On the DVD, yes. On the Blu-ray, no. Blu-ray is natively 16:9 in aspect ratio.

Because the intention of the shifting ratios is to take an image that doesn't fill your screen to make it in image that does, to highlight specific spots. Putting it in the original IMAX aspect ratio wouldn't accomplish this on widescreen TVs.

Part of the reason he's doing it for Blu-ray is that Blu-ray has enough resolution that you can tell the difference between what is shot on 35mm and what is shot on IMAX stock, in terms of grain structure, clarity, and detail. Since you wouldn't be able to tell the difference on DVD, it doesn't make sense to switch ratios.

Mostly, it's just to give the Blu-ray an added "exclusive" selling point. Warner did the same with How the West Was Won. There's no technical reason why the DVD edition couldn't have included the Smilebox transfer on a separate disc like they did for the Blu-ray.

Well, he specifically cited Blu-ray as being capable of displaying the differences in stocks, so I'm going by what he said.

Nice explaination Josh. I got carried away in the AVS bitching about the encoding but I'm much more at ease after your explaination and the all around stellar reviews on the video.

Keep in mind that I haven't seen The Dark Knight Blu-ray yet. I was just making a general statement.

Edge enhancement is something that screen shots are good at revealing, and it looks like this disc has some of that (the IMAX print I saw was caked in it).

The Blu-ray will certainly be more revealing of that aspect, but the shift to IMAX also has the benefit of expanding our field of view above and below the 2.40:1 frame. The DVD is just as capable of that as the Blu-ray. There's really no good excuse to leave the IMAX version off the DVD other than to market the Blu-ray as the better "movie lover's" option.

(Personally, I wish both transfers were available on both formats. I'd prefer to have a constant 2.40:1 Blu-ray to watch on my CIH screen.)

They should have just released both versions and left the IMAX scenes in their OAR. The compositions don't hold up us well in those 1.78:1 shots, IMO. They aren't bad of course, just not the same after seeing them in full-frame glory.

But this is clearly intended for double-dip eventually, so I'll hold out hope for that I guess.

I don't know, I think the IMAX footage on the Batman Begins Blu-ray looked pretty fantastic, and certainly not as cramped as it was in 2.35:1.

I know we are in HD forum, but I was responding to Nick Martin who said "The 2-disc DVD will present the IMAX ORIGINAL AR of 1.43:1 for the individual sequences on the bonus disc. Thing is, they're supposed to be 16:9 with side bars so they still won't fill a 4:3 TV screen."

It sounded to me that if I played these individual sequences on my standard TV, then I'd end up with bars on the side (hardcoded into the 16:9 image) and bars on the top and bottom (because of the way my standard TV displays 16:9 images). It seemed to me that the DVD producers could have kept both WS and FS TV owners happy by encoding the segments as 1.33:1.

Not that really matters as I ended up ordering it on Blu-ray anyway..

Anyone have their order shipped from WHV? Doesn't look like I'll be getting this on Tuesday so I'll be getting this at a store and then the WHV will be a Christmas gift.

No, neither has my copy of Casablanca; I sent an e-mail to see what the deal is w/Casablanca and to see if they have an estimate for when DK will ship.

Yes they still look good, but compositionally you can certainly tell they've been compromised for the new AR. The difference is very clear in the shot from behind the Joker on the street, for instance; in 1.78 his feet are cut off. The framing of the IMAX scenes in the theater was gorgeous, still gorgeous on the BR disc but it loses someothing, imo. Frankly I'm surprised more people aren't peeved by this, but it seems most are more worried about how much "black space" is left on their viewing screen. Reminds me of the Kubrick OAR situations.

Hopefully Nolan and Pfister were the ones making these cropping decisions, at least.

My copy has shipped! I should have it on Monday. Check myexpresscheckout, they may have shipped yours out.

Mine hasn't shipped yet. :(

Still nothing...then again, since I did just place the orders in September, I can understand why they're both still "in process." -rolleyes-

I'm not peeved because it was a decision by the director. And yes, I do believe he had input on and approved of the new framing.

I totally agree. Which is why I said earlier about the possibility of not noticing "blury" screenshots as they move past you at 24/30fps.

Screecaps are great for determining how much potential an HD movie has, but shouldn't be the only reference, and the screencap should be noted accordingly in a particular scene.

For example, suppose we had a scene where The Joker was standing still for like 10 seconds, with very little movement. If a lot of DNR was applied, you'd probably notice it. With moving subjects and objects in a film, you won't notice it as much.

