'The Dark Knight' Bluray In Alternating Aspect Ratios

I think it means alternative. BTW FWIW I watched it on the plane on the way over here and fell asleep. Twice.

Nah Andrew, it alternates, heres the link:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1825/darkknight.html

I hope the UK release doesnt do that. Yeh the film is slightly long, watched it twice in the cinema, feels never ending at times, although still a good film.

Ah right. Bizarre. And yes, could've done with half an hour or 40 mins hacked out of it.

I said when I saw it at the cinema that it could either have done with being half an hour shorter or - conversely - half an hour longer: for example, either have time to actually develop Harvey Dent/Two Face properly, or cut that story arc out altogether and save him for the next movie. The whole Hong Kong subplot could have been axed, too - only seemed to function as mobile phone product placement.

If it weren't for Heath Ledger's truly mesmorising turn as the Joker  - and continuing supporting excellence from Gary Oldman - wouldn't have got such gushing reviews, IMO.

Still, i've got the Blu-ray pre-ordered, and am hoping the sound mix sounds better on that than it did in the cinema, where it seemed unusually subdued (I suspect the incompetence of the local multiplex!)

I think the reason for the alternative aspect rations is because it was filmed in a special IMAX format. Really wanted to go and see it at the IMAX in London but it was always sold out unless you sat at the front or sides.

I saw it at the IMAX in london and think its an amazing film. Christian Bale is one of the best actors about at the moment. Batman Begins was superb and the dark knight increased on that bringing a stunning performance from everyone. Do agree that it is a bit long but better too long than too short. Can always stop it and have a break. Cant wait for the blueray release. Thats one of the reasons ive decided to upgrade my tv and get blueray this december instead of holding off for a few months. Im getting the Sony 46W4500 and the sony 350 blue ray player. Girlfriend has me the sony DAV-F200 surround for xmas. Im going all sony. Strange seeing how i think the sony is a money grabbing company that doesnt care about the customer. They just happened to build awesome products. Shame the Playstation 3 doesnt have any good exclusive games or sony would be unstoppable. lol 

So no solution to the alternating aspect ratios then? Yeh its to do with the IMAX scenes, abit off putting knowing its gonna be gettin full screen for 7 scenes and back to borders at the top and bottom for the rest of the film.

Whats the point in making TVs widescreen if they wont let you watch widescreen films on the whole screen???

Ginder:

Whats the point in making TVs widescreen if they wont let you watch widescreen films on the whole screen???

i do find it hard to believe that after 10+ years of mass adoption of 16:9 format screens people still moan about this. 

Go to the cinema, look at the shape of the projection - that's the format a film is made for.  You have two options at home -

1) see the film as the director intended it to be seen which means borders top and bottom on a 16.9 set

2) crop a section out of the middle so that it's full height.  

 There's no way of having both.  Your TV will have a 'stretch and distort' or 'crop the centre'  setting somewhere that will fill the screen for you - why anyone would watch like that is beyond me but no-one is 'not letting you'.   

b33k34:

Ginder:

Whats the point in making TVs widescreen if they wont let you watch widescreen films on the whole screen???

i do find it hard to believe that after 10+ years of mass adoption of 16:9 format screens people still moan about this. 

Go to the cinema, look at the shape of the projection - that's the format a film is made for.  You have two options at home -

1) see the film as the director intended it to be seen which means borders top and bottom on a 16.9 set

2) crop a section out of the middle so that it's full height.  

 There's no way of having both.  Your TV will have a 'stretch and distort' or 'crop the centre'  setting somewhere that will fill the screen for you - why anyone would watch like that is beyond me but no-one is 'not letting you'.   

Yeh but the widescreen screens are shaped for that are they not?? Look at Cloverfield, it fills the whole screen and looks great. Im sure technology is far advanced enough to accomodate for the problem. After 10+years of 16:9 format screens, technology is still stuck at borders on top and bottom of the screen.

Are you suggesting that the sides should be cut off so that the image fills the screen??

Ginder:

Yeh but the widescreen screens are shaped for that are they not?? Look at Cloverfield, it fills the whole screen and looks great. Im sure technology is far advanced enough to accomodate for the problem. After 10+years of 16:9 format screens, technology is still stuck at borders on top and bottom of the screen.

Are you saying that the director of a £100m blockbuster should shoot his movie in 16:9 so that the DVD will fill the whole screen on our TV's?

More on the aspect ratios of Dark Knight (and even what cameras were used to shoot it) here

No im not saying the TV cut anything out of the film or the director change shoot anything in a different way, im saying TVs should be equipped to handle whats is being displayed on them not just screen resolutions.

The Dark Knight has 7 IMAX scenes that which are shot in the aspect ratio of 1.78.1, so clearly there are ways around this problem even from the directorial and filming side of things.

Letter boxing of movies first appeared in the 1980's so viewers could see the whole scene on their 4:3 display instead of a stretched and chopped from the sides image. Now that TVs are widescreen they still use the letter box technique..

I just find it strange that 24 years on we still have to watch aspect ratios that use the letterbox technique instead of movies that fill up the whole screen without chopping off edges by using the 1.78.1 aspect ratio.

Surely it makes sense...Doesnt it??

Hmmm, I seem to remember that the American Society of Cinematographers complained when 16:9 was officially adopted in the 'States for television screens, as it doesn't directly match any of the normal film aspect ratios - the closest being 1.78:1.

The majority of films are actually made 'full screen' on 35mm, and then masked off to give a widescreen (letterboxed) aspect ratio (including 2.35:1), so in theory could be reformatted to fit widescreen televisions without too much bother (although directors may not agree!).