The Dark Knight in its horrible variable aspect ratio

[JMB]

I watched them separately (on the bonus disc of the DVD) and I can't say that it bothered me at all.

 

[Daniel]

Not as two-dimensional as Tommy Lee's version in Batman Forever.

Well, Forever was a terrible film - that's true. But from memory the one thing that I didn't have a complaint about was Kilmer as Batman... but then again it's been so long since I've seen it, his performance could have been awful. But if it was it still wasn't as bad as the rest of the cast. It is a shame because Keaton was good as Batman - portraying quite a conservative Wayne character while living a double-life as a vigilante - and it made the Catwoman work well in Returns. And let's face it Batman Begins would never have come about without the 1989 original - that's the original inspiration for a "dark" film and the batsuit used in Returns was similar (and many people like the Batman or Batman Returns suits more than the Begins or Dark Knight suits).

Anyway, I've had a look at the IMAX scenes now, and I have to say...I prefer the 2:35 framing in most of the shots.

Me too, the framing is just too different from the rest of the film; I'm pretty sure they were filmed for 2.35:1 watching them.

I personally felt the IMAX shots were gorgeous. I noticed the shift, but it didn't bother me. Now, I admite, if it was DVD and not Bluray and it did that; I would be ill.... But ever since I got my HD set, I kinda hoped more movies would try to maintain a strict 16:9 ratio, so I could fill my HD screen. Minor issue. I thought The Dark Knight was a great Bluray disc.

Well the IMAX shots are gorgeous - no doubt about it, but they're even nicer when incorporated at 2.35:1 in the film.

You do raise a good point about "filling" the 16:9 screen, but it's not because films should be produced to fit it perfectly.

This is what a 25" 3:4 TV looks like:

Now in terms of picture area on a 25" TV this is the area:
3:4 = 300sq" = 100% of the TV area.
16:9 = 225sq" = 75% of the TV area.
64:27 ("2.37:1") = 168.75sq" = 56.25% of the TV area.

I will go on to prove this - but will start with the simple maths...

1. If 16:9 occupies 75% of 3:4 TV area, then the 3:4 area on a 16:9 TV will occupy 75% of the screen.
2. If 64:27 occupies 56.25% of 3:4 TV area, then the 3:4 area on a 64:27 TV will occupy 56.25% of the screen.
3. Given the relationship between 3:4 and 64:27, we expect 16:9 to occupy 75% of the screen on a 64:27 TV, and therefore 64:27 to occupy 75% of the screen on a 16:9 TV.

And yes I know that "64:27" isn't necessarily an exact size for movie framing (which can vary a lot around the "2.35/2.40:1" ratio) - but that is the exact ratio they'd use to make a TV in that size, if they made one.

Now, suppose you have a 16:9 TV with the same picture area as a 25" 3:4 TV. It would have to be 26.5", here's the simple maths for anyone who wants proof:

area (a) = height (h) * width (w). a=300sq", and h=9x, w=16x.
300=9x . 16x
300=144x^2
x^2=300/144
x=(300/144)^.5 = 1.44 (approx).
height = 9x = 12.99, width = 16x = 23.09

diagonal (d) ^2 = height (h) ^2 + width (w) ^2.
d^2=h^2 + w^2.
d^2=(9x)^2 + (16x)^2,
d^2=81x^2 + 256x^2
d^2=337x^2.
d^2=702.08 (approx).
d=(702.08)^.5
d=26.50 (approx).

So here is our 16:9 TV area:

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this...

3:4 = 225sq" = 75% of the TV area.
16:9 = 300sq" = 100% of the TV area.
64:27 ("2.37:1") = 225sq" = 75% of the TV area.

Now, suppose you have a 64:27 TV with the same picture area as a 25" 3:4 TV. Again I'll show the simple maths for this, but the size is 28.94".

area (a) = height (h) * width (w). a=300sq", and h=27x, w=64x.
300=27x . 64x
300=1728x
x^2=300/1728
x=(300/1728)^.5 = 0.4167 (approx)
height = 27x = 11.25, width = 64x = 26.67

diagonal (d) ^2 = height (h) ^2 + width (w) ^2.
d^2=h^2 + w^2
d^2=(27x)^2 + (64x)^2
d^2=729x^2 + 4096x^2
d^2=4825x^2
d=(4825x^2)^.5
d=28.94 (approx).

Here it is to scale:

At this size the screen height is the same as the 16:9 height on our original 3:4 TV, and so the 16:9 picture area is exactly the same, as I mentioned it would be.

3:4 = 168.75sq" = 56.25% of the TV area.
16:9 = 225sq" = 75% of the TV area.
64:27 ("2.37:1") = 300sq" = 100% of the TV area.

Notice that there's no benefit over a 3:4 screen size if you were watching an equal number of 3:4 and 64:27 shows/movies. Hopefully this shows why a 16:9 size is a better TV size.

Ghostcut: It's this which makes me wish they'd used 2.40:1 as the default aspect for HDTVs...

As I mentioned earlier widescreen is a good invention, but it's by no means a definitive solution in every situation - and 3:4 is still a valid framing aspect ratio. Anyone who wants to watch any number of movies made before widescreen, or TV shows that are 3:4 still needs a good 3:4 display area as much as they need a good 64:27 area.

yes, but does it have the same runtime as the version with the IMAX scenes? or are those scenes just duplicated in a different aspect ratio as a bonus feature?

The "IMAX" scenes were filmed on different film stock - and apparently the director somehow believed he was filming them for 1.78:1 despite filming everything else for 2.35:1. Frankly I don't understand it at all - they still look to me like they were filmed for 2.35:1 (and when I get a chance I'll watch the DVD version to see). The scenes are included in full in the other versions (ie the main theatrical version/DVD version), but they're framed correctly (2.35:1).

I watched them separately (on the bonus disc of the DVD) and I can't say that it bothered me at all.

Well that's very different from watching them IN the movie.

 

[Daniel]

I saw it at IMAX. It certainly appeared to be widescreen in the non-IMAX scenes. In other words when it wasn't in IMAX mode the picture was letterboxed. Then when the IMAX scenes happen the picture jumps to fill the screen vertically.

Personally I found it more distracting than anything. I'd vote for see it in a regular theater.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/for ... 7000993931