'The Dark Knight' Shatters DVD And Blu-ray Sales Records

[admin]

According to the statement released by Warner Bros., Blu-ray sales alone have topped 1.7 million units, and total DVD and Blu-ray sales have hit 13.5 million units worldwide (including consumer and rental sales). Again, given that the film has been available for just over a week — coupled with the fact that we’re in the thick of holiday shopping season — it’s clear that we are witnessing “The Dark Knight” setting the bar in terms of DVD and Blu-ray sales, as it has already become the best selling DVD of 2008 (not to mention on iTunes).

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/12/17/the-dark-knight-shatters-dvd-and-blu-ray-sales-records/

[drfsupercenter]

Well, did anyone notice they intentionally made a subpar DVD transfer... probably to make people buy the Blu-Ray?

Now if I can find someone with a Blu-Ray drive... I could make my own 480p disc that tops the official one...

[admin]

There are some issues with the Blu-ray version as well. They mixed the IMAX footage with the non IMAX ones, and so the aspect ratio (and the black bars on top/bottom) change throughout the movie. The quality of the IMAX (best quality) and standard (average quality) also differs. I haven't received my copy yet, but some like it and some don't. Unfortunately, despite the space on the Blu-ray disc and it being a 2 disc edition, they did not include the original theatrical release, which is a major shame in my opinion. No doubt the super duper fantastico edition coming out next year will "fix" these problems.

[drfsupercenter]

Hmm. I know they listed the IMAX version as an "extra" on the Blu-Ray, but I did not realize that was all they offered.

I WANTED that version... because I saw it both in a normal theater and in the IMAX, and from what I can tell they just chopped the top and bottom off for theatrical airing. (And I prefer open matte, whatever, I want the original shooting ratio). I think it's an extra on the 2-disc DVD set (I don't have it yet... my mom got it for me for Christmas... though I did rent the normal one from Blockbuster)

So I could probably make a "combination" version, where I take the 2.35:1 stuff from the Blu-Ray, and the other stuff from the DVD. But yeah. Evidently people hate WB now for delaying Harry Potter... and now their intentionally bad video transfers... Now I wish The Dark Knight was released by someone other than WB
(Hey, isn't FOX the only respectable company that doesn't ARccOS their DVDs today?)

[doctorhardware]

Why would you use Imax footage then use non Imax footage. You are just setting up the film for failure. Went to Imax the other day and saw the day that the earth stood still. It would be the same as filming a Imax movie with half of the movie in standard definition. What a waste.

[admin]

Apparently, the director sanctioned this as the only Blu-ray release, so it wasn't the studio's idea maybe.

The thing is, the actual IMAX ratio is 1.43:1, not the 1.78:1 that is actually present on the Blu-ray. This was most likely done because the changeover between 1.43:1 and 2.40:1 would have been too big, not a problem when you're watching it in the IMAX cinema where you get a huge screen to enjoy the 1.43:1 picture on and the width doesn't change (only the height), but annoying at home because the width would have to be reduced to suit 16:9 screens (so you actually get a smaller picture when the IMAX stuff is shown). So the Blu-ray version is not the IMAX version you saw in cinemas, but a hacked version to fit into 16:9 screens, even if it has the director's approval.

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, I saw it in an actual IMAX and it was pretty awesome.

I wanted those IMAX scenes, but are you saying they tilt-and-scanned it? That really sucks... that completely defeats the purpose! I gotta check the bonus disc of my 2-disc DVD set after Christmas and see what ratio they are on there...

But yet another reason I'm not jumping on the Blu-Ray bandwagon

[BR7]

The aspect change is very well done.If your watching the movie and not when it changes,you dont even notice it. The film looks spectacular from begining to end.

LMAO @ DRF
I highly doubt that they made the DVD bad on purpose


Wait until you see the old Bond films on Blu-ray (Drooling) The are absolutaly gorgeous

[admin]

Hi BR7, haven't seen you post here for a while. Merry Xmas, by the way.

I've yet to watch TDK, but I did look at a "ratio" change and you're right, it's not too distracting. The IMAX scenes have more detail. I still wish they included the theatrical version on it as well, which would have been easy with 50GB Blu-ray and seamless branching.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, I saw it in a store display... and really, the non-IMAX scenes looked quite blurry.
Either that or it was their TV. I'm not sure which - but I saw they had a PS3 hooked up via HDMI to a 40-some-inch LCD and it was playing The Dark Knight.

And I too would like to see the theatrical version as well.

I never realized WB skimped on their Blu-Ray, but one I know does is FOX. From what I can tell, they only include the extras found on the single disc DVD edition... never anything from the 2-disc sets. Independence Day, one of my all-time favorite movies, has very few extras at all and it's a dual layer Blu-Ray! Same goes for just about any other FOX title.

So really, the only thing I DO like about Blu-Ray is the higher resolution. Though at the moment it seems studios are still not putting 100% effort into making them GOOD, so why spend money on them? (Chances are, once we get a HDTV and Blu-Ray player, we'll just rent the Blu-Rays from Blockbuster when we want to watch them... and continue to buy the movies on DVD)

[admin]

Warner have been good before with releases, particularly the Blade Runner 5 disc version, which had pretty much every single version of the movie in the package and all for the normal price. But I think they saw the potential value of re-releasing TDK and decided to leave some stuff for future versions.

