Has anyone noticed any "tie-shirt pattern" background image problems with this disc? I can't remember what they used to be called but I havn't had this problem since I switched to HDMI.

I noticed it during various arts of the film but it is most noticable during the opening IMAX scene, (look at the skyscrapers in the background), and it is also noticable during the IMAX Hong Kong skyscraper scene.

It kind of looks like this:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...ox-pattern.jpg


Does anyone else notice this or am I having a component failure somewhere?

Nice collection xage.

I'm sure plenty are clamoring for more extras, but I think I'd rather not spoil the magic.

Yes, Dth. Just one of the many problems the blu-ray does have.

Oh yeah? I was actually looking for that list..

I don't really understand all the hate for the extras on this BD. While I haven't made it through them all, I've skimmed just about everything and I'm very satisfied. There's over an hour of "focus points" featurettes in HD that make for a pretty substantive "making-of" for the movie. There are the two TV shows about Batman in HD (tech & psychology). It has all the trailers and TV spots as well as a nice set of promotional/production art. On top of all of that, there's already quite a bit of BD-Live content available, including a number of video commentaries from some surprisingly notable people.

If I was really nitpicking, I'd like to see a proper PiP feature on the disc (ala Begins) and a featurette on the viral marketing for the movie, but I don't find the disc lacking without them. This is a solid release in terms of extras, especially for showcasing what BD-Live can do.

The second disc is a joke. Two made for TV documentaries that amount to nothing but filler. The Gotham Tonight segments have some good bits here and there, but are too over the top. I can't believe that documentary cameras weren't rolling the moment the ink on the contracts dried. This film, out of anything released this year, calls the most for comprehensive extras. The second disc, aside from the trailers, is pretty much useless. Very disappointing.

And the image is so riddled with edge enhancement that I had to adjust the settings on my TV just so the transfer wouldn't hurt my eyes. The IMAX sequences looked great, and there was plenty of detail all the way through the movie, but this is not a top notch transfer. Still the best movie of the year, though, which makes the lackluster presentation and extras all the more obnoxious.

If you guys think the Blu-ray transfer is bad, the dvd transfer is getting pummeled even worse. The dvd transfer is being compared to a really mediocre bootleg on some forums that aren't even known for being audio/video/dvd forums.

I grabbed it @ BB and used a $5 RZ cert. I was hoping for a Steelbook for the BR, but I didn't want to have to import a copy. From the sound of things I'll probably be double-dipping on it at some point anyways.

Meh, my best movie of the year isn't even on Blu-ray!! :p

I guess I'm in the minority for thinking the transfer looked excellent.

I thought it looked quite outstanding as well.

The dvd screenshots over on AVS are horrific. I watched the whole movie tonight and the PQ is not as bad as I thought. Yes, the IMAX scenes look certainly look fantastic. I still can't call it reference when they have EE present though. Not the best nor the worst disc I own.

Maybe the next rerelease will have both versions. (IMAX and 35mm) We certainly know they'll release this a few more times!

BTW, I'm wondering if the image problems I mentioned in my last post were like that when they shot it or if it was just the transfer. I'll compare the first five minutes on the Begins disc when I get a chance.

I believe it's called "shimmering." I first noticed it way back during one of the "Beverly Hills Cop" movies. Whenever a movie had a scene with window shades it seemed to happen more often.

I bought the Best Buy special edition with Batman mask. I wanted the Batpod edition, but they were out. I like the quality of the mask. It goes nicely on my home theater shelf. I hope to fill that up with other movie collectibles. Off topic: I almost bought the Wanted deluxe pack, but I went with the standard edition instead. I hpe to watch it this weekend.

Same here. I guess since I don't have a 100" screen, I can't see all of these horrible problems. I just set in my chair and watch the movie. I don't look for problems or freeze frame every few seconds to try and find things.

I watched it on my 110" screen and felt the image quality is fine and definitely not as bad as other people are complaining about.

I ordered mine from Amazon.com, using a gift certificate. It shipped Monday, and estimated arrival date is next Monday, but it was shipped from my state, so I'm hoping it'll get here sooner. Although my PS3 is backordered from Dell, so I won't be able to watch it until that arrives, anyway... I'm hoping the image quality isn't as bad as some say. I'm fine with tweaking my settings if necessary. I don't think there's a perfect setting that works with everything. Although this movie and Iron Man are the reason I decided to switch to Blu-Ray now, so I'll be pretty disappointed if it's not as good as I was hoping.

The thing that stuck out most to me was since the IMAX footage looked so good, when it would switch to the non-Imax footage it looked like it was switching to standard definition.

Just curious, can someone let me in on why or point me in the right direction of why the BR was made with switching aspect ratio's between the IMAX and 2:40? Just seems like it would be distracting. Why not just put out full IMAX and theatrical cuts in the release. It's not like they wouldn't sell and it probably would have been easier.

You're on the right thread, but wrong page. Go to the second or third page and you'll find your answers. There's also some articles posted here that says why Nolan filmed only certain parts in IMAX and not the whole thing.

