IMAX screen! Who says we need a kitchen and living room, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --John



lol!


----------



## JeffY

2.35:1 the new foolscreen.


----------



## acegamer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zip3kx07* /forum/post/15269109
> 
> 
> Petition?
> 
> 
> 
> The shifting aspect ratio bothers you that bad?
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but get use to it. Transformers 2 is going to have some IMAX shots & Ironman 2 is rumored to be using IMAX cameras.



But when the solution is simply to offer a choice on the blu-ray of which way you want to watch the movie, there is no reason that anyone shoulld have to "get use to it". If no one complains then there is no chance of anything being done differently next time. The petition may not change anything but it can't hurt anything either.


----------



## lakaw

I've read through this thread long before I watched TDK at home on my 16:9 50" plasma, and I thought the switching might bother me. I completely forgot about this thread (glad I did) and watched it Tuesday. To tell you the truth, I didn't even notice the transition. I'll have to re-watch it and pay attention to see what everyone is talking about.


Or maybe it's not as big a deal with 1.78:1...


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15268492
> 
> 
> I currently don't have any masking solution, but I thinking this weekend I might try to make some side masking panels for my screen so I can have a 16:9 screen.



Please report back how your side masking panels work out as I need to make some too.


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zip3kx07* /forum/post/15269109
> 
> 
> Petition?
> 
> 
> 
> The shifting aspect ratio bothers you that bad?
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but get use to it. Transformers 2 is going to have some IMAX shots & Ironman 2 is rumored to be using IMAX cameras.



Yeah I heard that. But hopefully on the BD they will give the choice of doing this or not. The point of this is to reproduce the theater experience at home. With this Batman disk, there is no way to do that. I either have to watch 80% of the movie all small on my big screen to see it all, or crop it and have 20% of the movie spill all over the walls.


I totally agree this isn't a problem for folks with a 16:9 setup.


I'll take a picture of what my setup looks like when the action scenes are spilling all over the place and I'll see if you would want to watch a whole movie like that. Its so distracting I couldn't watch the movie and shut it off.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lchiu7* /forum/post/15267335
> 
> 
> I think if he could have Nolan would have done the whole movie in Imax. The fact the camera's are noisy is not an issue - ADR fixes that and/or a blimp around the camera.



Imagine you're Christian Bale. You have to shoot a quiet conversation scene, or perhaps an intense emotional scene in which you find out that someone you love has died. Now try doing that with a camera the size of a pickup truck rattling like a lawnmower three inches from your face.


----------



## lchiu7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/15271479
> 
> 
> Imagine you're Christian Bale. You have to shoot a quiet conversation scene, or perhaps an intense emotional scene in which you find out that someone you love has died. Now try doing that with a camera the size of a pickup truck rattling like a lawnmower three inches from your face.



Hardly a new thing. Check out this picture of a Vistavision camera complete with sound proof blimp as used by Hitchcock.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingvv4.htm 


or this 65mm Super Panavision 70 camera with blimp

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingsp1.htm 


Since Imax is just 70mm file run horizontally the cameras can't be larger than those? Still it's hard to see an Imax camera on a steadicam mount


----------



## richiek




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15267878
> 
> 
> I've created a petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dkbluray/



Considering that owners of constant height 2.35:1 setups are an EXTREME minority of the viewing public, I highly doubt that WB or other studios will take notice.


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *richiek* /forum/post/15274425
> 
> 
> Considering that owners of constant height 2.35:1 setups are an EXTREME minority of the viewing public, I highly doubt that WB or other studios will take notice.



I am sure you are right. I just hope this is the last one of these I see. 2:35 is supposed to be wider than 16:9 not the opposite. Ugh.


----------



## JonesyG




> Quote:
> The point of this is to reproduce the theater experience at home. With this Batman disk, there is no way to do that. I either have to watch 80% of the movie all small on my big screen to see it all, or crop it and have 20% of the movie spill all over the walls.



If you have a 100" (diagonal) 2.39:1 screen and you zoom down to watch TDK with a constant height, it's as if you are watching it on an 80" (diagonal) 16:9 TV with letterbox bars for part of the movie. As far as televisions go, that's hardly "all small."


If the point of this is really to reproduce the theatre experience at home, I think people should be pissed that the Imax scenes are 16:9 instead of 4:3. We're not getting the whole picture.



I myself am looking forward to seeing it in Imax again in January. Anyone who can afford a CIH PJ home theatre system should be able to pinch a few pennies together and buy a greyhound ticket to the nearest Imax theatre.


Cheers,

Jonesy


----------



## jayrader

I was ranting to a friend of mine about this and he sent me this. Cracked me up.











He thinks I need to let it go.


Made this for the wife to explain it.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15267118
> 
> 
> I am really dissapointed. This movie spills all over the wall below and my center channel speaker. It looks bush league. Anyone have any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Is there any way I can make something to put over the lens to mask it in a clean straight line? I held a few different materials up there and it just looked horrible.
> 
> 
> I almost don't even want to watch the thing. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive but its spilling all over the walls and it looks like a monkey is working the projection booth.



My sentiment exactly that is why I refuse to buy this movie for now. On any other theater than IMAX it is unacceptable choose a format and stick with it. What's next 4:3, 16:9, 2:35, 2:40 in the same movie with changes every other shoots











Oh but it's artistic....... BS


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15268554
> 
> 
> PETITION....WOW... LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take your ball and go home its not that SERIOUS put some chips away and get a lens and or maybe just watch it in SD Full Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be joking right? if not goodness wow
> 
> 
> Steve



A vocal outcry from this and similar communities is what convinced the studios to release uncropped DVD's and now it's become the norm. There's no reason to think that they won't listen on this issue as well if we make enough noise.


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15275114
> 
> 
> If the point of this is really to reproduce the theatre experience at home, I think people should be pissed that the Imax scenes are 16:9 instead of 4:3. We're not getting the whole picture.



That's kind of my point, it's *not* reproducing either of the theater experiences. They ruin the 2.4:1 version, and don't come close to approximating the IMAX version. The 16x9 framing is a silly gimmick.


----------



## JonesyG

I dunno. I think they did a fair job of making a good compromise. Watching a movie it home is always a compromise, and never as good as seeing it properly projected in a quality theatre with a respectful audience.


I'm really suprised OAR folks are not up in arms that the top & bottom is getting cut off during the Imax scenes. But when you stop and think about it, the only way to do that properly on (16:9 native) BluRay would be to windowbox the 2.4:1 scenes and pillarbox the 4:3 Imax stuff... which would have probably made nobody happy.


TDK is a muiltiple ratio CIW film. The current BluRay is a nice compromise in my opinion.


I have a 124" 2.4:1 screen, fwiw.... though I haven't picked up TDK because I want to wait and see it in Imax again at the Jan re-release. If I ever do watch TDK at home, I'll zoom in to 16:9 and accept that my screen is only 100" diagonal instead of 124 for this movie.


On a slightly related note, I saw It's a Wonderful Life in 35mm on a 35' tall screen last night. The theatre's masking did not come all the way to the 4:3 ratio on the sides, and there was a foot or two of dead space on the screen below the image. In other words, it wasn't all masked 100% perfectly, nor as big as it could possibly be, but they got the whole movie up on the screen and it rocked! (It was my first time seeing it.)


Cheers,

Jonesy


----------



## collinp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15266972
> 
> 
> I know thats right... for those who did not get a chance to see this film in an IMAX Theater and experience the giant screen will not feel the same way we did. By watching this movie at home on our CIH setups is only "alittle" taste of what happened in the theater it was awesome very
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve



Now I wish I'd seen it on IMAX. Plenty of opportunities here in SF. I saw TDK at the Metreon and could have bought a 35mm or an IMAX ticket. I chose 35mm. Generally I've steered away from IMAX feature films after several disappointments : a cropped and shortened Star Wars II, a dim and blurry Fellowship of the Ring (probably just 35mm on a giant screen in retrospect), etc. Not being the fanboy I used to be I hadn't paid much attention to the production of the film and didn't realize until now that a decent portion of it was actually shot on IMAX and it wasn't just a cropped 35mm blow-up. I don't think it would have changed my opinion that the aspect ratio switches are relatively arbitrary, driven more by technical requirements than an artistic vision, but it sounds like it would have been worth checking out regardless.


- Collin


----------



## JonesyG

Colin, you'll still have a chance. Wait and see it in Imax at the January 23 re-release !


It really is cool in Imax - didn't feel gimicky at all, and it's awesome to see a director using a high resolution large film format when so many others are using the low-res assarific digital cameras.


----------



## collinp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276175
> 
> 
> Colin, you'll still have a chance. Wait and see it in Imax at the January 23 re-release !
> 
> 
> It really is cool in Imax - didn't feel gimicky at all, and it's awesome to see a director using a high resolution large film format when so many others are using the low-res assarific digital cameras.



Sweet. Thanks.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15275114
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a 100" (diagonal) 2.39:1 screen and you zoom down to watch TDK with a constant height, it's as if you are watching it on an 80" (diagonal) 16:9 TV with letterbox bars for part of the movie. As far as televisions go, that's hardly "all small."
> 
> 
> If the point of this is really to reproduce the theatre experience at home, I think people should be pissed that the Imax scenes are 16:9 instead of 4:3. We're not getting the whole picture.
> 
> 
> 
> I myself am looking forward to seeing it in Imax again in January. Anyone who can afford a CIH PJ home theatre system should be able to pinch a few pennies together and buy a greyhound ticket to the nearest Imax theatre.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonesy



16x9 is not IMAX. IMAX aspect is 1.43:1. Therefore, 16x9 blu-ray misses out 25% of the IMAX picture (with respect to what you see on the 16x9 screen).


"16x9 could recreate IMAX" is a myth - which is not correct. If a director intents to recreate IMAX on 16x9 TV, it is a poor intention which will not work.


To recreate IMAX, a huge IMAX screen is needed. It cannot be recreated in a 20" 4x3 TV set which is close to the IMAX aspect.


They should have used both 2.35:1 and 16x9 versions on blu-ray because TDK was seen by most of the population on 2.35:1 theater screens and that was the director's intention for those theaters.


What a waste .....


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276155
> 
> 
> TDK is a muiltiple ratio CIW film. The current BluRay is a nice compromise in my opinion.



Not quite true. There were two releases of the film. (I assume both were approved by the director.) A minority of people saw the CIW IMAX version. The majority of theater goers saw the CIH 2.4:1 version.


The Blu-Ray release is a needlessly bastardized compromise between the two that doesn't come close to approximating the IMAX experience. What's worse, Blu-Ray technology would have allowed the studio to afford consumers a choice on the same disc.


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276155
> 
> 
> Watching a movie it home is always a compromise, and never as good as seeing it properly projected in a quality theatre with a respectful audience.



I think quite a few people here would respectfully disagree with that sentiment! The PQ and sound of a good high-def transfer in my home theater outshines the average theater, the perceived image size is bigger without having to sit in the front row and break my neck, my seating is more comfortable, my friends and family can eat and drink anything we please and we can start watching a movie whenever we want.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15276652
> 
> 
> I think quite a few people here would respectfully disagree with that sentiment! The PQ and sound of a good high-def transfer in my home theater outshines the average theater, the perceived image size is bigger without having to sit in the front row and break my neck, my seating is more comfortable, my friends and family can eat and drink anything we please and we can start watching a movie whenever we want.



Fully agree. My HT is better in many ways to my theater experience.


