The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Robboadam

Ermm.......your sister obviously knows nothing about quality films haha.

I would take the whole world laughing at me to have that in my collection.

GREAT, great film.

Got it for $8 on Amazon when I bought the Avengers a couple months ago.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

All your points are well taken, but how many IMAX theatres can still play the 70mm film and how long do you think that's going to last? Most IMAX theatres are now "LIEMAX", no? In New York City, aside from the museums, there's only one true IMAX theatre - the one at the Loew's Lincoln Square.

And IMO, in the images in several posts above, the BD does look better (although it still may be wrong if one considers the theatrical to be "the standard"). The theatrical (and what's the source for that image?) has that damned teal push, which may be what many directors want, but I'd prefer the BD color timing.

I haven't gone to that IMAX theatre in many years, but I have to say that when I did go, I was not impressed with the presentation. While the screen was huge (90 feet at that theatre, I think), I don't like the squarish AR of IMAX, I always feel like I'm sitting too close to the screen and the seams of the screen are visible in bright scenes. I also found the sound a bit brittle sounding, but I find almost all digital playback systems in theatres to sound that way.

In any case, there's a real question as to how much longer Kodak and Agfa will produce negative film. Kodak never made money selling movie negative - they made money selling prints. Since there are virtually (sic) no prints, I think they're only going to be able to come out of bankruptcy if they stay out of that business. They've already announced that they're going to primarily be a "printing" company, whatever that means.

For better or worse, the age of film is quickly coming to an end. I was incredibly excited to go see "The Master" in 70mm only to be terribly disappointed by end-to-end positive dirt throughout the print and an only average quality soundtrack - nothing like the 6-track mag presentations of the 1960s-80s.

The other night, I saw the James Bond film at a Fake-IMAX theatre. The presentation quality wasn't bad, although it's what I feel we should be getting for a normal admission price. The digital print had a washed out feel to it. Don't know if that was an aesthetic choice or an artifact of the IMAX processing. IMO, LieMax has to get rid of this double projector methodology. I realize they do it to achieve brightness, but the image can never be sharp as long as they use it, IMO.

The color timing in the theatrical trailer which is what that cap is from is because WB did their own color timing for the trailer. Ignore the color timing. We are talking about the post-processing such as EE, DNR, and the other post processing that IMAX applies to 35mm that they project. I'm sure you've read, but the 35mm elements in the IMAX print used for the blu-ray had post-processing applied to them by IMAX. So the blu-ray represents what IMAX wanted not what the studio's original print looked like. It has DNR, EE, halos, and other post-processing problems. The color timing isn't really a problem. The Theatrical cap is used as a point of reference only to make it easier to see the problems in the blu-ray cap.

About IMAX, there are only 100 15/70 film prjectors in the states, however, 15/70 is converted to digital IMAX and projected digitally in hundreds of real IMAX theaters. Retaining amazing clarity when projected properly. So 15/70 IMAX is still very worthwile. My main love of IMAX is the clarity it brings to home video. IMAX is 18K resolution and it makes for wonderful masters and astounding transfers. Transfers that digital can't touch.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Guys, that's your opinion (a view, judgment or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter). I don't knock you for seeing things that way ( ?), why should it put a bug up your butts that someone else sees things differently? It's a free country ... well, not really, but it's supposed to be.

No, it isn't. "blue is a pretty color" is an opinion. "A cloudless daytime sky is blue" is not. If you say there's no sharpening on the TDK disc, you are factually wrong. If you think the disc looks great, that's certainly an opinion you're entitled to.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Bukax42

The truth is out there

http://imageshack.us/a/img824/6595/screenshotlrg14.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/6909/screenshotlrg19.png

Thank you, Bukax42, for providing light instead of more abrasion. A couple of things I can't explain or apologize for :
1) I still prefer the beige image, the other one looks swamped in some soft blue fog.
2) Although I watched the DVD twice, I've only seen the Blu version of TDK once - I didn't like it as much as Begins and decided to wait until the third one came out, hoping I'd like it more.

I honestly don't remember seeing any particular artifacts or blemishes which bothered me - but I don't watch movies as if I'm writing a technical review. If it's good enough for me to get into, and it's the highest quality available (with Blu, you certainly want better than the DVD), I'm happy. An example is Grosse Point Blank : could it be better, you bet; was it a bit soft, yes - but, on my Blu player, the DVD showed in a box with bars on every side while the Blu filled the screen and looked better. I love the movie and I'd love a new, better transfer, but I'm better off than I was and I won't hold my breath.

That being said, in part because of this conversation, I'll watch all three Batman films more carefully when they arrive. In the crowd of police picture, your (?) arrows point to many examples of what I would call ghosting (similar to what we simply lived with back in the days of rabbit ears and other crappy antennas). But, because it's a crowd scene that doesn't linger (I can't recall if the camera pans or whatever), can you tell me : is it a bigger distraction (more noticeable) in the move or more noticeable in the screenshot. Similarly, the close-up of Batman pinning the Joker against the wall : at first, looking at the top of the cowl, I figured "what's the big deal". But the more I focused on the nose and lips, the more it bothered me. Again, is this problem heightened in the movie itself - or is it only that bad in screenshots?

