O'kay, I'm confused. THE DARK KNIGHT is opening in both IMAX and standard theaters. Alright, nothing new there. Films have been converted into IMAX for quite a few years now.

Only thing is, Christopher Nolan shot some scenes, including the beginning, specifically in IMAX, which has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, I believe. But, the good old IMDB is listing THE DARK KNIGHT as also being shot in Panavision anamorphic, which 2.35:1.

So, how in the heck do you show something like this in two very different formats, without going from a square to a wide rectangle and back a few times? Has anyone heard anything on how they plan to present this in IMAX?

When I saw Spider-Man 2, Matrix Revolutions, V For Vendetta, and Superman Returns in IMAX, they were all projected in their proper intended ratios as wide as the big IMAX screen. This was the 35mm image enhanced for IMAX, with the tops and bottoms of the screen masked off, letterbox style. At least, I believe they were. The projected image was so big and beautiful, I really didn't notice all that much. My guess is that Nolan shot the IMAX stuff allowing for the same masking to the ratio of the rest of it.

I now open the floor to those Mobians with more technical smarts than I...

Not sure if this article was what got the ball rolling on your questions, but I get the distinct impression that the film will be presented as William posits - in the 2.35 center of the IMAX enormity with the native IMAX sequences occasionally taking over the screen in their full 1.44 ratio. Also, the film's 35mm work is full-negative anamorphic scope, so there can be no opening up of the frame as one could with a Super 35 production - they'd have to lop off the sides, which ain't gonna happen.

Sounds very odd, but since I've two IMAX venues within two hours of me, it's the way I'll be seeing this.

That's what I'm guessing, though in the case of THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, it just looked like a big DVD to me. It looked and sounded better in the 35mm showing in my neighborhood. Maybe it was the IMAX theatre at the time, as it closed very soon afterwards.

But why shoot in IMAX, if you're going to crop it down anyway? I know the resolution is better in 65mm, but if the rest of the film is being blown up, then why go through the extra trouble?

Just for clarity - if that's what William meant, then I disagree! :D

I took it the other way, and I think this will end up being the case: an aspect ratio adjustment whenever the film 'goes IMAX'.

Oh man, if that's true, then sounds like a big distraction. It's one thing in something like DR. STRANGELOVE, which isn't that severe, but from 1.44 to 2.35? Yeesh.

Sorry if I was a little jumbled there. I'm guessing that the IMAX presentation will be 100% the same image you'd see in a normal theater, only bigger. And I guess the IMAX-filmed parts will just look more vivid, even though Nolan won't be using all of the available image (IMAX-filmed sections letterboxed off to 2.35:1 or whatever). I don't think this will be a Dr Strangelove situation.

The article specifies that they'll be reframing for the 35mm engagements, but the very fact that the point is made suggests to me that the IMAX footage will be full aperture for large format showings.

Is it any worse than having to put on 3-D glasses for SUPERMAN RETURNS*?






*Other than, you know, the Supes 3-D apparently kinda blew? ;)

I think what it comes down to is, Nolan knew there was going to be an IMAX blow-up, so why not shoot some scenes in actual IMAX? I don't have the quote handy, but I recall reading that Nolan actually wanted to shoot the entire film in IMAX at one point, his rational being, if they could get an IMAX camera to the top of Mount Everest, why the hell can't you shoot a traditional movie using the system? But of course, the money men prevailed and he was only allowed to shoot a few sequences in the actual IMAX format. I'm thinking he might be doing this as a sort of acid test, to see if folks can distinguish between the actual IMAX sequences and the rest of the movie which was shot in "standard" anamorphic 35mm then blown up. If folks come out saying, "WOW, those actual IMAX scenes were amazing!", maybe Nolan can get his way next time and shoot the whole thing in IMAX, and frame it the way Super-35 is framed- "loose" top and bottom so he can matte the image and make an anamorphic 2.35:1 reduction for "standard" cinemas, but keep the whole huge IMAX frame for IMAX venues.

Vincent

Jeffrey, thank you so much for that link. The more I read about him, the more respect I get for Christopher Nolan.
I've actually been thinking about this since early this year, when I decided I was going to use my two free Imax passes for THE DARK KNIGHT. I'm hoping that picture that Warners provided is real, and not just a mock up of what might be.

I had a bad experience with the MATRIX film, but like I said, it could've been the theatre. And I was all the way in the back. But THE DARK KNIGHT is looking like it could be a really exciting experience in a proper Imax theatre. At least I hope so.

