quote:

---

Awards screeners feeling Blu
'Dark Knight' looks to benefit from format shift

By Gregg Kilday

Sept 26, 2008, 01:00 AM ET

Warner Bros. is upping the ante in the awards-season screener game by going Blu-ray, and Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" could be the big beneficiary.

The studio has sent out a mailer to Academy members, offering them the option of receiving screeners in the Blu-ray format in lieu of watermarked regular DVDs. Nolan, a proponent of Blu-ray, urged the studio to make history with the foray into new technology.

"We really tried to do a lot with the film technically to give audiences a real reason to go see the film in theaters," including shooting sequences in large-format Imax, the "Dark Knight" director said in an interview.

But for Academy members who haven't seen it in theaters, or simply want to view it again, he said, "the Blu-ray version is vastly superior to DVD. You can actually see the things we did in Imax, and it will give Academy members the best possible chance to see what we did technically."

The Batman sequel, which has grossed more than $523 million domestically and earned a 95% positive critical rating at RottenTomatoes.com, is one of those rare summer blockbusters with a legitimate shot at major awards. The Blu-ray screener could give it a further advantage.

While other studios have thought about offering Blu-ray screeners, a few, like Universal and Pixar, say it's too early in the conversion from DVD to Blu-ray to make the shift. Sony is considering Blu-ray for "Seven Pounds," its Will Smith drama that opens Dec. 19, though it hasn't determined if there would be enough time to produce a Blu-ray screener.

Offering new, year-end releases in high-resolution Blu-ray increases the costs of mastering and manufacturing of screeners and could raise the risks of digital piracy. Plus, in the case of those movies that are finished just in time to meet awards-season deadlines, there is the added question of whether there would be enough time to master the Blu-ray discs.

"Dark Knight," which debuted theatrically July 18, doesn't face those problems. Nolan, working with his director of photography Wally Pfister, already has mastered the Blu-ray version for the movie's commercial release on DVD and Blu-ray. Warners hasn't announced a street date yet but the betting is that the discs could hit stores Dec. 9.

For "Knight's" Blu-ray incarnation, the director said he was able to approximate the changing aspect ratios of the film's Imax edition. The sections shot in 35mm will play in a letterboxed format, and for the Imax sequences, the image will expand to fill the entire widescreen. While that doesn't capture the complete Imax image, "it still gives us more of the way it was projected in Imax," Nolan said.

Warners will be holding the usual awards-season screenings of the movie, and the film will be rereleased theatrically in January, but Nolan said that if Oscar voters can't make those, "the Blu-ray version is also an excellent way to see the film."

It's too early to tell how many of the Academy's 6,000-or-so voting members will take advantage of the offer. A couple of Academy members said they tossed the mailer because they don't have Blu-ray players.

---

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

I'm sure this will annoy all of those people that have $20,000+ anamorphic setups at home! Suddenly they'll have the home-theater equivalent of the dreaded "top masking" (ie, smaller image during the intended large image sequences)

---

Well that does it for me. To hell with the blu-ray on this one. There should at least be an option.

The whole thing is a silly gimmick anyway. I intentionally did not watch this at an IMAX because the change in aspect ratio would've drastically ruined the movie for me. How that isn't a major distraction is beyond me.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-28-2008, 08:13 PM:
 
The whole Blu-ray is 16:9. It's just the scope scenes are letterboxed (like normal) and the IMAX scenes are not... though there may be a very small pillar box. It won't be a 4:3 ratio. I don't know about anyone who has "anamorphic" Blu-ray projection since Blu-ray does not feature anamorphic content like DVD, but if some d00d is projecting a Blu-ray and literally masking out/blocking the letterbox, then the IMAX scenes would just stick to the scope format on projection. But then again how are these people able to watch flat films? I am really not understanding the problem here.

