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

[BR7]

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?

Do your friends have an HDMI cable hooked to to an HDMI capable reciever,or do they have it hooked up using digital optical? If it's hooked up with digital optical you will not hear much of a difference.Need to be hooked up with HDMI to get the full benifit.


As for it being cropped,there was very little cropped and from what I understand you wouldn't notice/know
it if people wouldn't have let the cat out of the bag.

[drfsupercenter]

Um, to that I have no idea. I think it's just HDMI... I can check next time I'm at a friend's house. But even DVD players with AC3 output have digital optical...

And I probably woulda realized something fishy was with the IMAX version because I saw it in the IMAX and happened to know the ratio should be 1.44:1. I just happened to hear it here before I noticed it on display

--EDIT--

I'm currently copying my iTunes Digital Copy over... so I'll see what that looks like. If I'm able to take screenshots, I will.

[admin]

The 1.44:1 would never have worked on home video, because for most people on 16:9 TVs, this would have meant a black border on the left and right during the IMAX sequences, which would have been much more noticeable compared to cropping the 1.44:1 to 16:9 and basically negates any positive effects from having IMAX footage in the first place.

I always prefer 1.78:1 (16:9) framed movies to 2.35:1 movies on Blu-ray in terms of resolution - there seems to be more detail and 1.78:1 fills the screen much more nicely and naturally. That's probably due to my 720p TV though, as whatever details there are in 2.35:1 will have been lost, whereas the more "zoomed" 1.78:1 will still have plenty of detail to show off.

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, I prefer 1.78:1 over 2.35:1 as well. But hey, if the movie was made in 2.35, I don't want them to crop it just for my viewing pleasure

I know the 1.44:1 wouldn't have worked for integration in the movie... but it certainly would have as an extra. (And it IS in 1.44:1 on the 2-disc DVD set) I checked the Digital Copy and it's 1.78:1, just like the Blu-Ray. And honestly, the quality is not bad. It looks almost as good as just watching the DVD with a software player. (Better than the other Digital Copies I've seen, anyway)

But either way, right now I only have a 4:3 TV (and a 16:10 widescreen monitor). So 1.44:1 would work fine on my display. Just not on HDTV sets. I just think it's a shame that they didn't at least offer different options (as in, all 2.35:1, mixed like it is, 1.44:1 seperately, etc), given all these "cool new features" they keep advertising in Blu-Ray

[Budreaux]

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!

Just curious, but what is your definition of an Audiophile?

[drfsupercenter]

Um, someone who's picky about sound quality and wants the highest quality possible

[Budreaux]

Um, someone who's picky about sound quality and wants the highest quality possible

Then we have a different definition of an audiophile. To me, an audiophile invests in high quality equipment, from source to player to speakers. I fell in love with my Carver system, the speakers alone ran $1000 each for the tower with ribbon tweeters, my wife nearly divorced me over that purchase. Without getting into all that, an audiophile does what he can to get EXACT reproduction of the realistic sound of what he is listening to, he doesn't compromise to get that result.

[BR7]

Then we have a different definition of an audiophile. To me, an audiophile invests in high quality equipment, from source to player to speakers. I fell in love with my Carver system, the speakers alone ran $1000 each for the tower with ribbon tweeters, my wife nearly divorced me over that purchase. Without getting into all that, an audiophile does what he can to get EXACT reproduction of the realistic sound of what he is listening to, he doesn't compromise to get that result.

I am getting a 56" Samsung in Febuary,then after that my sound system get worked on in April.

After a bunch of research,here is what I have picked out so far that agrees with my buget.


Receiver - Onkyo TX-SR606

Front Speakers - Polk Audio TSi 500

Subwoofer - A2 - 300

Center Speaker - Still researching some Polks

The tower speakers I have now will be good enough for my back speakers.

[admin]

It's always worth spending extra on speakers, because you will change receivers and other equipment often, but a good set of speakers will last you for ages.

[doctorhardware]

Oinkyo is a good receiver, Polk Audio make good speakers.

[drfsupercenter]

We have speakers lying around the house... I mean, define "good" speakers.
I have quite a few from old boomboxes (the ones that came with them) that work fine, but the actual boombox broke. All I'd really need is a receiver.

[doctorhardware]

Boom box speakers are considered to be fair at best. IMHO.

[Budreaux]

We have speakers lying around the house... I mean, define "good" speakers.
I have quite a few from old boomboxes (the ones that came with them) that work fine, but the actual boombox broke. All I'd really need is a receiver.

Let's jsut say this.. I know of a few folks that have taken out equity loans on their homes to finance their Home Theater systems. Like I said, a true audiophile spares no expense when it comes to his equipment to get an accurate reproduction of a true to life sound. Do some googling, or get yourself an issues of Home Theater magazine, then you;ll start to understand the true audiophile.

[doctorhardware]

I spent 5k on speakers. When I get some extra cash I will look at getting new speakers.

[UncasMS]

@ br

are you sure that it will make a difference wether you transport a 5.1 DD signal via hdmi or coax?

i dont think the signal is any different either way at least i dont hear any difference in terms of quality or effects on my system:
onkyo 604 connected to two standard dvd players via coax (and 7+1 speaker) and these days for testing purposes with an additonal blu-ray (samsung bd p1500) via hdmi

the hdmi input is bitstream audiophile not any bitstream encoded or even pcm version (they sound much worse and you'll loose certain effects on a 7.1 speaker system!)

there is, however, a huge difference when it comes to chosing the proper profile on the onkyo

dolby digital sounds much less distinguished for example than dolby digital extended or even PLIIx movie