As far as putting glasses on and off,etc., I would find that less problematic then the screen changing so radically. I would still be able to keep my eyes focused the same way without any radical readjustments.

Possibly true, but the article doesn't confirm or deny this. I'm still uncertain as to what these people are gonna do with these IMAX screenings. But thanks for the cool link. I especially liked this part:

Batman Begins was another film that looked beautiful in IMAX, but experiencing Nolan's fight scenes (IMAX close-ups, quick IMAX edits) was kinda like getting caught in a Cuisinart.

And as for Supes IMAX 3-D, it didn't "blow" for me, except that they didn't turn the most obvious part into 3-D: the comin' at ya explosion of Krypton and wowie-zowie opening credits. It was as good a 3-D movie experience as any I can remember, save for the fact that I'd have rather had all 3-D or no 3-D.

<butthead>Heh heh - you said 'blow'.</butthead> :P

I didn't get a chance to see SUPERMAN RETURNS in theaters at all but, in the time since, projects built for 3-D from the ground up - not just retrofitted for stereo - like BEOWULF and the U2 thing have come out, and SUPERMAN RETURNS has been getting some knocks for looking very artificial in comparison.

And yeah - how do you not do the credits in 3-D?! That's the whole frickin' point of their design!

It's just a still - one of the first released from the production.

According to an explanatory note following Emanuel Levy's rave:

"The IMAX Experience will appear in IMAX DMR (letterbox), while scenes shot with IMAX cameras on 15/70mm film will expand vertically to fill the entire IMAX screen, which can be up to eight stories tall, for an all-encompassing movie-going experience"

Aye yi yi. That's what I had thought. Well, six scenes, I think that's what was shot, will look just great, at least.

If anything, this sure can stand as an educational experience in aspect ratio, when I take my son with me. The movie itself looks spectacular, and I'm hoping is worth the hour drive to the nearest IMAX.

Speaking of not being able to track down information (I can find nothing about this online), does anybody else remember George Miller making noise in the mid-nineties about shooting a new MAD MAX movie in IMAX?

Wow. Talk about Image Maximum!

Or the still ongoing plans to present a Godzilla film in Imax(!).

Of all the films, though. Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING is one of the top films that I would love to see in IMAX. If I had the resources, I'd pay for an IMAX remastering.

I would too. I would also personally finance an IMAX remasting of Suspiria if I had the resources to do so.

From "Moriarty"'s review over on AICN:

"The way it works is the IMAX sequences are all projected full frame, so they fill the entire eight-story screen at a ratio of 1.44:1. When the IMAX sequences end, the movie pops into a 2.40:1 letterboxed ratio that’s still pretty damn gigantic. And for regular theaters showing the film, you’ll see everything at 2.40:1, although I’m willing to bet you notice a marked visual difference for certain scenes."

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/node/37285

Good stuff. Keep in mind that this link is for a double review of Dark Knight and Hellboy II and flagged to contain SPOILERS for both films.

I've been trying to avoid any info on TDK, but the recent ads make it look REAL dark, and it's freaking me out seeing "humorous" Domino's, Reese's, and Comcast ads on tv that have tie-ins with the movie.

I attended a press screening of the THE DARK KNIGHT last night at the Universal IMAX. The IMAX sequences looked amazing, and the transitions between aspect ratios was (surprisingly) not jarring at all. I'd recommend seeing this movie in IMAX if it all possible.

I don't want to post any spoilers but in answer to Mike's post the movie is very dark (a cliche, but it fits here) and downbeat. I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was excellent but its not a family friendly, kid-safe film. Anyone who thought BATMAN BEGINS took itself too seriously is likely going to have problems with this film; anyone who liked BEGINS will enjoy it (and probably love it).

The ending already has me looking forward to the next film.

I saw it at the Sony Lincoln Square IMAX in NY last night. Outside of the opening distributor logos, the movie was (or seemed to be) eight stories tall the entire time; I wasn't aware of any ratio switching, or what there was, was done seamlessly. I don't know what was IMAX-camera shot or not, but the Hong Kong sequence (which felt a little superfluous otherwise) was particularly sharp and gorgeous, and there's a truck flip where the vehicle seems to land in your lap. (I knew what to expect from the blur-motion action editing--Nolan is better at the smaller, quieter moments than the "money" scenes--and it didn't bother me this time in IMAX. My wife adjusted, and agreed there was a lot of time to adjust.)