I do agree with Brad that it is gimmicky, but it does have a place and should be an option, especially with Blu-ray's amazingly awesome ability to branch seamlessly.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-28-2008, 09:27 PM:
 
I don't think you could simply mask the Imax stuff down to 2.39:1. I thought I read somewhere that the Imax stuff was essentially "tilted and scanned" or whatever you want to call it.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-29-2008, 01:05 PM:
 
Of course you could mask the IMAX shots to the scope aspect ratio. You'd basically be preserving what was on the 35mm prints.

And, Brad, I can't believe that you never went to see it in IMAX - even if it was just to see the difference. Like you I have a pretty critical eye, and the changing aspect ratio didn't bother me at all. I don't agree that it was gimmicky. To me, this was an experiment to try to vastly improve the picture and basically test what could and couldn't be done with the 15/70 format. I liked what I saw. And like Bobby, I think it would have been glorious if they would have shot the whole thing in IMAX, and I bet they may have seriously considered it had they known how much money the thing was going to make.

I'm looking forward to the Blu-Ray of this movie. The IMAX scenes make me look forward to it a little more.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-29-2008, 01:17 PM:
 
The format changes were fairly subtle on a screen designed to fill your periphery. I'm not sure they will be on BlueRay.

Part of the cinematographers job is to direct your eye to a certain part of the screen where a given action is occurring. In a large theatre, this involves a lot more eye movement than it does at home.

In IMAX, they were able to hide the changes because your eyes are focused in on something else when the shift occurs. In many cases, the film was several shots into a sequence before I realized a shift had happened, and I was looking for it!

Because the eye stays fixed on a TV, I don't think the transitions will work as well. But, the archivist in me is happy that they are preserving the footage.

I agree that the disc should have it available as a user selected option.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-29-2008, 01:18 PM:
 
This won't affect at least one of my clients, they got rid of the Blu-Ray player because they couldn't stand the ridiculously long loading time.


 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 09-29-2008, 01:47 PM:
 
I agree Mike, in the theater the format changes were surprisingly subtle. As an example, I found the changing aspect ratio at the beginning of "The Horse Whisperer" very jarring. Perhaps it has to do with the height changing in Dark Knight vs the width changing.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-29-2008, 04:12 PM:
 
Sean, can't vouch for the "Horse Whisperer", but the beginning of the film "The Right Stuff" made great use of an aspect ratio change. It starts off at 1.37:1 with a newsreel type B&W sequence on a flight test, then jumps to full 'scope in 35mm (or full wide in 70mm) and color as the plane explodes on the ground.

When I ran that film at our base theatre in Tucson, I would time the opening of our side-pull curtain (we had no masking) so that the screen would get bigger at that explosion. It always brought a HUGE round of applause from the audience, they loved it. (We had fixed-height, variable width for our screen.) If I had my way I'd prefer 2-way masking, so top/bottom and sides can adjust. I did do an install where all four panels could be moved independantly.

I do think a height change would be very jarring and lame though..
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-29-2008, 05:22 PM:
 

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

then jumps to full 'scope in 35mm

---

It's a 1.85 ratio film in 35mm.

Mike over at the Chinese Theatre did something like that for "Superman: The Movie" during the comic book (1.37) to opening credits (70MM full widescreen). And Ned over at the Bruin did that with "Road Warrior".
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-29-2008, 07:33 PM:
 
I'd bet that Brad hated Galaxy Quest, too.

In any case, most video projectors have a "blanking" option, which works like an electronic aperture plate. The image can be electronically masked to 2.35 (2.39) by anyone who wants to do so. Obviously, this won't work on a normal TV set (cardboard or electrical tape on the screen would have the same effect), but it's an option for those with video projection setups.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-29-2008, 08:35 PM:
 
But I don't think they simply extracted the center of the Imax frame for the 2.39:1 version. Can anyone confirm?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-29-2008, 09:03 PM:
 
The Right Stuff was 1.85 in 70mm too.

