The Dark Knight: What's the OAR?

[drfsupercenter]

Hi,

I first saw The Dark Knight the day after it came out in the normal theater (I had to get there an hour early and it was almost sold out... at the time the IMAX was sold out for at least 2 days in advance!)

The screen ratio was somewhere around 2.35:1 as the first one was.

However, I just went to see it in the IMAX this past weekend, and half of it (I assume the "shot for IMAX" stuff I heard about) was more like 1.85:1, and some of the non-action scenes would have black bars and become 2.35:1

So my question is, just how exactly was The Dark Knight shot? Was it done in 1.85:1 and just tilt-and-scanned for the normal cinema? Or was it shot in hybrid, and the IMAX just put the pieces together? I'm willing to bet that the IMAX version (different aspect ratio for around half the movie as the normal theater) will never be released... the only one I've seen that included both was Apollo 13. I wanted Harry Potter in 3D.

Is anyone an expert on Batman stuff? I'd love to find out just how it was made... because I've never seen a movie before in the IMAX that had two distinct aspect ratios as the movie progressed.

[DaveWadding]

Think I read the IMAX scenes were shot in a different ratio than the rest of the movie.

ah. here we go:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical

Aspect ratio
1.44 : 1 (IMAX version)
2.35 : 1

So the IMAX scenes were shot in 1:44: 1 and the rest of the movie in 2.35: 1 like the 1st one.

[dvdjunkie]

As a projectionist I will tell you that "The Dark Knight" was released to theaters in the 2:40.1 aspect ratio, and you will see that when it comes to DVD later this year, early next.

The IMAX scenes were specially shot for the IMAX presentation and if you have a true IMAX theater you will not be able to tell which scenes were which. I have seen "Knight" in a wannabe IMAX presentation and it looked like you described. Then I took the three hour plus drive to Kansas City and got to see it in a real IMAX theater and there is no difference one scene to the next.

[drfsupercenter]

I never knew Batman Begins had any IMAX scenes... but that's because by the time I felt like seeing it, it was only playing in one theater still.

I didn't know there was any such thing is a real or fake IMAX... the one we have at the local AMC theater is just a really large screen (twice as big as the normal ones), with a ton of speakers everywhere. It's not that there were jerky transitions... it's just that the aspect ratio kept changing.

So how did the 2.35:1 version come to be? Were the same scenes shot twice? Or did they just crop the IMAX ones? If the DVD only has the theater aspect ratio, and it's indeed cutting stuff off the IMAX one... I'll be pretty mad at WB...

[Escapay]

IMAX cameras use 70mm film horizontally through the camera (and projector), and while it would be feasible to simply vertically crop an IMAX negative for use in a 35mm projection (which TDK was), the resolution would be markedly different. Just as blowing up a 35mm film on 70mm prints doesn't always make it better resolution. Higher resolution, but not better resolution. They likely shot the IMAX scenes twice, once with a regular camera, and again with the IMAX camera. Thus, all IMAX viewings are a 70mm blowup of the 35mm scenes, edited together with the IMAX-shot scenes. And all regular viewings are 35mm straight through, likely without the IMAX-shot stuff.

That practice isn't new, though, as in the 1950s (and a few rare instances earlier), several films were shot twice with dual ratios. Two examples are Fox's Oklahoma! and MGM's Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Oklahoma! shot each scene in CinemaScope (2.35:1 on 35mm film) and Todd-AO (2.20:1 on 70mm film). This resulted not only in slightly-different performances by the cast, but also some different lighting compositions (especially for day scenes) and sometimes different framing.

Todd-AO versus Cinemascope




Todd-AO (smilebox) versus CinemaScope




With Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, it was shot in both CinemaScope (2.55:1 on 35mm) and Flat Widescreen (matted 1.77:1 on 35mm). This was done because at the time, MGM was concerned that not enough theatres would be equipped with CinemaScope lenses, so a flat widescreen version (Academy Ratio which is shot knowing it'd be matted in theatres) was shot as well. However, the flat version eventually was never used as CinemaScope became big very quickly, but it is available in the DVD. Both versions have unique blocking for the actors, as one has to have all the characters spread out to fill the CinemaScope frame, while the other would have them closer together to fill a flat widescreen frame.

Flat Widescreen versus Cinemascope:




albert

[drfsupercenter]

With Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, it was shot in both CinemaScope (2.55:1 on 35mm) and Flat Widescreen (matted 1.77:1 on 35mm). This was done because at the time, MGM was concerned that not enough theatres would be equipped with CinemaScope lenses, so a flat widescreen version (Academy Ratio which is shot knowing it'd be matted in theatres) was shot as well. However, the flat version eventually was never used as CinemaScope became big very quickly, but it is available in the DVD. Both versions have unique blocking for the actors, as one has to have all the characters spread out to fill the CinemaScope frame, while the other would have them closer together to fill a flat widescreen frame.

So is that similar to Lady and the Tramp?

So hmm, The Dark Knight is the same length in both versions (As far as I know.. either way it's not like Apollo 13 where the IMAX one's way shorter)... and they'd have to be using two cameras at once or something for that to work.

