The Dark Knight is not quite right.

nws56

New member
Oct 4, 2008
10
0
0
Visit site
Has anyone noticed any anomalies with the BD ?

Specifically : -

00:26:10 Look at the buildings on the right hand side of the screen - the lights appear to pulsate

00:34:15 More pulsation , the white letters of the 'no smoking' sign to the left of the Batperson

00:37:23 As the camera pulls away from the central skyscraper , observe how it varies in brightness

00:59:27 The whole of the screen image vibrates; the three tall buildings, the street below, and all the people in it !

01:02:30 Admire the weave of Gary Oldman's jacket as he pretends to be dead . The detail in the cloth is stable and solid , but the light falling upon it fluctuates and flutters.

Do I need a new TV or player ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I also noticed some of these issues on my brand new Plasma/Bluray. This was my first experience of Bluray on a large screen hadn't previously noticed it whilst watching other blu rays on my PS3 and smaller LCD screen. i will try and rewatch for these specific points
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nws56:
Has anyone noticed any anomalies with the BD ?

Specifically : -

00:26:10ÿ Look at the buildings on the right hand side of the screen - the lights appear to pulsate

00:34:15ÿ More pulsation , the white letters of the 'no smoking' sign to the left of the Batperson

00:37:23ÿ As the camera pulls away from the central skyscraper , observe how it varies in brightness

00:59:27ÿ The whole of the screen image vibrates; the three tall buildings, the street below, and all the people in it !

01:02:30ÿ Admire the weave of Gary Oldman's jacket as he pretends to be dead . The detail in the cloth is stable and solid , but the light falling upon it fluctuates and flutters.

Do I need a new TV or player ?

Whilst the things you have said do appear to some extent in the film they are hardly noticeable so I'm not sure if you were just bored? The pulsating/flickering lights are just the light travelling through air/haze/pollution which will occur if you look at a city from a distance. The vibration will be camera reverb that wasn't edited out in post production - possibly on purpose to help the films unsettling, unnerving feel.

Seriously, this is a fantastic film and people are pulling it up on petty things like this! Is it everyones first Blu-ray or something and they are examining it in microscopic detail to avoid having to chat to your Aunties?ÿ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just skipped to the scenes mentioned out of curiousity and I do see some of the said effects but have not noticed them on my previous 2 viewings on a 70" screen and no doubt wont notice them on my next viewings. They are so brief and insignificant to be bothered about imo.

I believe I have a good eye and do notice other movies oddities, but not these.

I kind of agree with Octopo, you can be too critical sometimes. Just enjoy the movie.

R
 

jase fox

Well-known member
Apr 24, 2008
212
0
18,790
Visit site
nws56:
Has anyone noticed any anomalies with the BD ?

Specifically : -

00:26:10 Look at the buildings on the right hand side of the screen - the lights appear to pulsate

00:34:15 More pulsation , the white letters of the 'no smoking' sign to the left of the Batperson

00:37:23 As the camera pulls away from the central skyscraper , observe how it varies in brightness

00:59:27 The whole of the screen image vibrates; the three tall buildings, the street below, and all the people in it !

01:02:30 Admire the weave of Gary Oldman's jacket as he pretends to be dead . The detail in the cloth is stable and solid , but the light falling upon it fluctuates and flutters.

Do I need a new TV or player ?
If anything i think that the Dark knight is one of the best transfers out there at the min & i dont see anything wrong with it, maybe your just looking to deeply.
I used to be like that with DVDs once upon a time, but with highly mastered blurays i just sit back & be totally blown away !!
 

nws56

New member
Oct 4, 2008
10
0
0
Visit site
Thanks to those of you who took the time and trouble to look and reply.

Does anyone have any idea why this disc (and this disc only out of some 30 ) should be so problematic ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ive had the dark knight sat on my shelf since christmas day..... tonight i have no neighbours.........
emotion-2.gif
 

nws56

New member
Oct 4, 2008
10
0
0
Visit site
Then turn it up REALLY loud . That Zimmer soundtrack has stayed in my memory long after the rental disc went back.

Hope you remembered the Cabernet Sauvignon / Special Brew.
 

sc1

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2008
16
0
9,020
Visit site
Didn't really have any problems with these issues when I watched though they are noticeable when you look for them. To be honest I found the changng aspect ratio more distracting jumping from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1 and back again.
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
sc1:Didn't really have any problems with these issues when I watched though they are noticeable when you look for them. To be honest I found the changng aspect ratio more distracting jumping from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1 and back again.

I watched the film a couple of nights ago - I just watched it and enjoyed. I didn't even notice the change in aspect ratio let alone the minor "problems" the OP mentions. I'm not a big blockbuster type fan but I thought it was brilliant. I also thought that Ledger's performanc might have been blown up a bit since his death - I was wrong. He was fantastic.
 

