I originally wrote this about another disc, but it applies here as well:

Screen shots are very useful for certain things, especially framing, color, and certain types of artifacts. But they can also be misleading in showing how much detail is visible in a Blu-ray.

Consider this: A film image is comprised of particles of grain that clump together to form the picture we see. The pattern of grain changes in every single frame. Persistence of vision from one frame to the next, 24 times a second, contributes to the amount of detail we see in a moving image during regular playback. A screen capture is just a snapshot in time of one of those frames, and is not entirely indicative of what the movie looks like to the eye at regular speed. That's just one reason why screen caps rarely look as detailed as watching the disc in its entirety.

Josh that is a phenomenal statement. It actually makes a ton of sense and brought up something I've never thought about before.

What, that's absurd!! Wouldn't encoding them as 1.43:1 have caused them to display FS on a standard TV and centered with black bars on the sides on a widescreen TV??

This statement should be in bold red flashing letters at the top of every screenshot thread over at AVS. Great stuff.

Well RichC2, I'm guessing that is ultimately how I'll watch the movie. Maybe I'll watch it the first time optimized for the IMAX scenes on my screen, and then zoomed to maximize the 2.35:1 image on my 2.35:1 screen (and allowing the IMAX scenes to overspill). I just wish that the overspill wasn't there, and that the 2.35:1 frame would be optimally selected from within the IMAX frame (which I assume is what was shown in all the non-IMAX theaters) instead of the arbitrary "middle of the IMAX frame" (which is what I'll end up seeing).


Well, he's already compromising the IMAX version by cropping it to 1.78:1. If the IMAX version is the definitive version, why doesn't he just use that?

If this new version is definitive, why isn't it being used for the DVD? Is there some technical reason he can't do the same switching aspect ratio thing on an anamorphic standard definition DVD?

And to take this to a ridiculous extreme, what will be used on the full-frame DVD version (blasphemy!)? The Imax frame? Or a pan and scanned version of the 2.35:1 version on the DVD (which of course is cropped from the original IMAX frame)?



I just think it would have been best to offer the most flexible solution for everyone, both on the Blu-ray and on the DVD: seamless branching so that people could choose to watch either the "preferred, switching aspect ratios, optimized for IMAX/1.78:1 displays" version, or the "as seen in approximately 90% of theaters (i.e., non-IMAX theaters), where the IMAX image is optimally cropped for a 2.35:1 frame" version.

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."

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.