Why would shrinking 70mm into 35mm be bad? It would be like taking a HDTV rip and making a DVD out of it - That would look perfect, while making a Blu-Ray disc from a DVD wouldn't.

Either way, it's almost certain that the IMAX version of TDK will never be released... as apparently Batman Begins was in the IMAS as well and that never surfaced. I don't think there's a bootleg of it either, that I could use for comparison... I really hate how studios choose not to release tons of stuff regarding their movies... because just imagine 15 years from now, no one will know there even WAS an IMAX version.

I know that TDK's IMAX scenes were 1.44:1 (Which is odd, I thought the IMAX screen at my local AMC theater was 1.78:1 - unless they cropped it, which is more than likely... or the bars were too small to notice)... the entire first scene with the Joker and his henchmen is in IMAX format. (And was subsequently used as an "exclusive 5-minute preview" shown before I Am Legend, which I also saw in the IMAX)

Which makes me wonder if there might be an official trailer somewhere (Apple Trailers or otherwise) of the "IMAX exclusive" scene... at least it could be used to compare.

[Escapay]

So is that similar to Lady and the Tramp?

Yes.

it's not like Apollo 13 where the IMAX one's way shorter

The IMAX one is shorter because at the time (2002), most IMAX projectors couldn't run films over two hours in length (due to the size of the film reels). Obviously this has changed.

... and they'd have to be using two cameras at once or something for that to work.

Cameras take up more room than you think, and its positioning requires the lighting to be tailored to it. So the scenes were more likely to have been shot separately than being shot simultaneously with two cameras.

The fact that they run the same length either shows that Christopher Nolan has an awesome editor or that they already knew that the scenes would need to run the same length already.

Why would shrinking 70mm into 35mm be bad? It would be like taking a HDTV rip and making a DVD out of it - That would look perfect, while making a Blu-Ray disc from a DVD wouldn't.

I didn't mean that it would be bad, just that it would be different. It's like when you take a polaroid picture and a digital picture. They may be the same, but it's a different format that could be integrated together, but not always with a result you'd be pleased with. Thus, a director would more than likely shoot two versions of a scene (one IMAX, one regular) instead of making a reduction print of the IMAX one.

I know that TDK's IMAX scenes were 1.44:1 (Which is odd, I thought the IMAX screen at my local AMC theater was 1.78:1 - unless they cropped it, which is more than likely... or the bars were too small to notice)

All IMAX screens should be 1.44:1 as that's the projection and film ratio. If your AMC theatre had 1.78:1, that's not real IMAX, it's probably the IMAX wannabe that Bill mentioned in his post.

albert

[drfsupercenter]

Cameras take up more room than you think, and its positioning requires the lighting to be tailored to it. So the scenes were more likely to have been shot separately than being shot simultaneously with two cameras.

The fact that they run the same length either shows that Christopher Nolan has an awesome editor or that they already knew that the scenes would need to run the same length already.

If I could see the two side-by-side it would help... I saw the 35mm one the day after it came out and the IMAX one just last weekend. I don't REMEMBER any differences in the scenes, but I could be wrong.
I do find it funny that around half the movie wasn't made in IMAX format, all they did was use the 2.35:1 (or 40? Whatever, the decimal doesn't matter in this case) one with the IMAX footage to make a hybrid movie.

All IMAX screens should be 1.44:1 as that's the projection and film ratio. If your AMC theatre had 1.78:1, that's not real IMAX, it's probably the IMAX wannabe that Bill mentioned in his post.

Well I didn't go measure the screen... it LOOKED like a normal wide screen (same aspect ratio as HDTVs), but it could have been different.

What exactly is a "real IMAX"? I know there's the "IMAX dome", where you lean back in your seats and the movie's projected to surround you... but what the AMC theater has is just a really huge screen. Essentially the same as any other movie screen, but about twice the size (and also more speakers). Is there a real flat IMAX screen too? I can't see The Dark Knight being shown in "surround vision".

[Disneykid]

Actually, for those saying we're only getting the 2.40:1 normal ratio on DVD/BD:

While speaking with iF Magazine, 'The Dark Knight' director Christopher Nolan mentioned that the inevitable Blu-ray will feature the IMAX shifted aspect ratio. He commented, "The Blu-ray, in particular, will be able to actually use the shifted aspect ratios as it appears on the IMAX screen because the 16:9 aspect ratio is sufficiently different from the 2:4 in that you'll actually see a shift on the Blu-ray."

He continued, "The resolution on the Blu-ray is clear enough that you can actually see difference in grain structure and sharpness. So I think it will be quite spectacular."

I don't know how I feel about this. It seems to be it'd be pretty distracting having the film open and close vertically throughout the running time. People who've seen it in IMAX say the transitions are seamless, but I'm sure it'd be more glaring when it's not so in your face. I hope the option to watch the film with a consistent 2.40:1 ratio is given via seamless branching.

[drfsupercenter]

To me it was pretty obvious... but that's because I'm a nerd and all I do is check out the technical stuff

To most people who don't specifically watch for aspect ratios, it's probably not very noticeable. Guess I'll have to get the Blu-Ray then... thank God it's not going in a vault somewhere like Batman Begins' IMAX version!