Andy Clough

New member
Apr 27, 2004
776
0
0
Visit site
sc1:To be honest I found the changng aspect ratio more distracting jumping from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1 and back again.

Yes, weird, spotted that one on a second viewing on New Year's eve. Didn't notice it the first time, but did irritate me second time round as there seems no reason for it to happen.
 

Cofnchtr

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2007
146
0
18,590
Visit site
Hi,

I didn't notice it the first time around either - was nice to see panoramic shots in full 16:9 instead of 21:9.

I feel the effect was just as stimulating in 16:9 as it would have been in 21:9 but at least it filled my screen.

Andy C - it was changed because of these scenes being shot in IMAX or something.

Kinda wondering why IMAX is OK to broadcast in 16:9 but everything else is released as 21:9.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
guys,please don't think i'm a muppet!!!!:- watched Dark Knight BD on PS3,but it kept slipping from full screen to wide-widescreen on certain scenes-have i set the PS3 up incorrectly,or is it a disc fault? or am i a muppet?! :)
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
IanMac:guys,please don't think i'm a muppet!!!!:- watched Dark Knight BD on PS3,but it kept slipping from full screen to wide-widescreen on certain scenes-have i set the PS3 up incorrectly,or is it a disc fault? or am i a muppet?! :)

This is what we have been talking about on this post. The film was shot like this so it's nothing to do with your settings.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
watched it last night and thought it was cracking. Loved the full screen shots and wish that all blu rays were shot in that way (or whatever is that you call it).

Didnt noticed any quirks or annoying bits with the picture in any way, although i did think the dialogue was a little low. One thing i did notice that whilst the disc was loading my onk flashed up on the display "dialogue:+4db", which was a bit strange........

Anyway, loved the movie, loved the PQ and loved the sound track.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Just to answer the questions on why the IMAX scenes are in 16:9 format, whereas the rest are 2.35:1 - it's because the IMAX footage is filmed in a different aspect ratio to standard 35mm camera (aspect ratio is 1.43:1, compared to 1.78:1 for your TV, compared to 2.35:1 for cinema). The actual IMAX footage will have been edited to fit the standard TV screen, since if they didn't there would be large black bars on each side of the screen and it would look very strange and would certainly not have the impact it did. However, they've instead trimmed it to fit the screen, so there are no bars here for that reason - they're cutting out the top and bottom parts of the picture to fit it on the TV. With standard 35mm, the aspect ratio used is 2.35:1 so in order to fit that to the screen, they'd have to cut the sides off of the picture. Instead of doing this though, as is standard practice on films on DVD and Blu-Ray now, they leave this as is, giving us black bars at the top and bottom.
And for the inevitable question of, if they cut the top and bottom off for the IMAX footage, why can't they cut the sides off of the standard footage - I would direct you to Christopher Nolan, the director of the film. Personally, I think it's best to leave it as is and am not going to say any more on this after last time I got involved in it!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The majority of the movie looks okay, however the IMAX scenes are mind blowing. Shame it wasnt all shot that way. As for the top and bottom being chopped off, to me it seems the same as what i saw in the cinema and i didnt notice any black bars on the sides there, plus it was all seemless. Very distracting how they jump from one aspect to the other..maybe they should have just stuck to normal 35mm if it was gonna cost too much to film completely in IMAX.

Its not too bad when you have long scenes, but when longer scenes have a 2 second IMAX clip it makes it kinda annoying also near the end when Batman is in the building with the hostages with masks on..its done in IMAX until u get a 1 second snap of the SWAT team running up the stairs which is in normal 35mm and you get black bars top n bottom.

Might not be noticeable first time u watch the movie because its so engrossing but when you watch it for the 2nd or 3rd time..(inevitably you will want to becuase of the great plot) you will undoubtedly always notice the change in aspect ratios.

People are actually thinking that their blu ray players or discs are faulty...WOW what a demo disc lol Great film, poor presentation.

No Country For Old Men is demo disc material as is the Matrix Trilogy.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
Ginder:The majority of the movie looks okay, however the IMAX scenes are mind blowing. Shame it wasnt all shot that way.

We've had this conversation, IMAX is far too expensive to shoot an entire movie in that ratio, plus the cameras are so heavy they wouldn't be able to do a number of the tracking shots with the IMAX cameras.

As for the top and bottom being chopped off, to me it seems the same as what i saw in the cinema and i didnt notice any black bars on the sides there, plus it was all seemless.

Is this a normal cinema or an IMAX cinema? If it's a normal cinema you DIDN'T see the same thing, the IMAX scenes would have had even more of the top and bottom chopped off to make them fit the cinema screen than they did to fit the TV screen (as a cinema screen is a wider ration than the TV screen is, which is why the "normal" parts of the film have the black bars top and bottom on the TV screen).
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts