Kind of OT: The Dark Knight

Sebaz wrote on 12/19/2008, 7:37 PM

I'm posting this here even though it's not related to Vegas because I would like to know the opinion of video editors on this. I just got "The Dark Knight" on BD, and while it was worth every penny, I was a little put off by the constant change back and forth in aspect ratio between the scenes that were shot in IMAX and the normal film scenes. For those who didn't see it, the IMAX scenes are in 16:9 and the rest is in 2.21:1 (I think - the one that is widescreen with black bars top and bottom). I find that quite distracting. The experience in IMAX theathers must've been amazing, but at home I don't have an IMAX theater, so I want to see the movie in one aspect ratio all throughout the movie.

The changes not only in aspect ratio but also in picture quality (IMAX scenes have less grain and don't look as "cinematic" as the rest) makes it look kind of cheesy. I'm a huge fan of Nolan -The Prestige is my all time favorite movie- but this is one decision in which I think he missed the ball. I don't mean that he shouldn't have shot those scenes in IMAX, but I think he should've adapted them to the proper aspect ratio to be visually coherent with the rest of the movie. Something like the old "Pan and Scan" but vertically. "Tilt and Scan" I guess.

Comments

Harold Brown wrote on 12/19/2008, 8:04 PM

I have The Dark Night and the changes in aspect ratio didn't bother me at all. I pretty much don't even notice it. My friend stopped by and he didn't notice until I pointed it out to him. The Imax scenes are much better in picture quality and I don't mind that all of my TV screen is used up. I just drop into the zone and watch the film.

PeterWright wrote on 12/19/2008, 8:11 PM

David Settlemoir wrote on 12/20/2008, 2:55 AM

It did the same thing in the IMAX theatre. I still only have a 30" CRT HDTV but glad the BD followed the IMAX version.

David

Sebaz wrote on 12/20/2008, 3:54 AM

I don't know this movie, but if the changes in look/aspect ratio coincide with different phases of the story, e,g, flashbacks or change to another planet or whatever, then I guess it could be justified.

Well, for the most part action sequences are in IMAX, so it's not terribly distracting, but there's at least one sequence it which it goes back and forth between 2.21:1 and 16:9, and that's distracting.

But also I find it distracting that the picture quality changes. Obviously the IMAX scenes have much better quality, but also less grain and that takes you out of the story a little bit. Still, don't get me wrong, this is an outstanding movie and I loved it.

essami wrote on 12/20/2008, 4:58 AM

Maybe everyone is just doing typos here but it's funny that many people actually think the movie is called The Dark Night :D

Sebaz wrote on 12/20/2008, 5:03 AM

LOL, that is funny. I pride myself in not making typos -and Firefox alerts me on the ones I miss-, but I started the thread and type Night instead of Knight. Shame on me. Especially since The Dark Night is redundant, since the night is inherently dark, except for those places in the world where the night is bright (I think Russia).

essami wrote on 12/20/2008, 9:37 AM

Here in Finland we have nights in July when the sun doesnt set at all. I guess thats why we dont have Batman here.. The Light Knight... nah... doesnt quite have the same ring to it does it...

kairosmatt wrote on 12/20/2008, 10:49 AM

The VHS version of "Ben Hur" did something similiar as well. It went to letterboxed for the chariot race.

And I think the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid did this for the music sequence when the travel to Boliva. Also, more recent, I noticed it in the "Leatherback" DVD.

At least they didn't switch back and forth in the same scene (although I haven't seen the Dark Knight on BD).

kairosmatt