The IMAX scenes are even more detailed than most other Blu-ray encodes which is normal, thanks to the technology used to capture the content, so coupled with the change in AR (and hence more stuff to fit into a smaller space for the "normal" scenes), that's perhaps why the normal scenes compare badly to the IMAX ones. We are now much more susceptible to the differences different filming techniques have on the quality and resolution of the picture, all thanks to HD. Planet Earth, for example, makes most of the other nature HD documentaries look decidedly ordinary.

And with the DVD version, the IMAX scenes aren't integrated into the main movie on the main disc - it is only available as supplemental material on the bonus disc in the 2-disc version. But it is integrated in the digital copy version, so with the DVD, you get both versions of the movie, even though one is a low quality digital copy, and the other isn't up to the usual standards encoding wise (as most reviews will testify). This is a long movie at 153 minutes, and it has a lot of dark scenes, and this might explain why fitting the entire thing into a DVD-9 was always going to be a lot of work. Even "Pearl Harbor" was spread across two discs, and the DVD version of this movie deserved a bit better in my opinion.

[BR7]

Hi BR7, haven't seen you post here for a while. Merry Xmas, by the way.

Merry Christmas to you as well

Well, I saw it in a store display... and really, the non-IMAX scenes looked quite blurry.

Far from true(I use a ps3) I have a feeling it was the TV like you stated above.

I never realized WB skimped on their Blu-Ray, but one I know does is FOX

From what I have been reading,people that could care less about special features outweigh the ones that do give a hoot. I think the studious are aware of this and leave it out the SF if they are not to extravagant compared to DVDs,or like admin stated they are holding out for double dips.If you keep an eye out, there are some popular tiltles out there that are full of special feature goodness. Like the Godfather,James Bond,Blade Runner,Ultimate Matrix Collection, Rob Zombies Halloween and so on.

Though at the moment it seems studios are still not putting 100% effort into making them GOOD, so why spend money on them?

I dont see it that way LOL there are tons of good stuff out there.

Keep in mind that some of the older catalog titles are not going to look all nice and shiny like the new relaeses.It's all going to depend on the condition of the movies negative.If the negative is completly shot from not being preserved well,then they may have to use stock footage and that can only be improved so much.Ther are some 60's titles that look better or just as good as some of the new realeases.Like 2001 A Space Odessey,The old Bond films and some others that I can not think of right now . IMHO Studios are doing a very fine job and have given new life to a lot of movies that looked like crap on DVD.

So really, the only thing I DO like about Blu-Ray is the higher resolution

Dont forget about the sound this is just as important as the picture quality

[drfsupercenter]

Right, because when using my 2.0 stereo TV, I care about 5.1 surround sound.

But seriously, DVDs have 5.1, Blu-Rays have 5.1... the point there is? I know it's uncompressed but seriously, I have never ever been able to hear a difference between AC3 and uncompressed. And I'm an audiophile - I even turn down 192kbps rips for WAV files because they sound bad to me!

Granted, I'm sure there are some extremes where the DVD just sounds hideous... but on a whole, I really don't mind the sound of 5.1 AC3. And let's not forget not every movie ever made has up to 7.1 channels... That's one thing that pisses me off about Disney... how they keep making these "enhanced" 5.1 mixes that truly ruins what's classic about it. If it was made in mono or stereo (Casablanca, for example), why would you go and try to make it surround sound?

Back on topic, I do now have the 2-disc set of The Dark Knight... and I know it has the IMAX scenes. Thankfully they are in the correct 1.44:1 aspect ratio and not tilt-and-scanned like the Blu-Ray. I'll have to check out the Digital Copy - I've been avoiding those simply because why use a redemption code if I have the tools to make my own digital copies? (And far better quality, I should add... with no DRM)

[BR7]

But seriously, DVDs have 5.1, Blu-Rays have 5.1... the point there is? I know it's uncompressed but seriously, I have never ever been able to hear a difference between AC3 and uncompressed

What are you listeng to it on ? I can hear a big diference between DVD surround and HD uncompressed.Wouldn't the player,reciever or your PC's sound card limit what you can actually hear ?

If it was made in mono or stereo (Casablanca, for example), why would you go and try to make it surround sound?

They do give you the option to use 5.1 or mono.To tell you the truth a mono or stereo movies converted to 5.1 or 7.1 sounds pretty darn good. Like you,I thought it would sound funny,but I have been impressed with the movies I have seen so far that do this.

Thankfully they are in the correct 1.44:1 aspect ratio and not tilt-and-scanned like the Blu-Ray

Like I stated above,it was very well done, and if your watching the movie rather then looking to see when things change,you will not notice it.

[drfsupercenter]

I'm listening to it on either the speakers built into my TV or my 2.1 Logitech speakers for the computer.
But I have friends with surround systems and I honestly couldn't hear the difference.

Some 5.1 upmixes may be good, but others suck. I can't stand the "Disney Enhanced Home Theater" mixes, for example... in some cases they made the songs sound so horrible that when downmixing to 2.0 you can barely hear the vocals.

And the thing that irks me about the Blu-Ray is that they cropped it to 1.78:1. I'm a big stickler for original aspect ratio... so if the Blu-Ray only has it cropped, it's not worth much. Yes, the movie looks cool with it switching like that, but I really wish they did it like the DVD where the whole thing was 2.35:1 and you could watch the IMAX scenes separately in OAR. And heck, with all the advanced menu abilities they have now, why couldn't they do something like that using seamless branching so you could watch it the way it's presented currently, all in 2.35:1, or mixed OAR?