----------



## JonesyG




> Quote:
> What's worse, Blu-Ray technology would have allowed the studio to afford consumers a choice on the same disc.



CIH folks want to fill their screens, even if it means cutting off some of the picture that the filmmakers wanted you to see.


Should they also have included a version that is always 4:3, so the folks with Blu-Ray players hooked up to 4:3 sets can fill their screens, even if it means cutting off some of the picture that the filmmakers wanted you to see.


(I wonder which population is greater Blu-Ray + 4:3 or CIH???)




> Quote:
> The majority of theater goers saw the CIH 2.4:1 version.



Hell, most theatre-goers probably saw it in ass-crappy theatres with 2:1 screens that cropped off the sides because they don't have masking systems and show 2.4:1 and 1.85:1 films on the exact same screen. They could have included a 2:1 version on Blu-Ray too!



All snarkiness aside, I'm just saying that TDK is a unique case and I think they have come up with a reasonable compromise here. And if you really want to see it the way Nolan wants you to, WB is providing an Imax re-release in January. How awesome is that?


Cheers,

Jonesy


----------



## JonesyG

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonesyG

Watching a movie it home is always a compromise, and never as good as seeing it properly projected in a quality theatre with a respectful audience.




> Quote:
> I think quite a few people here would respectfully disagree with that sentiment!



Now that's just silly! Re-read exactly what I wrote. You ought to get out and find some good cinemas, even if it means driving a little farther.


Should they not bother releasing films to theaters at all? Should everything be direct-to-video?


Sadness!


Jonesy


PS: To everyone with their panties in a bunch over this whole thing:


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276850
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by JonesyG
> 
> 
> PS: To everyone with their panties in a bunch over this whole thing:



I totally agree, but I'm having a hard time letting go of it. It just tears me up to watch 80% of the best movie of the year in a scaled down format.


Oh well.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276850
> 
> 
> 
> Should they not bother releasing films to theaters at all? Should everything be direct-to-video?



Please NO! though I am sure others would welcome the idea...


Mark


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276780
> 
> 
> CIH folks want to fill their screens, even if it means cutting off some of the picture that the filmmakers wanted you to see.



1. For the umpteenth time, TDK, even the IMAX sequences, was filmed with the the intent of being distributed in wide-release as a `scope ratio movie. To my knowledge, Christopher Nolan supervised the framing. It is an artistically valid way to experience TDK. (I've seen both, btw.)


2. Watching the IMAX sequences in 16:9 on the Blu-ray disc is truly "cutting off some of the picture that the filmmakers wanted you to see." since 16x9 is cropped from the 1.45:1 ratio of the IMAX frame.


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276850
> 
> 
> Now that's just silly! Re-read exactly what I wrote. You ought to get out and find some good cinemas, even if it means driving a little farther.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15276850
> 
> 
> Should they not bother releasing films to theaters at all? Should everything be direct-to-video?



What's silly is telling others what they should do. There is not a theater in the metro-Nashville area that I would rather go to than my own if movies were released "day-an-date." I enjoy films, not theaters. Others like to go to theaters to socialize or for whatever reasons. More power to them.


You are correct, this is *not* a serious topic. It's just a movie. It's just entertainment. All of our lives go on no matter what WB does. BUT, this _is_ what this forum is about. This IS the place to debate this topic ad nauseam. As long as you keep things civil, and it doesn't keep you from sleeping at night, why not? If you don't care how it was delivered for home presentation, then move on. It's really, really easy to do so on the Internet. Just click, or rather don't click. ;-)


----------



## JSwarce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15279163
> 
> 
> What's silly is telling others what they should do. There is not a theater in the metro-Nashville area that I would rather go to than my own if movies were released "day-an-date." I enjoy films, not theaters. Others like to go to theaters to socialize or for whatever reasons. More power to them.
> 
> 
> You are correct, this is *not* a serious topic. It's just a movie. It's just entertainment. All of our lives go on no matter what WB does. BUT, this _is_ what this forum is about. This IS the place to debate this topic ad nauseam. As long as you keep things civil, and it doesn't keep you from sleeping at night, why not? If you don't care how it was delivered for home presentation, then move on. It's really, really easy to do so on the Internet. Just click, or rather don't click. ;-)



Well said, Joe12south! Even though I don't like the decisions made (be they aspect ratio, poor transfers/mastering, or applied EE), I am not going to lose any sleep over it! Life goes on......


--John


----------



## cwoodall334

Was it just me or did some of the 2.40:1 shots earlier in the movie seem out of focus?


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cwoodall334* /forum/post/15281796
> 
> 
> Was it just me or did some of the 2.40:1 shots earlier in the movie seem out of focus?



I don't know about out of focus, but they are not all that impressive. They might seem that way compared to the IMAX shots.


----------



## MAZMAN808

Watched it last night and on a cih scope i couldnt even tell when the AR's changed!

what am i spose to be looking for?


Reading all this AR changes and how it will be disturbing going from one AR to another etc, i was expecting to be dissapointed by it, but since i didnt notice it, it doesnt bother me!


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MAZMAN808* /forum/post/15285609
> 
> 
> Watched it last night and on a cih scope i couldnt even tell when the AR's changed!
> 
> what am i spose to be looking for?
> 
> 
> Reading all this AR changes and how it will be disturbing going from one AR to another etc, i was expecting to be dissapointed by it, but since i didnt notice it, it doesnt bother me!



If you used a lens you wouldn't notice anything (except a few badly framed scenes perhaps). But the CIH zoomers (like me) get stuff spilling over the screen. It was OK with good dark masking around the screen, and better than watching it smaller as 16:9.


I also noticed that the pop-up menu was mainly out of the picture on a scope screen (subtitles probably were too but I didn't check). They really don't seem to care about CIH setups.


----------



## davide

Watched it last night on my scope screen.


I have to use the zoom method,and tried this both ways, and had to settle for zooming to fill the frame 2:35:1 and let the imax footage shoot off the top and bottom,and for the most part , this was the best solution.


I certainly found the impact was lost using the 16x9 frame,great for imax ,but not good for most of the movie. I have large borders on my screen which helps hide most of the imax material(and its dark for most of that,which also helps).


Why they couldn't have an option on the disc to keep everyone happy,via seemless branching?


----------



## jayrader

The most frustrating thing to me is out of 9000 screens this showed on in the theaters, only 94 were IMAX. So only 1.04 percent of the showings had the changing ARs. So 99% of the folks who saw this in the theater can't get the same experience at home. Seems looney.


----------



## thebland

Is this an anamorphic 2.40?


I threw this in tonight and found that it was simply letterboxed and my anamorphic lens / scaler couldn't expand it properly. IS this a letterboxed release and not true 2.40?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/15292741
> 
> 
> Is this an anamorphic 2.40?
> 
> 
> I threw this in tonight and found that it was simply letterboxed and my anamorphic lens / scaler couldn't expand it properly. IS this a letterboxed release and not true 2.40?



Both DVD (16:9 enhanced) and BD (true 16:9) are presented in a letterbox format to preserve the 2.40:1 aspect ratio of the film. The BD has several scenes that are "full frame" which were originally shot for IMAX.


Scaling removes the top and bottom portions of theses film sequences along with the black bars, but you can tell the 70mm stuff as it is cystal clear and very much eye candy...


Mark


----------



## Drexler

If the IMAX scenes on BD are clearer and sharper than the 35 mm shots, does that mean that BD has more resolving power/can show more detail than 35 mm film? How else can you interpret it?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15293538
> 
> 
> If the IMAX scenes on BD are clearer and sharper than the 35 mm shots, does that mean that BD has more resolving power/can show more detail than 35 mm film? How else can you interpret it?



BD is only as good as the source material it is mastered from. I think because 70mm film is a much better format for image capture than 35mm, the differences can and will be seen on BD. I certainly could tell the IMAX footage from the rest of the film and I was watching it all as CIH. I did check a few scenes by hitting 4 x 3 on the projector to confirm that they were indeed 1.78:1...


Mark


----------



## MAZMAN808

I dont think you get better resolution etc, but its like comparing a point and shoot digital camera to a pro digital SLR, where the SLR has a much better quality of optical properties?( among other things) even tho both cameras can be 10MP.

So the end result is a nicer cleaner image from the digital SLR ( just like iMAX?)


Would that be right?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/15292741
> 
> 
> Is this an anamorphic 2.40?
> 
> 
> I threw this in tonight and found that it was simply letterboxed and my anamorphic lens / scaler couldn't expand it properly. IS this a letterboxed release and not true 2.40?



There is no anamorphic enhancement on Blu-ray and never has been.


----------



## Mark_H

Watched this today. I scale for CIH, so the top and bottom of the IMAX scenes was completely missing. Thus it looked identical to what I saw at the cinema. The IMAX scenes are framed so that important aspects of the image are kept with the 2.4:1 window and so you're not made aware that the IMAX stuff is even happening.


So this whole issue, for me, is a non-issue.


Cheers,


Mark


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/15294274
> 
> 
> There is no anamorphic enhancement on Blu-ray and never has been.



I know. Bad wording on my part... I was not able to get my picture to expand when the anamorphic lens was in place. Thought it was a disc issue..but found that the trigger had been disconnected. Doh!


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/15294450
> 
> 
> Watched this today. I scale for CIH, so the top and bottom of the IMAX scenes was completely missing. Thus it looked identical to what I saw at the cinema ...
> 
> So this whole issue, for me, is a non-issue.



What about the pop-up menu, did you find it was half invisible and hence difficult to use? (not related to the variable aspect ratio issue, just a general problem with 2.35:1 screens).


----------



## blastermaster

I watched the whole thing last night with my CIH setup and it looked absolutely fantastic. Like some others, I didn't notice the switches, but damn some of those overhead cityscape shots looked fantastic. I'm going to assume that those were the 70mm shots.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/15294681
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing last night with my CIH setup and it looked absolutely fantastic. Like some others, I didn't notice the switches, but damn some of those overhead cityscape shots looked fantastic. I'm going to assume that those were the 70mm shots.




You got it... very


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davide* /forum/post/15290788
> 
> 
> Watched it last night on my scope screen.
> 
> 
> I have to use the zoom method,and tried this both ways, and had to settle for zooming to fill the frame 2:35:1 and let the imax footage shoot off the top and bottom,and for the most part , this was the best solution.



I am going to do this too; this movie is the first good use I've found for the Shutters that are built-in to my Mits HC4900.


I suppose the producers have some great (for them) rationale as to why they'd publish the movie in this way, but to me it's just bizarre. An excuse I suppose to come-out later with a Super-Deluxe edition with separate Imax and 'scope perhaps. No way this first edition will be the Last Edition!!!


----------



## Favelle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15279163
> 
> 
> What's silly is telling others what they should do. There is not a theater in the metro-Nashville area that I would rather go to than my own if movies were released "day-an-date." I enjoy films, not theaters. Others like to go to theaters to socialize or for whatever reasons. More power to them.
> 
> 
> You are correct, this is *not* a serious topic. It's just a movie. It's just entertainment. All of our lives go on no matter what WB does. BUT, this _is_ what this forum is about. This IS the place to debate this topic ad nauseam. As long as you keep things civil, and it doesn't keep you from sleeping at night, why not? If you don't care how it was delivered for home presentation, then move on. It's really, really easy to do so on the Internet. Just click, or rather don't click. ;-)



+1. I agree. For the people who it didn't bother or got over it quickly, why are they continuing to come here, bending over backwards, trying to tell us what to do?


