"The Dark Knight" Blu-ray (Dec. 9th)
12-04-08, 10:28 AM
#476
DVD Talk Legend
I'm not sure where you get the idea a screencap is going to degrade the image. That's nonsense. Now we're talking about Analog Fairies who are in charge of super-sharp image quality, but somehow disappear when a digital version is made.
Blu-ray...is...a sequence of digital images which can be traced down to digital frames. When you grab a screen from a Blu-ray disc, you're not taking away any amount of information. If you're viewing the screencap on a 7" monitor, you might have something there.
Blu-ray...is...a sequence of digital images which can be traced down to digital frames. When you grab a screen from a Blu-ray disc, you're not taking away any amount of information. If you're viewing the screencap on a 7" monitor, you might have something there.
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.
12-04-08, 11:29 AM
#477
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Josh that is a phenomenal statement. It actually makes a ton of sense and brought up something I've never thought about before.
12-04-08, 11:45 AM
#478
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nolan cropped the images to 1.78, not Warner.
Nolan planned this modified IMAX version Blu-ray even before the film was released.
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.
Nolan planned this modified IMAX version Blu-ray even before the film was released.
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.
12-04-08, 11:52 AM
#479
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
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.
12-04-08, 12:01 PM
#480
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sugar Grove, IL
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, and this will sound like blasphemy to a lot of people, I would just resize it to fit the screen for a majority of the movie and let the IMAX scenes run off the screen, black it out if you can (velveteen or whatever you kids are using these days).
Reasoning - While shot for IMAX with scope in mind, the picture is still very much centered. While you won't get the massive scope that the 1.78:1 scenes, you also won't have anything truly important cut off the screen. (That said, this is a very rare case).
Reasoning - While shot for IMAX with scope in mind, the picture is still very much centered. While you won't get the massive scope that the 1.78:1 scenes, you also won't have anything truly important cut off the screen. (That said, this is a very rare case).
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.
12-04-08, 02:26 PM
#481
DVD Talk Legend
12-04-08, 02:47 PM
#482
Banned by request
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.
12-04-08, 04:14 PM
#483
DVD Talk Legend
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.
12-04-08, 05:43 PM
#485
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
12-05-08, 10:33 AM
#486
DVD Talk Legend
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).
12-05-08, 10:37 AM
#487
DVD Talk Legend
(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.)
12-05-08, 10:39 AM
#488
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Update: BACK
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But this is clearly intended for double-dip eventually, so I'll hold out hope for that I guess.
12-05-08, 01:56 PM
#490
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
12-05-08, 05:36 PM
#492
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
12-05-08, 06:28 PM
#493
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Update: BACK
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully Nolan and Pfister were the ones making these cropping decisions, at least.
12-06-08, 12:15 PM
#494
12-06-08, 05:10 PM
#496
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-06-08, 05:15 PM
#497
Banned by request
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.
Hopefully Nolan and Pfister were the ones making these cropping decisions, at least.
12-06-08, 06:21 PM
#498
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.
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.
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.