Aspect Ratios

Cactus Colm

Got around to watching the Dark Knight Blu-Ray last night. And I noticed something which I thought was quite peculiar; every once in a while the aspect ratio of the film would shift from wide-screen to a (what I originally thought was) a full screen aspect ratio. I had assumed that my blu ray or tv was playing up on me, but it seems to have been on purpose, and these shifts were because of IMAX scenes in the film.

I've never seen this before and thought it unnecessary, and did take me out of the film ... enough so that I there was a fault and checked it out online.

Has anybody else noticed this? Is it common? Does it bother anyone?

Sad Professor

Yeah, a lot of people weren't too happy about this. But Nolan obviously had to compose those shots with both formats in mind and the IMAX aspect ratio is a lot taller (1.44:1), so I can understand why he wanted to open up the frame for the Blu-ray. However, I wish he had provided a second version via seamless branching with all the IMAX scenes cropped to 2.35:1 like they were in the cinema. While the IMAX sequences look great, I do find the fluctuating aspect ratio distracting.

Duggy747

I'm really nit-picky about aspect ratios. If I'm watching a film on TV I must insist that the image takes up as much of the screen as possible (as long as it doesn't look too stretched) For some reason, black bars annoy me bar the old Panorama films.

The Dark Knight's shift from regualr to IMAX pulled me out straight away but the quality of an IMAX shot is wonderful. Especially that entire armoured car chase.

sink

I noticed it immediately but didn't bother me. I am more pleased that every shot was displayed in the aspect ratio they were meant to be viewed in. It looks stunning on a large Full HD screen.

krudler

Duggy747 wrote: »

I'm really nit-picky about aspect ratios. If I'm watching a film on TV I must insist that the image takes up as much of the screen as possible (as long as it doesn't look too stretched) For some reason, black bars annoy me bar the old Panorama films.

The Dark Knight's shift from regualr to IMAX pulled me out straight away but the quality of an IMAX shot is wonderful. Especially that entire armoured car chase.

I used to go out of my way to buy widescreen versions of vhs, so dvds and blurays are great since theyre in the right aspect, pan and scan are fcuking horrific ways to watch movies, missing half the pic on either side.

Duggy747

krudler wrote: »

I used to go out of my way to buy widescreen versions of vhs, so dvds and blurays are great since theyre in the right aspect, pan and scan are fcuking horrific ways to watch movies, missing half the pic on either side.

Doesn't bother me as much anymore considering widescreen TVs are a dime a dozen nowadays. Back then I had to make do with 4:3 TVs with the image squished.

I remember with the pan & scan problem people gave out about the Pacino / De Niro cafe scene in Heat where they thought they technically weren't in the same scene. Turns out they were in the proper widescreen ratio but it was cropped for VHS and early DVD.

Sad Professor

Duggy747 wrote: »

I remember with the pan & scan problem people gave out about the Pacino / De Niro cafe scene in Heat where they thought they technically weren't in the same scene. Turns out they were in the proper widescreen ratio but it was cropped for VHS and early DVD.

Some people actually still think this. Even in the widescreen version you never see both their faces in the frame at the same time, except for one shot (on the highway) where De Niro's face is out of focus. The coffee shop scene consists entirely of over-the-shoulder shots in which one of the actors always has his back to the camera, so some people think stand-ins were used. Mann did shoot a wide-shot of the scene which had both their faces in profile but he never used it. Thankfully, however, there are behind-the-scenes photos that prove they were indeed in the same scene.

Voodu Child

Even on a portable device or a small-screen TV I would never stretch or zoom a movie. If you change the framing of the scene you are basically discarding a huge artistic element of the movie.

paulosham

Duggy747 wrote: »

I'm really nit-picky about aspect ratios. If I'm watching a film on TV I must insist that the image takes up as much of the screen as possible (as long as it doesn't look too stretched) For some reason, black bars annoy me bar the old Panorama films.

The Dark Knight's shift from regualr to IMAX pulled me out straight away but the quality of an IMAX shot is wonderful. Especially that entire armoured car chase.

I can't understand how people can watch a film with the wrong aspect ratio. It makes no sense.