Doesn't make any sense. If it doesn't bug them, then why do they continue to post in this thread? It just seems weird.


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/15294635
> 
> 
> What about the pop-up menu, did you find it was half invisible and hence difficult to use? (not related to the variable aspect ratio issue, just a general problem with 2.35:1 screens).



Well, that's a general issue with CIH setups. I have a hard button on my Creston panel which will re-squeeze the video if necessary during menu use. Normally once the movie has started I never access the menu anyway. So, not a big issue for me.


Cheers,


Mark


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/15294635
> 
> 
> What about the pop-up menu, did you find it was half invisible and hence difficult to use? (not related to the variable aspect ratio issue, just a general problem with 2.35:1 screens).



I don't know about you, but for my CIH, I have a long remote macro that powers on the system and I have the screen set to 16:9 output for the trailers and start menu section. Once the menu comes on (after the trailers, it is still in 16:9 mode). I select the audio, then hit enter to start the movie. My remote then goes to a list of aspect options. I hit 2.35 and then the aspect changes. Now during the movie, if I need the pop up menu, hit 16:9, change things to 16:9, use the pop up menu, and then back to scope.


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/15295832
> 
> 
> I am going to do this too; this movie is the first good use I've found for the Shutters that are built-in to my Mits HC4900.



Let me know how this works out for you. I've got a Mits HC4900 also, and I remember hearing about the shutters, but then when it was determined that it would not make anything darker than the normal black bar area, I decided it really wasn't worth the trouble. In this case, however, it would definitely solve the problem for us CIH zoomers!


(I've just downloaded the zoombo program, and I look forward to trying it myself, but I'm not sure if I have the necessary cable to connect the computer to the projector. Was it included with the projector, by any chance?)


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *berserker37* /forum/post/15301423
> 
> 
> ...I remember hearing about the shutters, but then when it was determined that it would not make anything darker than the normal black bar area, I decided it really wasn't worth the trouble.



I tried it and you're right--not worth the trouble (I think Shutters were implemented for commercial installations). But it oughta work great for DK. You don't need Zoombo to do this of course, but iirc there *was* a serial cable in the box w/the Mits.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/15294635
> 
> 
> What about the pop-up menu, did you find it was half invisible and hence difficult to use? (not related to the variable aspect ratio issue, just a general problem with 2.35:1 screens).



This is a problem with all Warner Bros. discs. Their menus are always placed in the lower letterbox bar. You have to shrink down to 16:9 mode to use the menu and then zoom back up to 2.35:1.


Considering that you're not going to be accessing the menu after you start the movie, this is really just a minor annoyance.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/15301117
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but for my CIH, I have a long remote macro that powers on the system and I have the screen set to 16:9 output for the trailers and start menu section. Once the menu comes on (after the trailers, it is still in 16:9 mode). I select the audio, then hit enter to start the movie. My remote then goes to a list of aspect options. I hit 2.35 and then the aspect changes. Now during the movie, if I need the pop up menu, hit 16:9, change things to 16:9, use the pop up menu, and then back to scope.



My setup is not quite so sophisticated







. I manually change the zoom to switch aspect ratios so I'm not going to switch back to use the pop-up menu. But since I'm zooming I can still (just) see the parts of the menu that are projected on the masking.


It would be nice to see disks authored with the option to put subtitles and the pop-up menu either in the picture area or in the black bars to accommodate everyone, but CIH users are such a minority I don't see that happening.


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/15301618
> 
> 
> I tried it and you're right--not worth the trouble (I think Shutters were implemented for commercial installations). But it oughta work great for DK. You don't need Zoombo to do this of course, but iirc there *was* a serial cable in the box w/the Mits.



You're right! (Don't know why I thought Zoombo was needed to utilize the shutters.)


I can't wait to try this out tonight (I've not been looking forward to the first clumsy explanation when screening TDK for friends or family).


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *berserker37* /forum/post/15302734
> 
> 
> I can't wait to try this out tonight (I've not been looking forward to the first clumsy explanation when screening TDK for friends or family).



I'm betting it will work great--by all means let us know (dunno when I'll get around to trying it myself).


Shutters...another reason to love the terrific Mits HC4900!!!


----------



## txfilmguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/14766868
> 
> 
> the non 2.4 part of the movie- the Imax part of the movie is not shown in 1.66, it is shown in 1.78.



And furthermore, it was not shot in 1.66:1 either. It was shot in 1.44:1.


----------



## JeffY

But it was shown as constant width at IMAX theaters, keeping the IMAX shots OAR for the Blu-ray release would have been a stupid idea. The cropping to 1.78:1 (full 1920x1080 resolution) was a good compromise for the home release.


----------



## joe12south

Why not give the consumer the choice of which theatrical version to watch rather than force a "good compromise" down their throats?


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15305548
> 
> 
> Why not give the consumer the choice of which theatrical version to watch rather than force a "good compromise" down their throats?



I'm sure they will, after some months, offer a Super Deluxe Extra Special You'll Want to Pay A Lot More Money For This One edition.


----------



## joe12south

Ha! Anyone else remember Laserdisc packaging? Those truly were "special" editions...big elaborate packaging chock full of hardbound books and posters and other memorabilia. I don't even have a LD player anymore, but several LD special editions sit proudly on my bookshelf.


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/15305023
> 
> 
> I'm betting it will work great--by all means let us know (dunno when I'll get around to trying it myself).
> 
> 
> Shutters...another reason to love the terrific Mits HC4900!!!



Tried it last night and it worked perfectly! I can't believe I never messed around with the shutters before, but I guess when I heard that they don't make it any darker than the black bars normally are, I figured they wouldn't be worth bothering with.


But for this particular situation, they work perfectly to blank out the overspill during the IMAX scenes.


I still believe it would have been nice for them to utilize seamless branching on the disc in order to give everyone the choice to watch either the shifting aspect ratio version, or the constant widescreen version. But for myself, and anyone else who has a poor-man's CIH (zoomed) setup, the blanking shutters on this projector are a godsend.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15305548
> 
> 
> Why not give the consumer the choice of which theatrical version to watch rather than force a "good compromise" down their throats?



Because Christopher Nolan hates you.


----------



## jpniner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/15305023
> 
> 
> I'm betting it will work great--by all means let us know (dunno when I'll get around to trying it myself).
> 
> 
> Shutters...another reason to love the terrific Mits HC4900!!!



how many projectors have this feature? I have a sharp dt-510 throwing onto a 100" 16:9 Fixed screen. Know by any chance if I'm stuck with the bars for the imax scenes or not?


----------



## Person99

How can there be 193 posts on this topic?!?!?


The artistic intent of the movie is for it to be shown CIW. I saw it at a 4K DCi theater--it was shown CIW. If I show it in my theater, it will be CIW to preserve the director's vision.


I can't believe people are in such a hissy fit because they don't get to use the full width of their screen for this movie. If you care about size of image more than anything else, just zoom the whole movie, or do a damn constant area set up on a big 2.05:1 screen so all ARs are big!


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jpniner* /forum/post/15311107
> 
> 
> how many projectors have this feature? I have a sharp dt-510 throwing onto a 100" 16:9 Fixed screen. Know by any chance if I'm stuck with the bars for the imax scenes or not?



Personally, if I was using a 16:9 screen, I would accept the shifting aspect ratios thing as a minor distraction. I would not be looking to block the top and bottom of the IMAX scenes.


I think this is a minor issue for everyone except people with Constant Image Height theaters with 2.35:1 aspect ratio screens. And even more specifically, I think it might only be an issue for those of us who are using the "zoom" method. Unless I'm mistaken, it's not an issue for those using an anamorphic lens.


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15311183
> 
> 
> How can there be 193 posts on this topic?!?!?
> 
> 
> The artistic intent of the movie is for it to be shown CIW. I saw it at a 4K DCi theater--it was shown CIW. If I show it in my theater, it will be CIW to preserve the director's vision.
> 
> 
> I can't believe people are in such a hissy fit because they don't get to use the full width of their screen for this movie. If you care about size of image more than anything else, just zoom the whole movie, or do a damn constant area set up on a big 2.05:1 screen so all ARs are big!



As I see it, the movie was shown in CIW in less than 5% of theaters, and CIH in more than 95% of theaters. Both versions should be considered "legitimate". The IMAX version may be ideal for IMAX screens and 16:9 screens, but I don't think it is absolutely ideal for 2.35:1 screens.


The shifting aspect ratios thing, while unusual, is not a big deal to me. If I watch the movie on a 16:9 screen, regardless of size, I will be fine with the minor distraction of the changing aspect ratios. (Others, however, may find it more distracting. What is wrong with giving them the OPTION of watching it either way?)


However, it does bother me that, on my 2.35:1 CIH setup, I have to choose a compromise:

If I watch the film with the IMAX scenes filling the full vertical height of my screen, then the other 80% of the movie fills neither the heighth nor the width of my screen. Since I went to a CIH setup, and gained over 30% image size for 2.35:1 movies (without sacrificing any image size for 16:9 and 4:3 material), it kind of sucks to watch a 2.35:1 movie at that size.

However, if I fill my 2.35:1 screen with the 2.35:1 image from TDK, then the IMAX scenes overspill above and below my screen, which is way more distracting then the "shifting aspect ratios" thing. Thankfully, the "blanking shutters" on my projector allow me to overcome this situation (other people won't be so lucky).


Who knows? I may eventually decide that seeing the full IMAX image is the preferred method of viewing this film, instead of maximizing the 2.35:1 image size. But at least now I have the OPTION, which is all I ever wanted in the first place.



Another thing to consider is that they decided not to do this with the DVD version. In the past, before O.A.R. became commonplace, I think most film fans would prefer watching a letterboxed VHS-quality 2.35:1 movie than a higher-quality full-frame version of the movie. But in this case they are making aspect ratio decisions based on the quality of the image (DVD vs Blu-ray), not based on the "director's intention" of the preferred framing. This is kind of uncharted territory, and some unusual situations are cropping up that have never really been dealt with before.


----------



## JonesyG

A few years ago:

Joe Six-Pack - _I don't care what the director wants me to see. I want the movie to fill up my whole TV, wit' none o' them black bars!_


Today:

Charlie CIH - _I don't care what the director wants me to see. I want the movie to fill up my whole 2.39:1 screen, wit' none o' them black bars!_



I keep hearing the argument that "the shots were framed so that the image at the tops & bottoms of the Imax scenes was not necessary."


The thing is: a lot of 2.39:1 films are framed so that the image on the sides isn't "necessary." Should those movies be cropped on 16:9 or 4:3 sets to fill the screen?


Hell, even 1.85 movies are shot with a "safe zone" at the top and bottom. You could probably zoom those out to fill a 2.39:1 screen without missing too much!


Sure, 95% of theatrical screenings of TKD had the Imax scenes cropped off at the tops and bottoms. I think the case can be made that those screenings were "compromises" also. They sure as hell didn't have the resolution of the IMAX screenings. If the BD had a 2.39-only option, should its resolution be decreased?


And anyone using a CIH screen has got a pretty damn large screen. Zooming the picture down a little bit for this one movie still leaves you with... a pretty damn large screen.


I don't mean to offend anyone over my posts in this thread, and if I twisted your nipples too hard, I apologize.


I just don't understand how a group that is presumably dedicated to accurately preserving the vision of the film-maker has suddenly become so obsessed with "filling their screens." To me, that sends the wrong message to the studios, and that is why I seem to find myself posting here again, rather than just "moving on," as has been recommended.



