![]() |
Originally Posted by Yavin
(Post 8877261)
On my LCD though, I know that the shifting aspect ratios will bother me a lot more. I too would like a consistent aspect ratio throughout the film's entire run-time. But why not the option, through seamless branching, to have both IMAX and non-IMAX versions on the disc?
|
That seems like the better solution. I'm curious about the novelty effect of having the shots change aspect ratio but, given my only experience with the film is at 2.40:1, I wouldn't be upset if I got a non-IMAX version of the film.
|
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 8878706)
That seems like the better solution. I'm curious about the novelty effect of having the shots change aspect ratio but, given my only experience with the film is at 2.40:1, I wouldn't be upset if I got a non-IMAX version of the film.
|
If something like WALL-E or Wanted or Hellboy II or Step Brothers hits in December, I'll wait for Christmas. I won't wait a second for Dark Knight (or Pineapple Express or Tropic Thunder, permitting those are out right before the 25th).
|
Originally Posted by Carcaridon
(Post 8878776)
I saw the movie both ways. The IMAX version was way better. I really noticed it a lot in the opening scene, since I had scene the blu-ray version on the Batman Begins BD so many times. The cropping really plays havok with the framing.
|
The first time in IMAX, the shifting AR was disjointing, but the second time it didn't even phase me. I welcome it on Blu-ray. Those IMAX-filmed scenes have so much detail and depth, that frankly I look at it as a bonus in the film instead of a liability.
Too bad more films aren't using it - giant film negs + HD transfer = goodness :drool: |
I saw it once in a gigantic theater, and once in Imax and i can say two things.
1. It was even better the second time around. 2. The shifting aspect ratio was barely noticeable especially compared to the feeling of grandeur that the Imax conveyed. Either way, this is gonna be one hell of a blu ray release. PS, I think they will probably release the title as "The Dark Knight." Personally i think Batman and the Dark Knight, and Batman is the Dark Knight both sound pretty silly. If they change anything, my money would be on "Batman: The Dark Knight" |
It's too bad it's too expensive to shoot in 70mm (a'la Lawrence Of Arabia). I'd love to see a movie like Transformers shot on that kind of film stock to enjoy the beauty that is Meagan Fox. :drool:
|
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 8880003)
I'd love to see a movie like Transformers shot on that kind of film stock to enjoy the beauty that is Meagan Fox. :drool:
|
I noticed but it honestly didn't bother me all that much. :shrug: Hell, I usually dislike chicks with tattoos but her and Christina Ricci are two women that I really couldn't care less if they have tattoos. I just find her them both all kinds of hot.
|
Anyhoo, back to our musing about The Dark Knight BD. Anyone know if we'll get some behind the scenes footage of how Nolan and crew handled the logistics of shooting certain action sequences with the IMAX cameras given how heavy they are?
|
Originally Posted by dylonius
(Post 8880001)
PS, I think they will probably release the title as "The Dark Knight." Personally i think Batman and the Dark Knight, and Batman is the Dark Knight both sound pretty silly. If they change anything, my money would be on "Batman: The Dark Knight"
|
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 8880152)
Anyhoo, back to our musing about The Dark Knight BD. Anyone know if we'll get some behind the scenes footage of how Nolan and crew handled the logistics of shooting certain action sequences with the IMAX cameras given how heavy they are?
|
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 8880465)
It's the first time a fiction film has incorporated IMAX,
|
Originally Posted by [DT]
(Post 8878621)
We saw it at the WGV IMAX on opening day - the IMAX sequences were amazing and felt seamless with the 2.4 ratio material. Of course this was in a dark theater where there was no definite border to sort of box in the experience.
I'd say just about every major exterior establishing shot (particularly those with "vertically intensive" content like buildings, etc.) were in the IMAX ratio. So it's a decent amount - according to online resources the consensus seems to be ~28 minutes. I've been meaning to swing by the WGV IMAX for a while, it is a standard flat screen right? Not a dome? (hate Dome IMAX for movies) |
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
(Post 8880463)
Is there a debate on this? I haen't heard anything about it.
There was a small back and forth earlier in this thread, so i thought i'd just put in my opinion. |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 8880534)
There have been other fiction films shot in IMAX, specifically for IMAX venues. Things like T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous or Wings of Courage. I think you meant to say that this is the first time a major mainstream Hollywood production has incorporated IMAX.
|
Originally Posted by RichC2
(Post 8880862)
I've been meaning to swing by the WGV IMAX for a while, it is a standard flat screen right? Not a dome? (hate Dome IMAX for movies)
|
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 8880465)
It's the first time a fiction film has incorporated IMAX
|
Superman Returns was shot with an HD digital camera, and had some scenes that were made 3-D for IMAX.
The Dark Knight was shot on film, and has some scenes that were shot with an IMAX camera. |
Originally Posted by dylonius
(Post 8880001)
I saw it once in a gigantic theater, and once in Imax and i can say two things.
1. It was even better the second time around. 2. The shifting aspect ratio was barely noticeable especially compared to the feeling of grandeur that the Imax conveyed. Either way, this is gonna be one hell of a blu ray release. PS, I think they will probably release the title as "The Dark Knight." Personally i think Batman and the Dark Knight, and Batman is the Dark Knight both sound pretty silly. If they change anything, my money would be on "Batman: The Dark Knight" |
Originally Posted by Walker Boh
(Post 8881879)
Superman Returns was shot with an HD digital camera, and had some scenes that were made 3-D for IMAX.
The last Harry Potter movie is a similar situation (though that movie was shot on Super35, not HD video). |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 8882175)
Technically, all of Superman Returns was shot with the same HD video camera. Certain sequences were converted to 3D digitally during post-production, and that's what played in IMAX theaters. No portion of the movie was shot on actual IMAX film stock.
The last Harry Potter movie is a similar situation (though that movie was shot on Super35, not HD video). |
Originally Posted by Giles
(Post 8882180)
granted how much dramaticallly the IMAX shot scenes were, maybe Warner could pony up the cash to create one of the Superman/Batman sequels in full IMAX.
However, someone on AVS brought up a good point that they could shoot the majority of the movie in 70mm rather than 35mm. |
The size of the camera could definitely be an issue for some indoor shots, but the noise would not likely be a problem (at least for most scenes). So many scenes are remixed with ADR and foley effects these days that they probably wouldn't think twice about that issue.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.