Finally, do you know what would cause this? To simplify, would it be analogous to turning the "sharpness control" too high on your TV? I ask because, as you know, edge enhancement can and often has been applied to specific, individual edges in various movies. But in the crowd scene, only a lunatic would sharpen each cop individually., so ...

Anyway, thanks again for bringing the examples which were "out there" in here to me.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by 42041

No, it isn't. "blue is a pretty color" is an opinion. "A cloudless daytime sky is blue" is not. If you say there's no sharpening on the TDK disc, you are factually wrong. If you think the disc looks great, that's certainly an opinion you're entitled to.

You know, several of you guys really need to read the whole bit and not just a blurb before you jump on someone. How many times do I have to repeat what I said in, I think, every single post about this - certainly in this one : "In any case, again, I was commenting on the two screenshots, not the movie."
Hey, maybe I'm just into beige, but I liked that screenshot better. Which one I like and which one you like is an opinion. Additionally, I asked for examples - you know, información. Fortunately, out of a host of baying jackals who just wanted to bi ... er, howl about something they didn't read closely enough, stepped Bukax42 with the screenshots I requested - moving the conversation to a higher plane. Maybe you'd like to complain about that post as well. Just remember, opinions are opinions and, just like certain body parts, everybody has one.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Finally, do you know what would cause this? To simplify, would it be analogous to turning the "sharpness control" too high on your TV? I ask because, as you know, edge enhancement can and often has been applied to specific, individual edges in various movies. But in the crowd scene, only a lunatic would sharpen each cop individually., so ...

It's a filter that's part of any decent image processing tool. (more reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking )Yes, your TV does the same thing, though probably uses different parameters or sharpening algorithm.

[kashif]

Ok so basically this thread is switching from "The Dark Knight Rises" to "The Dark Knight". I was not wowed by the PQ of "The Dark Knight" but everyone said at that time and mostly all say now that its a demo worthy material to showcase your HD setup and also almost everyone on youtube claim this PQ to be number one ever. I was bashed for saying that its not as people say. Even the PQ is 5/5 reviewed here.

So, why sudden complaints about the transfer? I bet WB will never touch this master and will release the same in the upcoming trilogy.

[kashif]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Just remember, opinions are opinions and, just like certain body parts, everybody has one

Very well said mate. I agree.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's a filter that's part of any decent image processing tool. (more reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking )Yes, your TV does the same thing, though probably uses different parameters or sharpening algorithm.

Thanks. The sample pictures certainly made it look like the process really sharpened still pictures, perhaps it's only the application to motion pictures that's problematic.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Indeed, especially when he owns 300, one of the most racist movies to come out in a while.

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

He's right that it's racist, but he's a hypocrite for owning Avatar. Both have very racist undertones.

I really tried to stay out of this, but ... sorry. Frankly, I think the whole notion is absurd. After all, by this tortured reasoning, I suppose the Batman Trilogy is racist as well, right? After all, isn't Lucius Fox/Morgan Freeman the only principal person of color in the whole series? And wasn't he finished when Earle/Rutger Hauer, a "white guy", fired him - until he was "saved" by Bruce Wayne, a definite "white guy"? So we're all guilty for liking these movies? I suppose if you try hard enough, you can see whatever you want to see in anything.

The Persians (of that time) were the invaders, ruled by a leader who claimed to be a God and who looked down on any "race" that wasn't wise enough to want to live in his empire - under his rule. Kinda sounds like the white Europeans vs. the "Indians" - with the Spartans in the role of the Native Americans, doesn't it?

As for Avatar, please. Is it not racist to suggest that "white people" can't learn from "primitive" cultures? Besides, Jake, through his avatar, became a Navi. He was no longer an "average white guy", he was transformed. And the Navi weren't "led" by Jake, he joined their fight. Probably, they wouldn't have made it without his help, not because of some racial superiority (implied or otherwise), but because he had information they didn't have - just as they had information that he didn't have. Oh, but they can't be "primitives", right (not that they were)? Because all aliens need to be superior - or they'll be compared to ancient "primitives". The Navi, like many Native American tribes, were beautiful people. The only racists involved were the invaders who believed that it was their "manifest destiny", their right, to take what didn't belong to them. As long as there are folks like that - of any color - tales of redemption need to be told. Hats off to James Cameron and his cast and crew for telling such a tale so beautifully.

[Drewbee87]

I'm glad to see that(even though it's still the new standard) the menu doesn't have those cheap looking buttons.

[rubystone356]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

haha. My sister was giving me a hard time recently for buying When Harry Met Sally.

that is a fine film. dont worry about it.