And as I've said before, it really surprises me that people aren't more upset that the Imax material is cropped to 16:9 instead of the full 4:3.


Cheers,

Jonesy


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> The thing is: a lot of 2.39:1 films are framed so that the image on the sides isn't "necessary." Should those movies be cropped on 16:9 or 4:3 sets to fill the screen?



Jonesy,

I think that there are two fundamental errors in that logic.


1. As has been stated over and over, the TDK BR disc does _not_ preserve the framing of the IMAX presentation, it is significantly cropped.

2. You assume that the IMAX presentation is the norm that the director intended when I think a better case could be made for considering the IMAX presentation a "bonus" for a few special cases...I state this because every single IMAX shot is clearly, deliberately framed for `Scope and the filmmakers themselves have said so.



> Quote:
> If the BD had a 2.39-only option, should its resolution be decreased?



Virtually every BD transfer is decreased in resolution from the source film print or 2k or 4k DI. That's a limitation of the format that cannot be overcome. Wonky cropping decisions are not. ;-)


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *berserker37* /forum/post/15310238
> 
> 
> Tried it last night and it worked perfectly! I can't believe I never messed around with the shutters before, but I guess when I heard that they don't make it any darker than the black bars normally are, I figured they wouldn't be worth bothering with.
> 
> 
> But for this particular situation, they work perfectly to blank out the overspill during the IMAX scenes.
> 
> 
> I still believe it would have been nice for them to utilize seamless branching on the disc in order to give everyone the choice to watch either the shifting aspect ratio version, or the constant widescreen version. But for myself, and anyone else who has a poor-man's CIH (zoomed) setup, the blanking shutters on this projector are a godsend.



Thanks for posting-back!


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *berserker37* /forum/post/15311642
> 
> 
> However, if I fill my 2.35:1 screen with the 2.35:1 image from TDK, then the IMAX scenes overspill above and below my screen, which is way more distracting then the "shifting aspect ratios" thing. Thankfully, the "blanking shutters" on my projector allow me to overcome this situation (other people won't be so lucky).



Watch it the way you want, zoom the thing. It does not need a 200 post thread for that.


Anyone using zooming that cannot "blank" out the unused portions of the image has a crap set up and needs a 200 post thread on how to properly set up a PJ for CIH, *NOT* a thread on TDK! TDK only reveals their poor set up--it is not the problem, their set up is.


----------



## jayrader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15313568
> 
> 
> Watch it the way you want, zoom the thing. It does not need a 200 post thread for that.
> 
> 
> Anyone using zooming that cannot "blank" out the unused portions of the image has a crap set up and needs a 200 post thread on how to properly set up a PJ for CIH, *NOT* a thread on TDK! TDK only reveals their poor set up--it is not the problem, their set up is.



Just because someone doesn't have external scalers and expensive lenses does not mean they have a crap set up. Try to be nice.


----------



## CAVX

Can someone post just how long the running time of the IMAX footage is in total for this approx 2.5 hour film?


Mark


----------



## CollinViegas

approx. 25 mins


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15313568
> 
> 
> Anyone using zooming that cannot "blank" out the unused portions of the image has a crap set up and needs a 200 post thread on how to properly set up a PJ for CIH, *NOT* a thread on TDK!



Wow, and here all this time my guests and I been enjoying the PQ and convenience of my zoomed CIH set-up. What a fool I've been! Thanks to you and one oddball release from Warner Bros. I've been enlightened that it is actually "crap." Without your brilliant insight into the matter I might have gone on for years enjoying movies in abject ignorance. Thank you, Person99, thank you!


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15313568
> 
> 
> Watch it the way you want, zoom the thing. It does not need a 200 post thread for that.
> 
> 
> Anyone using zooming that cannot "blank" out the unused portions of the image has a crap set up and needs a 200 post thread on how to properly set up a PJ for CIH, *NOT* a thread on TDK! TDK only reveals their poor set up--it is not the problem, their set up is.



Man, try decaf for a while. I happen to have one of the more expensive CIH setups, scaler, ISCO III, 3 Chip DLP, etc. I have to say, though, I'm not gonna trash someone who's trying to do this on a smaller budget! I say more power to them. The attitude you are putting out there with those statements is really unneeded here and, I'm sure others will agree, UNWANTED! You have yourself a Merry Christmas.


----------



## berserker37




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15313568
> 
> 
> Watch it the way you want, zoom the thing. It does not need a 200 post thread for that.
> 
> 
> Anyone using zooming that cannot "blank" out the unused portions of the image has a crap set up and needs a 200 post thread on how to properly set up a PJ for CIH, *NOT* a thread on TDK! TDK only reveals their poor set up--it is not the problem, their set up is.




I didn't realize that we paid by the post on this forum. Here I thought it was a free resource for people to discuss various topics related to home theater, whatever that topic may be.


I notice that you seem quite helpful and polite in the DIY lens and screen topics. Should someone go trash the people discussing those topics for not purchasing an expensive lens and/or screen?


I do find it amusing when people waste their own time by threadcrapping in topics that others find useful and informative. Wouldn't your time be better spent enjoying your ivory tower?


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *berserker37* /forum/post/15318886
> 
> 
> I do find it amusing when people waste their own time by threadcrapping in topics that others find useful and informative. Wouldn't your time be better spent enjoying your ivory tower?



At >3.5 posts/day (yes, every day) clearly this person has no life outside of AVS. I guess eventually one just gets grumpy sitting in front of one's PC.


----------



## joe12south

He's not grumpy, he's sad for all of us with "crap" setups. ;-)


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonesyG* /forum/post/15312797
> 
> 
> A few years ago:
> 
> Joe Six-Pack - _I don't care what the director wants me to see. I want the movie to fill up my whole TV, wit' none o' them black bars!_
> 
> 
> Today:
> 
> Charlie CIH - _I don't care what the director wants me to see. I want the movie to fill up my whole 2.39:1 screen, wit' none o' them black bars!_
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonesy



The director's original intention was to use 2.35:1 aspect for the 99% of the population who watch this movie in standard theaters. He also intended for a smaller fraction of the population to watch in 1.43:1 aspect on large IMAX screens. I think 16x9 crop is not part of the original design.


It is unfortunate that WB did not give the opportunity to choose one of two original aspects of the blu-ray movie.


What a waste of the blu-ray technology. Further, they messed with digital processing and could not get it right. Sad.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15326957
> 
> 
> The director's original intention was to use 2.35:1 aspect for the 99% of the population who watch this movie in standard theaters. He also intended for a smaller fraction of the population to watch in 1.43:1 aspect on large IMAX screens. I think 16x9 crop is not part of the original design.
> 
> (



I belive the directors original and artistic intention was the IMAX version, nothing else. However, since the majority of theathers are not IMAX, a compromise had to be made to get enough revenue.


The BD version is closer to the IMAX version and should therefore be closer to the original directors intent.







(Also, you think the director had something to say about the CIH theatrical version, but not the BD version? I would think he had influence on both)


However, I can fully understand why it bugs the hell out of CIH folks and for such a setup it would be more beneficial with a CIH version.







Sadly, movie companies usually don't care that much about groups as small as 0.001% (or what ever it could be), to make an effort. (the same and even more pressing with the subtitle issue)


----------



## jamis

So why not ask the director what he intended and why they created TDK Bluray the way they did....


TONIGHT:

http://gizmodo.com/5107480/watch-the...istopher-nolan 


"Warner Bros has been trying some pretty cool, experimental stuff with their first BD Live movie, The Dark Knight. And now, that list includes watching the movie with Christopher Nolan.


Those with The Dark Knight Blu-ray who've registered for Warner Bros' free Blu-ray accounts have the opportunity to watch the film in sync with director Christopher Nolan while he answers questions and gives us that commentary we were so missing from the BD's otherwise excellent extra features.


Slated for December 18th at 6PM Pacific, the community screening is open to the first 100,000 people who respond."



Might be full by this point, though...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15326957
> 
> 
> It is unfortunate that WB did not give the opportunity to choose one of two original aspects of the blu-ray movie.



Because we watch video in the home and not film, we have to work within the confines of the video system - ie either a matrix of 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 810 which we can scale to 1920 x 1080, then optically expand out to restore the geometry. Film is based on images of captured light and can have any AR the director chooses and it can still work with any film projector because film does not have a fixed pixel matrix. However electronic imaging systems (AKA Video) needs to be restricted to a fixed set of standards like 1.78:1 or this title would not work for CIH with a lens or even on a HDTV either. Right now, the small portions of IMAX that get cropped during the scaling process allow this title to work on a standard CIH system based on 1.33x electrical vertical stretch and optical horizontal expansion.


If the video was formatted to IMAX's 1.43:1, then parts of the black bars we remove during the scaling process would also still be present because it would require greater amounts of VS than 1.33x. Then the lens would also have to be one that offered more than the standard 1.33x stretch as well to preserve the geometry.


If this film had been formatted to preserve the true AR of the IMAX presenation, the film would use way less than the (approx 810) vertical pixels for the Scope portions of the film, so WB's decision to crop this to 1.78:1 for the IMAX sceens, has actually been done with the best intentions. The only people that are really suffering here are the zoomers...


Mark


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15333836
> 
> 
> Film is based on images of captured light and can have any AR the director chooses and it can still work with any film projector because film does not have a fixed pixel matrix.



Um, er, no. ;-)


Film stocks do indeed have a given ratio. It can either be used completely (either by shooting to that aspect or by using anamorphic lenses) or a certain part of the imaging area can be masked. In practical terms, these are the exact same limitations/options with digital capture or display. The only difference is the method of sampling the image (analog grain or digital pixels.)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15333836
> 
> 
> The only people that are really suffering here are the zoomers...



Again, no. Even zoomers are treated to an arbitrary center cropping of the IMAX scenes that does not match the intentional crop seen in 2.4:1 in the theater or on the DVD release.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15333836
> 
> 
> The only people that are really suffering here are the zoomers...
> 
> 
> Mark



I do agree.. For True CIH You Need A Lens, to take advantage of TDK (IMAX ver.) with NO Spillover..


Steve


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15334097
> 
> 
> Um, er, no. ;-)
> 
> 
> Film stocks do indeed have a given ratio. It can either be used completely (either by shooting to that aspect or by using anamorphic lenses) or a certain part of the imaging area can be masked. In practical terms, these are the exact same limitations/options with digital capture or display. The only difference is the method of sampling the image (analog grain or digital pixels.)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no. Even zoomers are treated to an arbitrary center cropping of the IMAX scenes that does not match the intentional crop seen in 2.4:1 in the theater or on the DVD release.



Actually, YES, CAVX is right when saying that the zoomers are the ones really suffering. Not because of the arbitrary center cropping that does not match the crop seen in conventional theaters, but rather, because they have overshoot above and below the screen that those of us with scalers and lenses can eliminate. Jump in here if I am wrong CAVX.


----------



## TSHA222

Steve, I was looking at the page without reloading so I did not read the comment you made saying basically what I said.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15327081
> 
> 
> I belive the directors original and artistic intention was the IMAX version, nothing else. However, since the majority of theathers are not IMAX, a compromise had to be made to get enough revenue.
> 
> 
> .......



This can be debated until the cows come home. If the preferred aspect is 1.43:1, why didn't he select 1.85:1 for the theater which is a standard theater aspect and also close to the IMAX aspect in comparison to scope.