It's not as distracting as I thought it would be. That said, the IMAX scenes are simply awesome with the way they look. The 2:40 scenes are not as bad as standard definition as slop101 says, but he does give a good idea of the difference in look.

Do you really think I went looking for problems in my favorite film of the year? Not at all. The edge enhancement was so bad that it jumped out at me without even looking for it. I wasn't watching the movie to critique the transfer, I was just trying to enjoy the film. And, as I said, there are some very good thngs about this transfer. The level of detail is through the roof, and the IMAX clips are stunning. But I'm not going to gloss over problems that are immediately visible to the naked eye. If I can see it, the QC people at WB should have seen it and corrected it.

I think the issue/problem is that, other than the "focus points," everything on this release is quite familar to Batman fans. (The two documentaries were played (with overkill) all summer long on The History Channel; the Gotham Tonight segments were available on Comcast and the Internet, etc.) Even "lesser" films have been given a much better treatment on Blu-ray (look what viewers get on, for example, the Iron Man, Indy IV and Incredible Hulk releases).

The release stinks of a "double dip" somewhere down the road (quite possibly as soon as next Christmas).

The most plausible explanation I've heard is that Warner very likely used the IMAX DMR film elements for the Blu-ray transfer. The DMR upconversion process applies heavy DNR and edge enhancement. If that's the case, those artifacts were baked into the film element by the time Warner got it, not something they added themselves.

A better strategy would have been to transfer the 35mm portions of the movie separately from their original elements and then splice them in with the real IMAX footage.

My guess would be next year as well. Nolan or no Nolan, another Batman film will be at least 3-4 years down the road and I can't see WB restraining themselves that long. (See: I Am Legend)

That's possible, but I saw the film six times in IMAX and while there was some edge enhancement, it wasn't nearly as bad as it was on the Blu-ray. Who knows, WB might have gotten the film with EE already applied, and then decided to add some more!

I guess on a 40" setup, it's not noticeable. Nothing about the picture ruined my experience with it. I thought it looked solid. This is the best we're gonna get for awhile. I don't see WB doing any sort of remastering in the near future.

After reading the AVS thread and this one, I still don't get it. The image quality is not that bad. I calibrate my front PJ on a 110" screen every few months, and barely noticed the EE. Then again, maybe I just get too much involved with the movie to worry about it.

All studios will double dip until the end of time because it is better for them financially. Did anyone not think they would on this flick?

I thought I would have a bigger issue with the shifting ratios but once you get into the movie, you really don't notice it at all.

It stood out big time right at the begining of the movie on the sheets on a wall on the roof off a building. I assumed it was the way my TV processes video not the disc...

I watched it last night and found the image to be incredibly deep and detailed but somehow eyeball searing. It's almost as if the image was just too vivid. Is edge enhancement what I'm seeing? It's not really that bad and the ridiculous 3D quality of the 1:78 IMAX footage is probably the most demo-worthy material I've seen on Blu-ray.

Sidenote: the TrueHD soundtrack on this disc is simply deafening but unbelievably rich. You can hear the actors breathing.

I know we've had this conversation before, but that was not my experience with The Dark Knight IMAX at all. The IMAX presentation I saw looked downright horrible from my seat (admittedly, I was crammed into the 4th row). All of the 35mm footage was smothered in edge ringing and DNR'ed so that there was little detail in the image.

Since those are digital artifacts, I really can't believe that this is something that could differ from one IMAX print to the next.

I also see this issue. My tv can only handle 1080i but this is the first blu ray I've seen with jaggies.

My theater is going to show The Dark Knight in IMAX again in January. I'll take a close look at it when we do and let you know what I see.

I saw this too.

I'm running a BD30 1080p60 to a pro-calibrated 61" DLP (also 1080p).

If I had to assign a score to PQ I'd go 4/5. The darkness of the film is what I remember from multiple theatrical viewings including an IMAX viewing so I won't ding it there. But the aforementioned skyscraper issue and the harsh look of some scenes due to the EE are enough to knock it down a full star IMO.

Thankfully I was so engrossed in the film I didn't even care. This one just keeps getting better everything viewing. I would have loved a flawless disc but I will make do with this until the inevitable double-dip, which I will inevitably buy if there is a PQ improvement.

Still not a fan of the shifting aspect ratio. I think if they didn't do it for the quick establishing shots it wouldn't be as bad.

it's 1:85 and 2:41
 

the dark knight is in two aspect ratios which is awesome. most of it is in letter box, and 1/4 of it is in complete full anamorphic wide screen

O.......k.......

As far as the shifting aspect rations go, It really wasn't bad, except in the few moments when it go back and forth quickly...Slightly bugged, but not too bad.

Funny you said this because I noticed the same thing on my S350 but didn't on my BD35. Why I have no idea but I will say the BD35 is the better player.

BTW the shifting didn't bug me that much. The transfer of this movie was ok but I don't think it's nowhere near the 1st one IMO.

I was seeing the issue on a PS3.