Of course, look at the Blu-ray release of Elf. A screen capture would certainly convey the image quality of that movie, correct? Or at least give an idea of the type of the DNR and smoothing in the movie. Adam gave some screencaps which gave me enough notice to stay away from that thing like the plague. I'll probably rent that sucker as well, just for curiousity.

Well, DK has finally shipped or billing info has been sent to UPS anyway; still no word on Casablanca.

Mine is on the way as well. Looks like it will arrive on Tuesday. Better than being late I guess.

So is there anybody out there that's picking up more than one copy for exclusives? I already have the steelbook coming from Canada and I'm thinking about picking up the Target exclusive as well.

Honestly... I probably will end up going getting something beyond the steelbook as well.

I'll be getting four different versions of this one. The 2 disc from WB, the Amazon.de/FS steelbooks, and the Target exclusive to go with Iron Man. I normally only pick up one copy of a film but this film stands out IMO.

Im going with the Target BD set.

is there any word on what Best Buy will be giving away at the midnight releases?

I rented the BD yesterday and after watching it twice... Count me out. :(

Yes, there's some DNR but it's only in a few spots. The edge enhancement, though not omnipresent, appears with enough frequency as to be distracting. But the worst offender is how misshandled the contrast is.

I've watched the IMAX prologue on my Batman Begins BD countless times before and since The Dark Knight was released in theaters. The moment I saw the opening areal shot on the BD of The Dark Knight, I knew something was off. Everything seemed darker. Too dark. In turn, the colors (particularly fleshtones) looked off. Now The Dark Knight, much like Batman Begins has a muted color scheme with a slight orange push for certain interior scenes. That was accurately represented in the prologue as seen in the Batman Begins BD. Not so with the BD of The Dark Knight.

The problem is present throughout the whole feature to the point that people oftentimes tend to look an unnatural shade of pink. Just look at when Alfred is talking to Bruce about getting a plane for his trip to Hong Kong. It looks wrong.

This is a very disappointing transfer so I'm definitely not purchasing it and will hope for the best regarding an eventual re-release in a year or two.

That said, the audio was fantastic.

In one of the FOcus Points on the BD, Christopher Nolan and his DP seem to view the top of the IMAX frame as unimportant because when the image is that big "your eyes don't naturally focus on the top of the image". This seems to suggest that the 1.78:1 framing best reflects the intended composition of the IMAX footage. I guess in this particular case, the 1.45:1 aspect ratio is more akin to an open matte transfer.

Dude, you are in serious need of medical help. -screwy-

Mr. Robert Harris, motion picture archivist:
Have a great week, and enjoy this highly anticipated release!

To the folks at AVS...perhaps next time!!

Pro-B

Well, what I've seen in the screenshots looks like edge enhancement, and I think it's disappointing. I'm still getting it, but it's not up to other recent releases IMHO.

I am so damn excited about this disc, and consistently use RAH as a key source to gauging a disc's quality.

Though...I'd probably buy this even if it had 5.1 and was in full frame (don't tell WB, though, as they might just do it)

Why? There are a bunch of people on this and other forums that are picking up multiple copies just for collector's purposes. I've never done that with any other title but I think I might as well make an exception for TDK.

I certainly wish I'd seen the BD release Robert Harris saw because "unequivocally, undeniably and absolutely gorgeous in every way" does not describe the transfer on the BD I rented. :(

I agree, if you have a favorite film or genre I see nothing wrong with buying different versions for collectible purchases.

My favorite film is Casino, and I own 5 different versions of it so far. They're just cool to collect.

Just Dawn of the Dead for me. I own way to many different versions on different formats. Even UMD!

Maybe he was referring to the audio.

Looking forward to renting this piece of controversy.

We both have thousands of posts on a dvd message board. Apparently I'm not the only one who needs help. :)

I have to admit that this one makes no sense. A lot of the reviews are praising it while individual users seem to be damning it. If the transfer can be improved, I'm going to wonder if WB did it on purpose so they can resell the title over in the future. I can't see any reason that this release, given it's importance at hooking new Blu-ray buyers, should have poor video.

Is that white chocolate or something?

One thing is certain. WB is as predictable as a multiple personality blonde on a blind date.

I hope TDK isn't a stark contrast between Hollywood's shills and the common sense of the viewer. In any case, I'll give my honest opinion, as I don't have any inside movie studio contacts, nor am I affiliated with them in any way whatsoever.

And if I don't like the aspect ratio changes, I'll say it as well. Personally, I think this was best left for a theater, because a home theater is much different and you'll notice aspect ratio changes whereas on a massive screen made for hundreds of people...you probably will not. But I'll see how it looks on my 50" plasma.