It will be hard to obtain a straight answer from anyone involved as they would be forced to repeat the company line.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15335261
> 
> 
> This can be debated until the cows come home. If the preferred aspect is 1.43:1, why didn't he select 1.85:1 for the theater which is a standard theater aspect and also close to the IMAX aspect in comparison to scope.



The first lot of Batman films are all 1.85:1 and Scope just makes these new films so much more grand. The idea of presenting a film in CinemaScope is to give the audience something they would not have in their home - to make going to a cinema a special event. Those of us with CIH make an exception to that general rule as we can recreate that experience in the home.


IMAX delivers something else that is again new and exciting and not easilly recreated at home. I personallyt think that this film should not have the AR changes it does, but rather have been left as 2.40:1...


Mark


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15335313
> 
> 
> IMAX delivers something else that is again new and exciting and not easilly recreated at home. I personallyt think that this film should not have the AR changes it does, but rather have been left as 2.40:1...
> 
> 
> Mark



Mark,

I agree with the first half of your statement... Imax being something new and exciting and not easlly recreated at home..


I don't agree with you on this film "should" have been left at 2.40:1...


Why BE NORMAL THE SAME OLD THANG.. I feel that the producers wanted to shake things up a bit in the film industry and try something different and they have done that...


You have helped me alot in this CIH GAME when I first got into this. I spoke to you on the phone several times about your (HE) Lens at that time I had purchased the Wrong PJ (4:3) it was an Optoma ez-something (1024 x 768) very bright for Presentations They did not have 1080P's out then. I was a ZOOMER making my image big enough and masking off the rest to keep a nice size 16:9 but I was not using all of my pixels I wanted to do it the right way so I had to wait and put some chips away for an Optoma HD72 but by then when the funds were ready, Optoma came out with the HD81 then HD80. I had enough for the HD80. I ended up going with Shawn and his UH380 Lens when they first came out around $1500 on his Pre-sale on the Forum. Man I am glad I did that back then because WOW the $ on it now went up







. Very Happy for him and his SUCCESS. I chose Panamorph only because he's in the States and if I had an issue with him I could and would be able to get over there to resolve it...


Mark, I have learned so much from you reading your comments about CIH and your website. You are very knowledgeable in this CIH GAME. Much SUCCESS to you and your (HE) LENS.


Steve


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15335453
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I agree with the first half of your statement... Imax being something new and exciting and not easlly recreated at home..
> 
> 
> I don't agree with you on this film "should" have been left at 2.40:1...



I think it should have been this way on both DVD and BD. I think seeing this film on IMAX would be special, but not easy to recreate at home...



> Quote:
> Why BE NORMAL THE SAME OLD THANG.. I feel that the producers wanted to shake things up a bit in the film industry and try something different and they have done that...



But the end result is a compromise due to the shape of the 1.78:1 frame to allow it work as both a "full frame" presentation and still have Scope work for CIH...



> Quote:
> You have helped me alot in this CIH GAME when I first got into this. I spoke to you on the phone several times about your (HE) Lens at that time I had purchased the Wrong PJ (4:3) it was an Optoma ez-something (1024 x 768) very bright for Presentations They did not have 1080P's out then. I was a ZOOMER making my image big enough and masking off the rest to keep a nice size 16:9 but I was not using all of my pixels I wanted to do it the right way so I had to wait and put some chips away for an Optoma HD72 but by then when the funds were ready, Optoma came out with the HD81 then HD80. I had enough for the HD80. I ended up going with Shawn and his UH380 Lens when they first came out around $1500 on his Pre-sale on the Forum. Man I am glad I did that back then because WOW the $ on it now went up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Very Happy for him and his SUCCESS. I chose Panamorph only because he's in the States and if I had an issue with him I could and would be able to get over there to resolve it...
> 
> 
> Mark, I have learned so much from you reading your comments about CIH and your website. You are very knowledgeable in this CIH GAME. Much SUCCESS to you and your (HE) LENS.
> 
> 
> Steve



Your welcome and thank you for your very kind words...


Mark


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Actually, YES, CAVX is right when saying that the zoomers are the ones really suffering. Not because of the arbitrary center cropping that does not match the crop seen in conventional theaters, but rather, because they have overshoot above and below the screen that those of us with scalers and lenses can eliminate. Jump in here if I am wrong CAVX.



I watched TDK last night on Blu Ray and, as a " zoomer " that is using 2 different electric screens, we didn't suffer at all! We watched it on the 1.78:1 screen !! MY GOD did those IMAX shot scenes look amazing on our dVision 1080p when they opened up! Talk about detail !!!


This is a case when constant height doesn't work.


----------



## Cam Man

Okay, I'm sure my opinion will be controversial, but at least it is from a somewhat unique perspective. I watched TDK last night on BD after having seen it in an IMAX theater. I am a CIH 2.40 type. I took a look at both formats as I knew which shots/scenes were IMAX. The difference is inconsequential for the home...until we have 4K light cannons that will allow much larger screens. In fact, I am of the opinion that CIH 2.40 is just about ideal for the home as it renders the 35mm version.


Here is the controversial part. The IMAX composition is fairly inconsequential. It only serves to provide peripheral involvement on the giant IMAX screen. Nothing consequential to the story/action, or unique composition would be nor was placed in those areas. Here's why. The compositions of the IMAX shots were _framed for_ 2.40, but _protected for_ IMAX. This is very common with Super35 for theatrical and TV. The viewfinder ground glass on the IMAX cameras had frame lines for both 2.40 and IMAX. They were composed for nominal framing for 35mm release, and this renders an IMAX frame with a ton of extra head and foot room that would normally not be composed. That extra headroom is very noticable to a camera operator or DP, but okay in the context of the intended release environment. It easily is throw away material for 35mm and the home.


The higher resolution of the IMAX shots were still noticable, particularly the aerials. All that said, awesome PQ and sound!


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/15337632
> 
> 
> Here is the controversial part. The IMAX composition is fairly inconsequential. It only serves to provide peripheral involvement on the giant IMAX screen. Nothing consequential to the story/action, or unique composition would be nor was placed in those areas. Here's why. The compositions of the IMAX shots were _framed for_ 2.40, but _protected for_ IMAX. This is very common with Super35 for theatrical and TV. The viewfinder ground glass on the IMAX cameras had frame lines for both 2.40 and IMAX. They were composed for nominal framing for 35mm release, and this renders an IMAX frame with a ton of extra head and foot room that would normally not be composed. That extra headroom is very noticable to a camera operator or DP, but okay in the context of the intended release environment. It easily is throw away material for 35mm and the home.



Everything you say is essentially true, but you are missing one critical fact. The 2.40:1 portion of the IMAX footage was not a direct center crop. The footage was adjusted for the 35mm prints and the DVD on a scene-by-scene basis. In some shots, you see more of the bottom of the IMAX frame, and some shots more of the top. Someone in another thread made screen cap comparisons of the Blu-ray and the DVD which demonstrated this.


However, from what I understand (I don't have the disc yet), masking the Blu-ray to a consistent 2.40:1 is a generally satisfying experience, though the framing looks a little tight in some scenes.


----------



## TSHA222

Well I don't have it yet, ( I know, I know) but I'm getting a copy real soon. I will watch it cropped to 2.4 first, then I will try it at 1.85. I think I know which way I will prefer, but we shall see. I saw those screen caps too. The framing is different for sure. The funny thing is, if I had not read this thread, I would have been oblivious. This is the first place I saw that TDK was shot using IMAX cameras for some of the footage. I would have just popped the disc in, setup for scope and been none the wiser. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss


----------



## lchiu7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/15338780
> 
> 
> Well I don't have it yet, ( I know, I know) but I'm getting a copy real soon. I will watch it cropped to 2.4 first, then I will try it at 1.85. I think I know which way I will prefer, but we shall see. I saw those screen caps too. The framing is different for sure. The funny thing is, if I had not read this thread, I would have been oblivious. This is the first place I saw that TDK was shot using IMAX cameras for some of the footage. I would have just popped the disc in, setup for scope and been none the wiser. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss



It's certainly not obvious if you saw the movie in a regular theater. But of course, when you see it in Imax it's very clear







But there were only 80 odd Imax prints made (compared with 3500 or more 35mm prints) and the Imax team apparently screened each and every one of them in real time for quality control.


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> The footage was adjusted for the 35mm prints and the DVD on a scene-by-scene basis. In some shots, you see more of the bottom of the IMAX frame, and some shots more of the top. Someone in another thread made screen cap comparisons of the Blu-ray and the DVD which demonstrated this.



That is a nice extra for us at home. That may account for the generally pleasing experience at 2.40. At least they didn't pan and scan the IMAX frames

















Composition of aerials probably stands to be the most different. Some of the aerials would certainly include the tops of background skyscrapers...to be lost by many stories at 2.40. Not really important, but a small compromise of the original framing by the aerial DP.


----------



## Craig Peer

IMO not watching this movie on a 1.78:1 screen so the IMAX scenes can open up to reveal their full glory, is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.


----------



## CollinViegas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/15342426
> 
> 
> IMO not watching this movie on a 1.78:1 screen so the IMAX scenes can open up to reveal their full glory, is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.



I agree to an extent, I have seen this movie 4 times now... actually just finished watching it with a friend an hour ago.


First time I watched it I had no lens and was zooming... not a great experience.


Second time was on my TV in the livingroom {pioneer pro151} and on a TV 60" in size the effect was worthless. gimmicky feeling.


Next 2 times were in the theater with a lens and it was by far the best of the viewings.


I feel the Imax presentation is lost at home simply because it isnt dramatic enough. To me it still comes off as a new gimmick to set itself apart as something new. this is only my opinion though. I say enjoy the film however it makes you appreciate it most.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CollinViegas* /forum/post/15342644
> 
> 
> I say enjoy the film however it makes you appreciate it most.



That's what it's all about....










Steve


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CollinViegas* /forum/post/15342644
> 
> 
> First time I watched it I had no lens and was zooming... not a great experience.



Just curious why you disliked it zoomed (vs using lens).


----------



## CollinViegas

When I was Zooming I had to either let the Imax scenes spill out of my screen or zoom the picture to fit 16:9 and watch it letterbox using only half the screen space and thus the impact. I tried it both ways and found myself adjusting more than watching...


After adding the lens I watched it as if it was filmed entirely in 2.40 and didn't even notice the Imax scenes other than them looking much better than the rest of the movie.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CollinViegas* /forum/post/15343486
> 
> 
> When I was Zooming I had to either let the Imax scenes spill out of my screen or zoom the picture to fit 16:9 and watch it letterbox...



Watched this last night Zoomed to 2.40 with my Mits HC4900 Upper/Lower Shutters closed-down (setting 23) and it worked perfectly. No distractions and everything looked great; I have no inclination or curiosity to see it in alternating AR whatsoever. As a first-time viewer of TDK I found it an impressive piece of film-making, but...


...I was surprised to find that the *only* character I had any feeling for at all was (of all people) the bad guy (the worst guy?) the Joker. Yes I'd heard all the hype and now Oscar-buzz about Mr. Ledger and had discounted it thinking he was getting extra attention/sympathy owing to his unfortunate demise.


But it turns-out the attention is all deserved. An amazing piece of work that makes everyone else seem leaden and distant. Yes I saw Brokeback & others but I didn't recognize Ledger in this film. He was "The Joker" inside-out and his performance deserves whatever recognition it gets. It's gonna be painful for his friends & family--a sad situation indeed and I will be hurting for them Oscar night...