The Road Warrior, as someone mentioned above did the 1.37->2.39 jump.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-30-2008, 12:33 PM:
 
If the studio has any brains at all, they'll make the 1.78:1 "full frame" feature an option on the Blu-ray disc for The Dark Knight.

The Blu-ray format has the ability to do such options, just as DVD did with its seamless branching, and to not do so ignores those fans who do have 2.35:1 setups.

For those unfamiliar, CIH (constant image height) home theater setups are becoming more popular, and many manufacturers are now supporting its implementation.

The poor-man's way of doing it is to zoom the lens out so that the letterboxed 2.35:1 image fills the screen, requiring that the zoom be returned to its normal position when viewing 1.78:1 content. This can be done manually using the projector's zoom and lens shift controls, so it's a very inexpensive way to get the effect. This method is being made easier this year with Panasonic's new projector which has two zoom and lens shift memories to make switching very easy.

The more expensive and elegant way to do it is to use an anamorphic lens in front of the projector's standard lens to stretch the 1.78:1 frame out to 2.35:1. This requires that the projector or a video processor take the 2.35:1 image from the source and compress it horizontally so that it can be restretched by the anamorphic lens. A sled is often used for the anamorphic lens so that it can be put into and out of position when needed. Motorized sleds can cost as much as the anamorphic lenses, which make for a combination that can exceed the cost of the projector being used.

As you can imagine, the people that have 2.35:1 setups have gone to great lengths to enjoy movies with a constant image height (just like what is always supported here in movie theaters). To mess with that crowd is foolish, and I would certainly hope that the studio will take the little bit of extra time necessary to create that option.

Even without 2.35:1 setups, some people may not want to see the image change sizes. Why not provide the option?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-30-2008, 01:25 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

The Blu-ray format has the ability to do such options, just as DVD did with its seamless branching

---

DVD can indeed do branching, but it sure as hells ain't be seamless!
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-30-2008, 09:07 PM:
 
When I read this article, at first I thought the letterboxing of the 35mm scenes was only for the screener BluRay, and it was so voters could get the effect, but not subject regular purchasers to it. Did anyone else get that impression?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-30-2008, 09:57 PM:
 
According to what I've read, TDK changes aspect ratios 37 times, and that does not count the reversion back to scope.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-30-2008, 11:18 PM:
 
37 times??? I assumed it was a once or twice during the movie gimmick for IMAX...but 37 times? I would've been yelling at the manager of the IMAX theater had I seen it there. That is just flat out ANNOYING.
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 10-01-2008, 02:08 AM:
 
most of the shots are quick 2 to 5 second wide establishing shots before a scene. I know it's hard to believe, but it worked really well and wasn't distracting at all.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-01-2008, 09:42 AM:
 
I didn't have any problem with the aspect ratio switches. Actually I found it less distracting than the signal to put on your 3D glasses during movies like Superman Returns.

The big IMAX shots made sense in context with the rest of the film. Some were aerial establishing shots, showing lots of tall buildings. At least three action sequences were filmed in IMAX, including the one where the semi-truck gets flipped.

My only criticism of the IMAX stuff is some of the Hong Kong footage was under-exposed.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-01-2008, 03:31 PM:
 
Jumping in late, to say thanks Steve and others for the corrections on the "Right Stuff" aspect ratio. But keep in mind that I ran that film first-run so the memory is a bit foggy..

I'll be running "Dark Knight" later this month in 35mm so it'll be interesting to see the aspect ratio changes..
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-01-2008, 05:06 PM:
 

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

I'll be running "Dark Knight" later this month in 35mm so it'll be interesting to see the aspect ratio changes..

---

quote:

---

DVD can indeed do branching, but it sure as hells ain't be seamless!

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why do you own Independence Day?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

37 times??? I assumed it was a once or twice during the movie gimmick for IMAX...but 37 times? I would've been yelling at the manager of the IMAX theater had I seen it there. That is just flat out ANNOYING

---