Otherwise, not to rain on anyone's parade, but I was underwhelmed, and preferred BEGINS. The forced solemnity and repetition of age-old comic book/vigilante themes, confused plotting, flawed casting (the film needed more Ledger and less Eckhart), the exhausting length of the thing...well, it may just be that IMAX enhances what works and exacerbates what doesn't. I found BEGINS played much more evenly on a regular screen, which may be the case with DARK KNIGHT. I may give it another try, but sitting through it again is not a prospect I'm relishing at the moment. I suspect I'll be in the minority, but one contrarian heard from.

Just came back from a last minute decided midnight screening. Which packed three auditoriums,btw, so that may be an indication of how the weekend's going to be.

An amazing piece of work. Definitely not the kind of Batman film people are used to, or would even expect after seeing BATMAN BEGINS. Yet, it fits with the first film remarkably well, almost as if they were one big movie.

All of the cast members are excellent here, with Heath Ledger's Joker pretty much stealing the show, even when Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent's character arc twists. It's a different interpretation of The Joker, probably my favourite comic book character villain of all time, yet it's also pretty close to the very early appearances of him. Ledger really does lose himself in the role, coming across as a bit geeky, then absolutely dangerous in the every sense of the word. A real foil for Batman.

I don't want to spoil anything but Aaron Eckhart's performance is great, grounding the story at times, and it really elicits great emotions later on.

I saw this in 35mm, as there aren't any digital showings as far as I know. A bit unusual, these days. The film itself is shot pretty dark and I found the sound mix to be surprisingly subtle for a big budget action film. Yes, it is long, and the plot gets fairly complex. But I was never bored nor really confused. But it is absolutely a dark, almost grim film,despite some humor here and there. this is not a Batman for the wee ones. it's Batman for adults, both in a few of the more violent moments, though I saw a lot of quick edits that were likely made for the rating, and thematically.

It's probably not for everyone, especially if you didn't care for BATMAN BEGINS. But it IS one of the bravest,mature comic book stories I've seen and certainly one of the best Joker stories ever. And it leaves a very interesting angle for a highly likely third film.


Hopefully, I'll see this in Imax sometime, but the closest one to me is 75 miles away, drat it all.

85 for me. Can't wait.

Yikes. I still have some passes, but the fuel cost would rather outweigh any other savings. I think it may be time to get a car that's less then the age of the average teenager.

Sill hoping I get to use them soon. I really have to see this more then once, as there's so much going on, visually and thematically.

It's good, not great. A lot is wrong with this film, particularly its overbearing length, which had me squirming in my seat by the 2-hour mark. The Two-Face storyline is, frankly, superfluous and really deserved its own feature. Casting is pretty good (I'd like to see Oldman in a Commissioner Gordon movie), visual effects are fine (Nolan uses CGI sparingly), music is awful, action sequences confusing and disjointed (Michael Winner could direct a better Batman film than Nolan), effective use of Chicago (even if it is too obviously Chicago we're seeing). Ledger is fine, though nobody would be talking Oscar if the guy was still alive. He's really doing some Nicholson mixed with Anthony Hopkins and the Cesar Romero laugh. He's a good foil for Batman though.

As usual, the Batman character is kinda weak. Setting aside the stupid voice, Batman comes across as less of a special human, but rather someone who can afford a lot of toys. He does precious little detecting, but why should he, when the writers have handed him gadgets with unlimited power. He might as well as carried Bat-Shark Repellent for all the subtlety the writers show, including the ability to listen to every cellular phone in Gotham City. Not just phone calls, but any conversation taking place near the phone. The movie doesn't give me the impression that Batman is anybody special, but just a guy who has access to super-duper technology (which would tend to narrow the field when it comes to deducing his secret identity).

Again, THE DARK KNIGHT is not the Batman movie I want to see, but, like BATMAN BEGINS, is relatively entertaining before it falls apart beneath the weight of its own self-importance.

Most sensible, but you are still destined to be a branded a hater. :) So true about that music: narcoticizing white noise all the way through. Hard to be believe two eminent composers worked on it, and were retained a second time.

Admit it, Robert: your 'droogy fanboys', out for the blood of poor, beleaguered critics?

They complete you. :P

I don't think I've ever heard a James Newton Howard or a Hans Zimmer score that I thought was anywhere above mediocre. Everything they do sounds like Muzak composed on a 14-year-old boy's Casio to me. Put them together, and you get something approaching Philip Glass mixed with hungry cows mooing.

Those were the fanboys in the audience. Surround sound makes things confusing.

Holy Smash hit! *

$155,340,000 this weekend!















* Sorry, couldn't resist

“….including the ability to listen to every cellular phone in Gotham City. Not just phone calls, but any conversation taking place near the phone.”

Yeah, but how else could he have done it?