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/15342426
> 
> 
> IMO not watching this movie on a 1.78:1 screen so the IMAX scenes can open up to reveal their full glory, is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.



BUT... IMAX is NOT framed 1.78:1 so watching any of the versions on either DVD or BD is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen. And I am sure the director didn't intend for all viewers to see the film in an IMAX theater because that would have severely limited the bottom line. There are some places where IMAX is hours away.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> BUT... IMAX is NOT framed 1.78:1 so watching any of the versions on either DVD or BD is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen. And I am sure the director didn't intend for all viewers to see the film in an IMAX theater because that would have severely limited the bottom line. There are some places where IMAX is hours away.



If they didn't want you to see the IMAX scenes bigger than the 2.40:1 scenes, they would have put it on the disk that way to begin with, eh? This is just another example of how having 2 screens ( as opposed to one screen in either aspect ratio ) can be superior !!


----------



## TSHA222

Not arguing with you here, just stating the obvious. My person opinion, as if anyone cares







is that this is a marketing gimmick for the BD. I may be totally off base (it wouldn't be the first time). I still haven't seen the movie, trying to hold off til Christmas (it's under the tree, wrapped, from me to me). If I had a 16:9 display, I'd probably love the feature. If I had a way to easily identify the switch so I could change from 2.35 to 16:9 on the fly while I watched, I would probably not mind the feature (although, admitedly, the IMAX shots in that scenario would be _smaller_ than the rest of the film, which is the exact opposite of the intent). It does create a minor dilema for me, being a CIH user without masking as of yet, especially considering only 25 minutes or so, from what I read here earlier, is 16:9. I think I'll just map out the aspect ratio changes and create hot buttons on my Crestron just for this film. Or I could get on the ball and install the side masking that would make this less annoying. The funny thing is that That's Entertainment creates a similar issue for CIH users but nobody is bitching about that







(unless there is a thread I don't know about)


----------



## Kevin Korom

I watched this last night on my CIH setup with lens & scaler. After wondering about the framing for the first couple minutes, I completely forgot about it & just watched the movie in 2.40. At no time during the movie did I ever feel, or even wonder, if the vertical framing was wrong. It looked just like I remembered it looking in the non-IMAX theater I saw it in originally (but better).


----------



## John Ballentine

I watched Dark Knight too last night too on my (new) 2:40 CIH set-up. I could always tell an IMAX scene because the overscan illuminated my Carada logo located on the bottom right of my screen frame. next viewing I will put black electrical tape on it. Great film by the way.


----------



## jamis

We also finally watched it this weekend.


We only noticed the over scan on the bottom of the screen. It was noticeable and a little distracting... but not bad enough to stop watching or leave it in 16:9 mode.


Our screen has a velvet border and it was mostly noticeable on the black GOM under the screen.


----------



## strange_brew

Interesting thread. We also just watched Dark Knight and I hadn't seen this thread until after we watched it. I'll have to go back and look at the scenes in question, but I didn't notice a thing while the movie was on. I was completely oblivious to the change-overs. We have a black velvet border and GOM under that so maybe that's why.


----------



## oman321

strange-brew,


If you use a lens and do CIH (which I believe you do) the movie will be seamless and you will not see any changes as the IMAX shots are stretched out of the picture just as the black bars are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a fixed lens in place correct?


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/15342426
> 
> 
> IMO not watching this movie on a 1.78:1 screen so the IMAX scenes can open up to reveal their full glory, is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.



Sorry, but 1,78:1 is not "open up to reveal their full glory". It's pretty severely cropped from the IMAX presentation the "director intended."


----------



## joe12south

Not sure why this keeps coming-up, but the Blu-ray disc *crops* the 1.43:1 IMAX shots to 1.78:1. The Blu-ray disc does _not_ replicate the IMAX experience.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15368053
> 
> 
> Not sure why this keeps coming-up, but the Blu-ray disc *crops* the 1.43:1 IMAX shots to 1.78:1. The Blu-ray disc does _not_ replicate the IMAX experience.




The original IMAX footage is 1.66:1. Therefore the final result is closer to OAR than your graph indicates.


----------



## joe12south

Not according to IMDB: http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical


----------



## TSHA222

Do you have a link?!? I have read 1.43, 1.44 AND 1.66. I've always wondered what number was correct.


----------



## conradjohnsonfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15397729
> 
> 
> Not according to IMDB: http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical



Seems to have been a lot of confusion on this one, including me. (and certain magazines, which is inexcusable)


I am not 100 percent settled on the answer, but it indeed does look like it was shot at 1.44:1. The confusion seemed to come from the fact that the IMAX preview on Batman Begins was framed at 1:66:1


----------



## joe12south

Link above. Have to be a pro member of IMDB, though. Their technical information is usually very accurate. 1.43 _is_ absolutely the IMAX standard. If TDK IMAX shots are otherwise, than they would have been matted, which seems unlikely.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Craig Peer
> 
> IMO not watching this movie on a 1.78:1 screen so the IMAX scenes can open up to reveal their full glory, is to not watch the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but 1,78:1 is not "open up to reveal their full glory". It's pretty severely cropped from the IMAX presentation the "director intended."
Click to expand...


That may be, but this is a case where watching on a 16:9 screen is ( IMO ) closer to the original intent than CIH . With 2 screens, I have a choice of which way to watch this. I found it an interesting concept to have the picture expand to fill the screen vertically.


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/15403646
> 
> 
> That may be, but this is a case where watching on a 16:9 screen is ( IMO ) closer to the original intent than CIH . With 2 screens, I have a choice of which way to watch this. I found it an interesting concept to have the picture expand to fill the screen vertically.



Yeah, I just don't get that. I watched the film last night and kept the whole thing framed at 2.35. I was perfectly happy and didn' fell like I was missing anything. Although the "IMAX"







shots might not be framed exactly like they were in 2.35 cinemas, it never felt cramped. And we are talking about 25 minutes in a 153 minute film???? I would rather have the bulk of the film fill my 16 foot wide scope screen than sacrifice 128 minutes for 25 minutes of "full frame" psuedo-IMAX. I notice you have two screens. What is the purpose? I have one scope screen and I could have watched the film either way as well. How does two screens change things at all? I actually could even toggle back and forth pretty easily using my scaler and presets but I just watched the movie and had a good time.


----------



## Ethenolas

I just finished watching the Dark Knight on my epson 1080ub and it was a treat.


For all you who don't know...it does not support 2.35:1 so i was watching it in 16:9.


And as many have commented, when it switched to 16:9 i was loving it. But i was thinking throughout the whole thing that if i had 2.35:1 i would be so pissed.


It is really pretty rediculous that they don't have a standard yet. Swapping between two ratios is kinda rediculous if you ask me.


Good luck you guys....


----------



## TSHA222

Well the standard DVD release is framed at 2.35 but the reduced resolution isn't worth it.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> I notice you have two screens. What is the purpose? I have one scope screen and I could have watched the film either way as well. How does two screens change things at all?



The purpose is I watch 2.35:1 movies on my 118" wide Stewart Firehawk G3 2.35:1 screen, and I watch 16:9 movies on my Da-Lite 106" wide HCCV 16:9 screen. I don't use a lens. I find anamorphic lenses degrade the picture ( IMO ) more than they improve it. Especially with a projector as sharp as my dVision 1080p. It's as simple as that.


----------



## thebland

2 screens would be ideal... but then you are forced away from a microperf.


I simply can't handle voices coming from anywhere but from the actors' mouthes (or behind the screen).


No perfect solution..


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> I would rather have the bulk of the film fill my 16 foot wide scope screen



How many foot lamberts do you get off that screen? That's big. Doesn't seem like even your Titan can muster tha many lumens.


----------



## shark2k

I'm fairly new here so my opinion is probably not worth all that much. That being said, I only have "TVs" and no projectors. The main TV (I live with my parents still) is a 32" HDTV. My TV is a 61" DLP TV. I saw The Dark Knight in both a regular theatre (and that screen was actually to small, there was picture on the masking) and at IMAX. I thought it was awesome at IMAX with the screen "opening" up during certain scenes. When I watched it at home (got it for X-mas) I didn't bother telling my parents about the dual AR. We watched the whole movie and they didn't say a thing, so I think for the "average" person it probably won't be a problem.


Now that I gave my somewhat long winded intro. While watching it with my parents (on the 32" screen since I didn't mention before) I did not think the AR change was gimmicky at all. I actually really liked it and thought that it gave a similar feeling as to IMAX. Obviously it is not going to give the same experience as actually going to IMAX, but I thought it was a good compromise. I watched a little on my TV (61") and thought it was just as awesome.


That being said, I can see how people with CIH setups would want the seamless branch to 2.40. I also understand that the AR of IMAX is 1.44:1 and 16:9 is not the same. Of course in order to get this ratio at home, it would have to go pillarboxed, which I think would be more distracting than going to 16:9. I also think that if you watch The Dark Knight on a 16:9 screen it would give a more similar experience to IMAX because the top and bottom are opening up, which is what happened at IMAX. Just my $0.02 on that.


All that being said, I think that people should watch it how they want to on their CIH setups since it seems like most people are saying the IMAX scenes are framed fine and it is not distracting. Of course, I'm not sure how hard it is to go back to 16:9 for one viewing (so the projector is projecting a 16:9 image), but I think it would be a good idea to maybe view it once like that and then decide, that way you have a comparison.


So, all this is just my $0.02, just wanted to give my opinion.


-Shark2k


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/15409484
> 
> 
> How many foot lamberts do you get off that screen? That's big. Doesn't seem like even your Titan can muster tha many lumens.



I can't answer that. I've never measured it or had it measured. You're welcome to come out and figure it.







My screen gain is 1.5 and the projector is putting out 1600 lumens. I know it is not quite as bright as the Highlite Gold that it replaced but my room is a black hole. To my eyes, it is plenty bright enough and really that's all that matters







If I could have gone any bigger in my room, I would have







On 16:9 stuff, the other projector was brighter, but I used the zoom method for scope. With the new projector, I would say I am close to where I was brightness wise since I use a lens now (ISCO III).


So if I understand you, you have two screens, but are they the same width or what? If so, what pushed you in that direction versus a 16:9 screen with masking? And hey, I am just curious here, not trying to interrogate you!!!


----------



## TSHA222

Well I really need to read better because you clearly stated the widths of your screens







Not being a math wiz, is this kind of what one would get with a constant area setup? I guess what I am wondering is if not, is there a benefit to you of two screens versus one 2.35 screen with masking? I know on my setup, a 16:9 image is about 13 foot wide or so (I need to measure it sometime).


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Not being a math wiz, is this kind of what one would get with a constant area setup? I guess what I am wondering is if not, is there a benefit to you of two screens versus one 2.35 screen with masking? I know on my setup, a 16:9 image is about 13 foot wide or so (I need to measure it sometime).



Yes, my setup is more constant area. I have to use an electric screen in my setup too. So the big advantage for me of 2 screens vs one electric masking screen with a good lens like an ISCO III is - I saved about $ 8500.00 - 10K. Of course I put that money into fine wine in our wine cellar.


13 feet wide would be way too dim for me - I like a bright picture. I'd need a projector that could put 1400 calibrated lumens on your 16' wide screen.


----------



## TSHA222

Well since I don't drink I guess I may as well have spent the money on an ISCO III







As far as my brightness, I have to be close to that number considering that the image after calibration, didn't appear to be any dimmer than before. I know the projector is rated at 1600 lumens so if we subtract some of that due to calibration and factor in the gain of the screen... well I am getting cross-eyed.