Jacob

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

After all, by this tortured reasoning, I suppose the Batman Trilogy is racist as well, right? After all, isn't Lucius Fox/Morgan Freeman the only principal person of color in the whole series? And wasn't he finished when Earle/Rutger Hauer, a "white guy", fired him - until he was "saved" by Bruce Wayne, a definite "white guy"?

Nah. According to Alex Jones, the Bat trilogy is part of the New World Order's propaganda to brainwash us all into believing that the world is full of evil and we need rich "good" people (ie international bankers) to take care of us.

SECRETS of BATMAN The Dark Knight Rises - LEAKED & EXPOSED! - YouTube

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

So, Ending the Knight is an hour and 48 minutes long, give or take a few seconds. That's very, very solid. It's the same length as the Amazing Spider-Man documentary. Very pleased....

Glad all the trailers made it.

Thanks for the info...

glad i was right on this i am sure you are glad i was right to this looks like an excellent set

Originally Posted by Indiana Jones

Bonus Feature disc break down...

The Batmobile (58.17)

Ending The Knight:
- Production:
--The Prologue High Altitude Hijacking (7:52)
-- Return to the Batcave (3:37)
-- Beneath Gotham (2:34)
-- The Bat (11:08)
-- Batman vs Bane (6:07)
-- Armory Accepted (3:19)
-- Gameday Destruction (6:44)
-- Demolishing A City Street (4:15)
-- The Pit (3:04)
-- The Chant (5:19)
-- The War on Wall Street (6:40)
-- Race to the Reactor (7:52)
- Characters
-- The Jouney of Bruce Wayne (8:53)
-- Gotham's Reckoning (10:05)
-- A Girls Gotta Eat (9:26)
- Reflections
-- Shadows & Light in Large Format (5:37)
-- The End of a Legend (9:04)

Trailer Archive
- Play All (8.35)
- Trailer 1 (1:37)
- Trailer 2 (2:13)
- Trailer 3 (2:23)
- Trailer 4 (2:21)

Impressive bonus features. Does some of the bonus features clear up the ending for those that still don't believe that Bruce lives?

Originally Posted by rickah88

Reading what member quickblend has stated on the BB thread, I got the impression that you received a digital code. Which would imply it's not on the disc. I'm getting the SB regardless, but I would much rather have the doc on the disc and NOT a digital download.
BB did this with their Act of Valor exclusive. All it consisted of was a website that had a 7 minute clip. Although it did come with a very nice slipcover!
I just want to state, that I'm not 100% certain about the batman doc, disc or digital?

digital download and only 35 min i will definitely go with the regular release its full of extras so who need 35 min more to download

[killermike2178]

Unless he is completely swamped for Thanksgiving, expect Ken Brown's review to be up in the next couple of days, since reviews of WB titles tend to come about 2 weeks before release date...

[gp1086]

Forgive me for not re-reading the entire thread, but is there a consensus on which version of TDKR blu-ray is best to buy? Seems to me the Best Buy (no pun intended) version is the winner due to the bonus features.

[FilmBufffff]

Can anyone confirm if The Dark Knight Rises blu will have the shifting aspect ratio for the Imax scenes? I loved that Nolan did that with The Dark Knight blu and it's still my favorite blu-rays because of it. Those Imax scenes still set the bar for best picture quality on blu to date imo. Side note: I hated that Brad Bird chose not to do it with the Ghost Protocol blu-ray, still irks me everytime I pop it in.

[killermike2178]

Originally Posted by FilmBufffff

Can anyone confirm if The Dark Knight Rises blu will have the shifting aspect ratio for the Imax scenes? I loved that Nolan did that with The Dark Knight blu and it's still my favorite blu-rays because of it. Those Imax scenes still set the bar for best picture quality on blu to date imo. Side note: I hated that Brad Bird chose not to do it with the Ghost Protocol blu-ray, still irks me everytime I pop it in.

Yes. There are screenshots floating around on this thread.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by FilmBufffff

Can anyone confirm if The Dark Knight Rises blu will have the shifting aspect ratio for the Imax scenes? I loved that Nolan did that with The Dark Knight blu and it's still my favorite blu-rays because of it. Those Imax scenes still set the bar for best picture quality on blu to date imo. Side note: I hated that Brad Bird chose not to do it with the Ghost Protocol blu-ray, still irks me everytime I pop it in.

Yes, it has the shifting aspect ratio. As you are probably aware, it has around twice as much IMAX footage as TDK did.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

Yes, it has the shifting aspect ratio. As you are probably aware, it has around twice as much IMAX footage as TDK did.

3 times actually: 28 min(TDK) vs 72min(TDKR).
They could have filmed the entire movie in IMAX but the cameras were too noisy for dialogue scenes.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

3 times actually: 28 min(TDK) vs 72min(TDKR).

2.57 times.