SB-08

Aspect ratios really annoy me too - when I buy a large TV I don't want literally half of the screen full of two black bars. It is extremely annoying at times - especially 2:35. It used to annoy me far more before I had a 42" Flat Screen TV. Before I had a standard 22" and when watching DVD's on 2:35 would require the use of a magnifying glass. :rolleyes:

What I don't get it why when film are show on TV they are generally always full screen? How are the TV channels able to make the film full screen without it being obviously stretched and how come it is not possible to do the same with a DVD? I know you can zoom a DVD by using the TV controls but it doesn't seem to have the same effect at when it is full screen on the telly.

1:85 is generally the best - the slight black bars are fine and often makes films look more cinematic than total full screen but 2:35 is very annoying IMO.

paulosham

SB-08 wrote: »

What I don't get it why when film are show on TV they are generally always full screen? How are the TV channels able to make the film full screen without it being obviously stretched and how come it is not possible to do the same with a DVD? I know you can zoom a DVD by using the TV controls but it doesn't seem to have the same effect at when it is full screen on the telly.
QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#Visual_comparisons

Syferus

Ironically the answer to both your prayers would be IMAX, which Nolan was talking about wanting to do an entire film in one day. I'd love to see it happen as the scenes in The Dark Knight shot with IMAX camera were pretty special, but those cameras are so huge and costly that it's hard to acomplish all the shots a typical film needs with them alone.

S.M.B.

These were immense when watching in IMAX. The transition between scenes might have been a little jarring but at least it was used consistently.

johnny_ultimate

I must say I was a bit disappointed when I saw the Dark Knight in IMAX: as gorgeous as the IMAX sequences were, the other bits did look significantly worse as a result of the awkward transitions. The jump from full square screen to letterboxed image is jarring, and noticeable on Blu-Ray too. Oh well, they'll just have to go all out for the sequel

I've gotten quite fussy about aspect ratios in the last few years. I used to despise letterboxing, but once I actually studied and became more interested in film as a medium I understood how the compromise doesn't compromise the original picture. The shame is, though, that modern TVs aren't designed for film viewing. The only way to watch a 2.35:1 film as it was intended is in the cinema, free from black bars. Some company somewhere should design a 2.35:1 TV that would be designed solely for films and not TV. As good as Blu-Ray looks, it's always going to look not as good as it could when it has to be squashed into a screen that isn't designed for it. It's why 16:9 stuff looks so stunning on a standard HDTV. But until there's a home entertainment compromise, the cinema remains by far my favoured way to view films as intended, free of the black bars that shall forever hold back the ability to watch 2.35:1 perfectly at home.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Some company somewhere should design a 2.35:1 TV that would be designed solely for films and not TV.

You mean like this.

There are a few 2.35:1 TVs on the market but they tend to be costly and impracticale as you really need a second TV for watching television and gaming. Hvving played a number of games on a 2.35:1 TV I can say that it ain't pretty.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean like this.

There are a few 2.35:1 TVs on the market but they tend to be costly and impracticale as you really need a second TV for watching television and gaming. Hvving played a number of games on a 2.35:1 TV I can say that it ain't pretty.

As a gamer, it's sacrilege alright. But as a film fan, if money was no issue it would be a nice second TV

krudler

Syferus wrote: »

Ironically the answer to both your prayers would be IMAX, which Nolan was talking about wanting to do an entire film in one day. I'd love to see it happen as the scenes in The Dark Knight shot with IMAX camera were pretty special, but those cameras are so huge and costly that it's hard to acomplish all the shots a typical film needs with them alone.

Add in the fact they ran over one in a truck during the armored car chase sequence, I dont think IMAX were too happy this director wrecked one of their half million dollar cameras :pac: least the shot looked cool though, its still in the movie.

mikhail

krudler wrote: »

Add in the fact they ran over one in a truck during the armored car chase sequence, I dont think IMAX were too happy this director wrecked one of their half million dollar cameras :pac: least the shot looked cool though, its still in the movie.

I think it was one of about 6 or 8 in the world, so it was a big deal!

Voodu Child

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean like this.

There are a few 2.35:1 TVs on the market but they tend to be costly and impracticale as you really need a second TV for watching television and gaming. Hvving played a number of games on a 2.35:1 TV I can say that it ain't pretty.

Myabe its not pretty if you stretch it to fit, but only a retard would do that.

If you display it 1:1 without stretching, then you just get black bars on the sides and the image is about the same size as a 42" TV. Still a decent sized image. No different to watching unstretched/uncropped 2.35 content on a 16:9 TV, just the other way around.