----------



## asq19




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/14765448
> 
> 
> This is where masking is nice...
> 
> 
> For me with a CIH 2.40 screen and ISCO lens / Cineslide, I imagine if the movie starts out in 1.78, I'll just watch it full panel with the lens out with the screen masked to 16:9.
> 
> 
> Then when the 2.40 aspect kicks in, I have a 2.40 macro in my remote that will reconfigure my Radiance for 2.40 squeeze, open the masking from 1.78 to 2.40 and slide the lens into place... So, 1 button press to get the 2.40 transition right.
> 
> 
> I guess I'll just have to manually go between 1.78 and 2.40 as I see the AR change on the screen. Fortunately, the Cineslide moves the lens in about 1 second.
> 
> 
> But zero button presses would be better. When the Radiance gets the feature to read the meta data on the disc, it will move my lens and change the AR automatically as it reads the AR meta data (now if I could tie that into my Stewart BRIC masking microprocessor, then my masking would automatically open up. I am sure there's a way)..



Out of curiosity, is this a feature that could ever be added to the Radiance (reading metadata)? My understanding is that the unit reading the disc (ie. the BD player) is the one that would have to do this. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## JeffY

It should be easy enough to write an algorythm to detect black bars in the source.


----------



## JeffKB

Just to throw in yet another opinion, I've watched this movie both ways now. I use a VC lens in a 16:9 constant width setup (with masking for 2.35:1), and the 1st time I watched the movie I watched it sans lens in full 16:9. Then I watched it with the lens, masked to 2.35:1.


Without a doubt, I much prefered the masked 2.35:1 version. The IMAX scenes are so few and far between, that it was not worth having to put up with black bars for the vast majority of the movie (including its best scenes) just to have a little taller image for a handful of sequences.


Although I realize that from a true purist's standpoint some think it unfathomable that the framing may be slightly different between the cropped CIH image and the theatrical 2.4:1 release, like most people, I found the framing to be perfectly fine in the cropped CIH version. Not once did it distract me from the movie, nor did it ever seem obviously incorrect. Unless you are a zoomer, concerns over the framing are much to-do about nothing IMO.


One final thought, this time about the movie itself - I liked it very much, and it had several truly memorable scenes, but I definitely think it's been widely overpraised. If I had to chose between it or its predecessor, I would take _Batman Begins_ as the better film.


----------



## IwantmyTHX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/15344731
> 
> 
> Not arguing with you here, just stating the obvious. My person opinion, as if anyone cares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that this is a marketing gimmick for the BD.



Not to argue but if it is a marketing gimmick than it is not a cery good one as most people don't know about it:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *strange_brew* /forum/post/15358820
> 
> 
> Interesting thread. We also just watched Dark Knight and I hadn't seen this thread until after we watched it. I'll have to go back and look at the scenes in question, but I didn't notice a thing while the movie was on. I was completely oblivious to the change-overs. We have a black velvet border and GOM under that so maybe that's why.



Nobody I have talked to(regular non AVS'ers) about the movie knows about the AR changes either.


I believe it might be more of an experiment, or maybe something to satisfy the director.


----------



## IwantmyTHX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lchiu7* /forum/post/15338925
> 
> 
> But there were only 80 odd Imax prints made (compared with 3500 or more 35mm prints) and the Imax team apparently screened each and every one of them in real time for quality control.



Will they be doing this when it is re-released in a couple of weeks?


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IwantmyTHX* /forum/post/15436671
> 
> 
> Not to argue but if it is a marketing gimmick than it is not a cery good one as most people don't know about it:



LOL - Yes, I suppose that is true! It's mainly the geeks like myself who know about it


----------



## joe12south




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffKB* /forum/post/15436402
> 
> 
> JOne final thought, this time about the movie itself - I liked it very much, and it had several truly memorable scenes, but I definitely think it's been widely overpraised. If I had to chose between it or its predecessor, I would take _Batman Begins_ as the better film.



I think it is largely Ledger's performance that shines. Other than that I agree...as a whole "Batman Begins" is a slightly better film.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joe12south* /forum/post/15442318
> 
> 
> I think it is largely Ledger's performance that shines. Other than that I agree...as a whole "Batman Begins" is a slightly better film.



Yes. I cannot see anything extraordinary in TDK other than Ledger's performance.


It is extremely hard to do a totally negative character like Joker and yet make people like that character.


----------



## bwhitmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jayrader* /forum/post/15275786
> 
> 
> I was ranting to a friend of mine about this and he sent me this. Cracked me up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks I need to let it go.
> 
> 
> Made this for the wife to explain it.



haven't read through the entire post yet, but is this what happens?


holy crap, that's bad!


i've held off on buying the BR of this film because i'm in the minority who just didn't think it was that good


now i doubt i ever buy it...man, i hope other movies don't start this crap


i was really hoping they would offer a version of the movie in straight 2:35


brad


----------



## TSHA222

If your projector offers blanking then you can mask off the overspill and then it is a non issue. I have watched it three times now and you really don't know when AR changes unless you saw it in IMAX theaters, which I didn't


----------



## Mark_H

Or if you use scaler stretching, in which case you have no image to project outside of the screen and are never aware of the aspect ratio changes.


Mark


----------



## bwhitmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/15515196
> 
> 
> Or if you use scaler stretching, in which case you have no image to project outside of the screen and are never aware of the aspect ratio changes.
> 
> 
> Mark




i have a lens that does the horizontal stretch, and a Lumagen scaler that does the vertical stretch


the above diagram i re-posted seemed to say that i would have a bunch of overspill at the bottom (only?) below my 2:35 screen?


----------



## Mark_H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bwhitmore* /forum/post/15515745
> 
> 
> i have a lens that does the horizontal stretch, and a Lumagen scaler that does the vertical stretch
> 
> 
> the above diagram i re-posted seemed to say that i would have a bunch of overspill at the bottom (only?) below my 2:35 screen?



You won't. I use the same setup as you (horizontal lens, lumagen vertical stretch). If you've set things up correctly you will never get any image off your screen... how could you?


Cheers,


Mark


----------



## bwhitmore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark_H* /forum/post/15515824
> 
> 
> You won't. I use the same setup as you (horizontal lens, lumagen vertical stretch). If you've set things up correctly you will never get any image off your screen... how could you?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Mark



thanks Mark, I will give it a go...


----------



## damnsam77

At this point this thread is way too long for me to read. I just have a simple question, and it may sound stupid, as I am a CIH newb



For the ones with a 2.37/HE-Lens x 1.33/Vertical Strech/CIH setup:


Did you keep moving the HE-lens back and forth while keeping the vertical stretch on?


or


Did any of you just simply left the HE-lens on through out both 2.35 and 1.78 and simply switch Vertical Stretch On/Off ( i understand your 1.78:1 images will be stretched horizontally by 33% - but I know many choose to keep their lens on throughout their 16:9 viewing and simply just turn vertical stretch off if there are no bars.)




I am just trying to find out what is the LAZIEST way to watch this movie If I have a manual sled with my lens? Just when I thought it was safe to go CIH they pull this crap on us.


----------



## CollinViegas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damnsam77* /forum/post/15566648
> 
> 
> At this point this thread is way too long for me to read. I just have a simple question, and it may sound stupid, as I am a CIH newb
> 
> 
> 
> For the ones with a 2.37/HE-Lens x 1.33/Vertical Strech/CIH setup:
> 
> 
> Did you keep moving the HE-lens back and forth while keeping the vertical stretch on?
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> Did any of you just simply left the HE-lens on through out both 2.35 and 1.78 and simply switch Vertical Stretch On/Off ( i understand your 1.78:1 images will be stretched horizontally by 33% - but I know many choose to keep their lens on throughout their 16:9 viewing and simply just turn vertical stretch off if there are no bars.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just trying to find out what is the LAZIEST way to watch this movie If I have a manual sled with my lens? Just when I thought it was safe to go CIH they pull this crap on us.



The Laziest way is to just leave the lens in place and leave your vertical stretch on for the whole movie. You wont even notice the Imax scenes and the film will look stunning. You cant play with stretch modes because Imax scenes pop up for a single frame at some points in the movie, by the time you pause the flick to adjust it is already passed.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damnsam77* /forum/post/15566648
> 
> 
> Just when I thought it was safe to go CIH they pull this crap on us.



It's not a big deal. Just watch the movie in scope and forget about the Imax scenes. If there wasn't some added clarity during Imax scenes - I wouldn't have even known they were there (and my guests didn't have a clue







).


----------



## damnsam77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CollinViegas* /forum/post/15567386
> 
> 
> The Laziest way is to just leave the lens in place and leave your vertical stretch on for the whole movie. You wont even notice the Imax scenes and the film will look stunning. You cant play with stretch modes because Imax scenes pop up for a single frame at some points in the movie, by the time you pause the flick to adjust it is already passed.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15569832
> 
> 
> It's not a big deal. Just watch the movie in scope and forget about the Imax scenes. If there wasn't some added clarity during Imax scenes - I wouldn't have even known they were there (and my guests didn't have a clue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).





But if I have the Vertical Stretch and HE Lens on throughout the movie, when the IMAX scenes (16:9 - 1.78:1) come up, wouldn't the screen bleed over the top and bottom of the screen? And in many cases where the screen is close to the ceiling the expanded image will show up on the ceiling too.


Unless I am mistaken, having a 16:9 image through an HE lens will expand it sideways by 33%, thats fine, everyone and everything will look 33% wider, but if the vertical stretch is still turned on where there are no bars, this means a good chunk of the horizontal image will spill over the top and under the bottom of the screen and large portions of the film will be missed out of the 2.37 scope frame. How is that Not distracting?


----------



## Drexler

It's not since your vertical stretch processor will crop all material in the top and bottom of the 16:9 image.


----------



## damnsam77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15572216
> 
> 
> It's not since your vertical stretch processor will crop all material in the top and bottom of the 16:9 image.



oh I see, so I will be missing parts of the image fromt he top and bottom but it won't actually spill outside the screen borders. Forgive me for being novice, I am a CIH newb, but I thought Vertical Stretch means what it says (STRETCH, not Crop or Zoom).


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damnsam77* /forum/post/15572562
> 
> 
> oh I see, so I will be missing parts of the image fromt he top and bottom but it won't actually spill outside the screen borders. Forgive me for being novice, I am a CIH newb, but I thought Vertical Stretch means what it says (STRETCH, not Crop or Zoom).



Vertical stretch indeed stretches. It stretches 2.35:1 content to entirely fill a 16:9 image. The black bars parts are cropped. If you stretch an already 16:9 image the image parts were the black bars usually resides in 2.35:1 format are removed and the remaining central part of the 16:9 image is streched to fill the whole 16:9 aspect ratio.


----------



## damnsam77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15572696
> 
> 
> Vertical stretch indeed stretches. It stretches 2.35:1 content to entirely fill a 16:9 image. The black bars parts are cropped. If you stretch an already 16:9 image the image parts were the black bars usually resides in 2.35:1 format are removed and the remaining central part of the 16:9 image is streched to fill the whole 16:9 aspect ratio.