Batman's been catching criminals regularly since 1939. And they didn't even have cell phones back then.

Those planning on seeing it in IMAX - be careful - hopefully, you're familiar with the venue.

I made the mistake of seeing this in what turned out to be an OMNIMAX/IMAX Dome theater - not a standard IMAX. If you don't know, OMNIMAX is a near-planaterium configuration - an extremely concave screen curvature that's *supposed* to be compensated for by a corrective lens, which either is not particularly effective, or wasn't properly implemented in this case. The result was a relatively true center screen, flaring out in all directions into extreme distortion. All those beautiful shots of Gotham/Chicago? All 'straight' lines bowed outward toward the far corners of the screen.

Not only was the image unacceptably distorted, it was dim, with marginal focus (which at that size wasn't so marginal in even a two-shot). The screen was blemished, the geometric patterns of the superstructure behind it visible, and there was *exactly one fiber* on the lens. A fiber?! Sounds picky, right? Try it at that screen size. The frickin' Tingler.

I knew within a minute that I should probably just walk out and get a refund, but here's the thing: the design of the theater is relentlessly vertical - much more extreme than stadium seating. The showing was sold out, and I would have to cross about 20 people to get to the aisle. Fine. Now, the walkway is no more than a foot's length to the next row - which was at head's level to my foot, with no rail or 'lip' of any kind! The seatbacks were lower than the heads of the next-lower level of patrons! The verticality and the oppressive size & relative proximity of the screen screamed 'potential vertigo!' to me at any attempt to leave. I felt like if I bungled my exit at all, I'd either be in my row's collective lap, or pitched into the row below (and below that? and below...?).

What if there was a panic in a theater like this? Honestly - I predict injury if not death. I'm sure it's a standard design for OMNIMAX, and that they've somehow passed all building and safety standards set before them, but I just can't see how. I'm not particularly prone to vertigo, or to claustrophobia, but someone who is? Oh boy - it'll be a hot time in the old town tonight!

Jeffrey, what a bummer! An excellent description of your evening, one where I could really imagine myself there, debating whether or not I could get out of that hellhole. I really wished you had ditched the movie before the bank heist was even over, but it sounds like you woulda broken your neck trying. Here's hoping you get to see the film properly sometime soon and never go near Omnimax again, as we like you here neck intact and opinions flying!

Oh - thank you for the good tidings upon me and my unbroken neck! :)

In preparing to see The Dark Knight at the BFI IMAX this evening (my first-ever IMAX excursion), I stumbled upon this Slashdot discussion which in turn led me to these two articles about the photochemical/digital issues in post-production.


Marrying IMAX and 35mm in the Dark Knight
Delivering 8K VFX Shots for the Dark Knight

I've tinkered around the edges of photochemical and digital imagery for years and find these hybrid workflows interesting - and maddening. For me that means taking 35mm B&W, developing, scanning on a Nikon or a Flextight, retouching, and then outputting on paper - one picture at a time. Hell, I have a new iMac and it churns a little bit when I scan medium format colour film and get a 500MB file.

Each frame of IMAX is 200MB - for over 100TB of data in total for the Dark Knight - gosh.

Hey, I assigned and edited one of those stories!

God bless Christopher Nolan and his cinematographer, Wally Pfister, for going against the grain. At a time when studios have started turning to HD cameras (with a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, which is a little less than "2K") as a 35mm film replacement, it's nice to be reminded of the potential that good old analog film processes still have when you take care to get every step of the process just right.

I'm not a big fan of IMAX exhibition, mainly for the reasons Jeffrey has identified -- our local theater has a chronic problem with dirt in the projection gate (or is it on the lens? it seems to get dragged in and out of frame as the film passes by, so I'm not sure where it is), you can definitely see the obvious imperfections in that huge theater screen, and if you have to make a quick exit from a packed IMAX screening, good luck to you. But barring problems at the theater level, the image looks really great. And, even on regular 35mm screens, Nolan and Pfister's films look terrific, in large part because they shoot true anamorphic 35mm instead of doing Super 35 with a digital intermediate.

What's sad is that, just as The Dark Knight is demonstrating the glories of shooting film, the IMAX corporation is starting to replace its massive, 70mm-run-sideways projectors with puny 2K (2K!) digital projection systems. I'm not sure I understand what they're thinking -- sure, it helps mainstream IMAX exhibition, which I guess looks like a good business model given IMAX's increasingly cozy relationship with Hollywood studios. But if you embrace mainstream projection technology, aren't you ceding the edge that you had over your traditional rivals?