Oh I see, now I get it. Its DK in full cinemascope 2.37 for me then!! WOOOHOOO!!! I am at the point where I wish every movie is shot in 2.35/2.40 even comedies and animation which are tradditionally framed in 1.78/1.85. Once you go Cinemascope its hard to want to enjoy watching 16:9 content.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damnsam77* /forum/post/15573113
> 
> 
> Once you go Cinemascope its hard to want to enjoy watching 16:9 content.



damnsam77,


I know thats right..







all day everyday. I feel the same way with the Buttkickers. I added a pair over a year ago and I must say it's a must have for any 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 setup.. Very







( www.thebuttkicker.com )


Steve


----------



## blabus

I have a question- not sure if anyone would know the answer or not, but why did they only film certain scenes in IMAX, and not just the whole movie? Is it more expensive to film in IMAX, or just more inconvenient?


Just wondering.


----------



## John Ballentine

I read that the IMAX cameras were very large and cumbersome. I'm sure it's more expensive too.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/15578562
> 
> 
> I feel the same way with the Buttkickers. I added a pair over a year ago and I must say it's a must have for any 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 setup.. Very
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( www.thebuttkicker.com )
> 
> 
> Steve



I went a little crazy and installed two Buttkickers in each of my six 090 Berkline loungers. Next step is to install seatbelts


----------



## TSHA222

Buttkickers do indeed provide a lot of coolness to movies and I have four installed on a floating platform for one row of seating in my theater, but for the ultimate, check out D-Box. I have two D-Box equipped loveseats and with them, you don't so much watch a movie as experience it.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15596332
> 
> 
> I went a little crazy and installed two Buttkickers in each of my six 090 Berkline loungers. Next step is to install seatbelts



WOW John, that's awesome I take it you are an LFE MAN... "seatbelts"... damn










Steve


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/15596820
> 
> 
> Buttkickers do indeed provide a lot of coolness to movies and I have four installed on a floating platform for one row of seating in my theater, but for the ultimate, check out D-Box. I have two D-Box equipped loveseats and with them, you don't so much watch a movie as experience it.



TSHA222, D-BOX sweeeet. Don't do roller coasters though







LOL I get very nauseous... I know that sounds pretty weak but it's true... Cloverfield, alittle in Hancock and The Blair Witch Project all made me feel sick.....










Steve


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blabus* /forum/post/15596017
> 
> 
> I have a question- not sure if anyone would know the answer or not, but why did they only film certain scenes in IMAX, and not just the whole movie? Is it more expensive to film in IMAX, or just more inconvenient?



IMAX cameras are extremely large, cumbersome, and *loud*. They aren't very well suited to intimate dialogue scenes.


----------



## Lazarus Dark

I am about to buy my first house and will be finally building an FP home theater room with 7.1, a big upgrade from my current 37" lcd and old 5.1 htib.


I had been planning on using the zoom method until TDK. I know its just one movie, but being a huge Batman fan since, well, birth I think, it is a very significant movie. I saw the Imax and it was impressive. And the Imax scenes on the BD on my 37" are droolworthy. So, I am going to go with the largest 16:9 screen I can. In order to get the best effect for scope movies, I will keep it masked for scope at all times, so that scope will remain more impressive than other ratios. However, on the occasion of watching TDK (or Transformers2 or IronMan2 perhaps), I will take the effort to remove the masking. I feel this is the best solution longterm. I like the aspect change, to be honest; it definately gives a wow effect to those scenes, and I would encourage any filmmaker to follow suit. As an artist and engaged to an art teacher, I definately think artistic intent is of utmost importance, and quite frankly, if a filmaker decided shooting and entire movie in a 1:2 ratio (twice the hieght compared to width), I would love to see it and if its a good film, I'd figure out a way to watch it in that aspect. I realize this is a big problem for those with CIH setups already in place, and I feel for you guys, but really, you are on the cutting edge. And just as the HDDVD guys got burned, so have you. Its a risk you take being on the forefront of A/V, but really, all of us are always planning on upgrading every couple years anyway. That is a large part of what this forum is all about. So, just consider this a slight snaffu, and then use it as an excuse to upgrade your setup to accomodate "Inconstant Image Height Films" (I should patent that).


(I would actually love to see something in 1:2, that would be awesome in my opinion, could you imagine, say Jurassic Park dinosaurs in 1:2 on an Imax size screen.







)


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lazarus Dark* /forum/post/15642767
> 
> 
> I am about to buy my first house and will be finally building an FP home theater room with 7.1, a big upgrade from my current 37" lcd and old 5.1 htib.
> 
> 
> I had been planning on using the zoom method until TDK. I know its just one movie, but being a huge Batman fan since, well, birth I think, it is a very significant movie. I saw the Imax and it was impressive. And the Imax scenes on the BD on my 37" are droolworthy. So, I am going to go with the largest 16:9 screen I can. In order to get the best effect for scope movies, I will keep it masked for scope at all times, so that scope will remain more impressive than other ratios. However, on the occasion of watching TDK (or Transformers2 or IronMan2 perhaps), I will take the effort to remove the masking. I feel this is the best solution longterm. I like the aspect change, to be honest; it definately gives a wow effect to those scenes, and I would encourage any filmmaker to follow suit. As an artist and engaged to an art teacher, I definately think artistic intent is of utmost importance, and quite frankly, if a filmaker decided shooting and entire movie in a 1:2 ratio (twice the hieght compared to width), I would love to see it and if its a good film, I'd figure out a way to watch it in that aspect. I realize this is a big problem for those with CIH setups already in place, and I feel for you guys, but really, you are on the cutting edge. And just as the HDDVD guys got burned, so have you. Its a risk you take being on the forefront of A/V, but really, all of us are always planning on upgrading every couple years anyway. That is a large part of what this forum is all about. So, just consider this a slight snaffu, and then use it as an excuse to upgrade your setup to accomodate "Inconstant Image Height Films" (I should patent that).
> 
> 
> (I would actually love to see something in 1:2, that would be awesome in my opinion, could you imagine, say Jurassic Park dinosaurs in 1:2 on an Imax size screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



You make some valid points... Put some chips away to invest in an HE LENS for your CIH setup... for (TRUE CIH)... NO ZOOMING and No Light Spill when watching TDK... and as for us HD DVD Owners we did not get burned even though we can't get new films out on our format we can still get alot of movies for Pennies compared to BD's. I have a BD Player so I am not a BD Hater... I have alittle over a hundred HD discs and maybe pushing 7-10 BD's I prefer to rent them until I find some good deals out there first. Call me cheap.. LOL but that's







I am happy with what I have and It all works....


Steve


----------



## popechild




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lazarus Dark* /forum/post/15642767
> 
> 
> ...I definately think artistic intent is of utmost importance, and quite frankly, if a filmaker decided shooting and entire movie in a 1:2 ratio (twice the hieght compared to width), I would love to see it and if its a good film, I'd figure out a way to watch it in that aspect...
> 
> 
> (I would actually love to see something in 1:2, that would be awesome in my opinion, could you imagine, say Jurassic Park dinosaurs in 1:2 on an Imax size screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



The problems with 1:2 would be significant. The main one being that it works completely against the human field of vision, which is much wider than it is tall.


In fact, the great cinematographer Vittorio Storaro has been pushing people to adopt 2:1 as a universal aspect ratio (his "Univisium" format).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/15604737
> 
> 
> IMAX cameras are extremely large, cumbersome, and *loud*. They aren't very well suited to intimate dialogue scenes.



LOL but isn't that what ADR is for?


ADR - Automated Dialogue Replacement. This process is also known as "looping" where the actor stands in a recording booth watching the footage of themselves over and over and trys to voice their lines in sync with the picture...


Mark


----------



## popechild




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15669356
> 
> 
> LOL but isn't that what ADR is for?
> 
> 
> ADR - Automated Dialogue Replacement. This process is also known as "looping" where the actor stands in a recording booth watching the footage of themselves over and over and trys to voice their lines in sync with the picture...
> 
> 
> Mark



It's also known as "sounds like crap" in many movies. "Tries" is the key word there. And even if the pacing and placement matches, it's really really difficult to get the same performance in an actor's voice when they're standing in a dark room with headphones on as you got when they were on set in costume and looking at their fellow actor. I make a substantial effort on all the work I do to get usable production dialog - especially in "intimate" scenes. Some productions are able to pull off ADR fairly seamlessly, but just as many stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## R Harkness

popedhild, sounds like you are in film. I do sound effects. I (along with the on-set sound recordist) wish like hell production would allow more time for the recordist to get decent location sounds. Not only for good dialogue sound but for various location sounds. It's always the last consideration though, the poor recordists getting short thrift as long as picture got things right.


----------



## popechild




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/15670727
> 
> 
> popedhild, sounds like you are in film. I do sound effects. I (along with the on-set sound recordist) wish like hell production would allow more time for the recordist to get decent location sounds. Not only for good dialogue sound but for various location sounds. It's always the last consideration though, the poor recordists getting short thrift as long as picture got things right.



Yeah, I am. If there's one thing that gets cut most often when time gets tight, it's additional location sound. I can't count the number of times I've seen people neglect to take the time to even get room tone, even though it takes like 60 seconds.


On the other hand, the simple reality is that it IS possible to "fix it in post" when it comes to sound, even if it's not a good fix. Whereas if you don't have picture, there's not much you can do.


----------



## champer

i think that was stupid changing back in fourth from 2.35 to 1.78. why couldn't they put the whole imax film on blu ray as 1.78 instead of going back to 2.35. or at least stick with 2.35 the whole time one or the other


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *popechild* /forum/post/15669547
> 
> 
> It's also known as "sounds like crap" in many movies.



Yes, and I think WSR's term is "forward sounding" as it does sound that way compared to actors voices picked up on the sound stage. I was watching Matrix Reloaded last night on BD and the Smiths are clear example of this...


Mark


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *champer* /forum/post/15671836
> 
> 
> i think that was stupid changing back in fourth from 2.35 to 1.78. why couldn't they put the whole imax film on blu ray as 1.78 instead of going back to 2.35. or at least stick with 2.35 the whole time one or the other



Agreed. Like the DVD, the BD should have been presented in 2.40:1 and then there would not have been an almost 300 post thread...


Mark


----------



## John Ballentine

But thankfully the BD is quite watchable in 2:40 (information that is lost top and bottom is not critical)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/15672535
> 
> 
> But thankfully the BD is quite watchable in 2:40 (information that is lost top and bottom is not critical)



Exactly, no "story telling" information is in those areas...


Mark


----------



## R Harkness

Just an aside about ADR: It's funny that it is somewhat vilified not only by the audience but often by film-makers as well. Most people say they don't like ADR because of how obvious it is. What they don't realise is just how much movie dialogue goes by that they DIDN'T know was ADR, because ADR can be done very well. I'd say a large portion of what most viewers are taking as location sound is actually re-recorded dialogue (or out-taked dialogue) and they don't know it. It's only when ADR sticks out, for various reasons, that it is detectable and people therefore gain the impression "ADR sucks" because they think they can always tell when it's being used.

In my experience, it's not atypical for even producers, directors and editors to watch the play-back mix of a show or movie and not even notice the ADR for scenes that they, if anyone, should have known was re-recorded..."That was ADR? Really? Are you sure...?"


I always prefer good location sound myself if possible, but ADR is not nearly as generally detectable as most people assume.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *popechild* /forum/post/15669547
> 
> 
> It's also known as "sounds like crap" in many movies. "Tries" is the key word there. And even if the pacing and placement matches, it's really really difficult to get the same performance in an actor's voice when they're standing in a dark room with headphones on as you got when they were on set in costume and looking at their fellow actor.



In addition to this, it's much harder for an actor to give a good performance on set when it sounds like there's a lawnmower blaring 5 inches from his face.


----------

