What's new

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,832
Or are you saying that the entire movie was completed digital-to-digital, then output to film, and then scanned back to digital?
If they were going for that look it would make more sense to do a filmout of it all - it will also with the effects blending in.

Personally I think that they should have shot with a larger sensor and filmed out to 65mm 5-perf. The look would still have been filmic but with improved detail.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
9,009
The argument regarding different theatrically-released versions of this film is exactly why I have always believed that home video releases should contain all theatrically-released versions and the viewer should be able to decide which one they want to watch.

Yet, when I brought up that argument vis a vis Nolan's "Dark Knight", all I got was a load about "director's intent" because the people advancing that argument had gotten what they wanted in terms of a home release and everyone else who wanted the 2.35:1 version were told to suck it up and get over it, because it was the "director's intent" and that was all that mattered.

If Villeneuve says nothing about the aspect ratio of this home video release then I guess his silence would be the signal the fixed aspect ratio version was his intent for home video.
 

Carlo Medina

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
12,726
The argument regarding different theatrically-released versions of this film is exactly why I have always believed that home video releases should contain all theatrically-released versions and the viewer should be able to decide which one they want to watch.

Yet, when I brought up that argument vis a vis Nolan's "Dark Knight", all I got was a load about "director's intent" because the people advancing that argument had gotten what they wanted in terms of a home release and everyone else who wanted the 2.35:1 version were told to suck it up and get over it, because it was the "director's intent" and that was all that mattered.

If Villeneuve says nothing about the aspect ratio of this home video release then I guess his silence would be the signal the fixed aspect ratio version was his intent for home video.
While your argument comes from a good place, the flagging sales of physical media, coupled with the added discs that would be needed to present all possible versions for some of these movies, really render this a fiscally unpalatable option for studios, some of whom are already on the fence about whether they should continue investing in delivering physical items to a shrinking consumer base.

I think the argument about "theatrical/original aspect ratio", "director's intent" etc. needs to evolve to account for current times.

Yes there was a time when things were black and white. Things were shot in 1.66, 1.85, 2.35 to 1 (etc.) and then unceremoniously chopped off (or in a minority of cases, opened up) to fit on a 4:3 TV. Back then, it was simple. Give us how it was shot and presented theatrically.

What many forget is that one of the big reasons Hollywood went to wider screens was to get butts back into seats, to draw people away from their TVs. Remember earliest films were shot in 1.33:1 which is why TVs followed that format.

Well Hollywood needed to get butts back in seats again with the mass proliferation of DVDs, BDs and large screen TVs that became more affordable in the early 2000s onwards. 65" TVs used to be the domain of the HT aficionado. Now I know new houses that come with 65" TVs pre-mounted onto the walls. IMAX ratios was one of the results of that strategy to give people a reason to come back to the theaters. So for films shot in VAR, is there truly an OAR? Can a Director have more than one intent?

To the latter, I'd say yes. Many (most? all?) who shoot in VAR are shooting it to be safely conveyed in normal theaters that lack the ability to show VAR, and for places that have the various iterations of IMAX (I'm not fully conversant in IMAX theaters but I know some have been labeled as "faux" vs. real IMAX). It's no longer black and white as to what OAR is, or even Director's Intent, IMHO.

While I'd love a "here's all the possible ways it was shown" version as Edwin espouses, the realist in me knows it's not going to happen due to the economics of it all. As much as it pains me (and my several thousand strong physical movie collection) to say this, the answer may lie in streaming options.

One thing I will say Disney has done well is presenting the ability to watch IMAX enhanced (yes it's not the true full IMAX aspect ratio, but rather an in between state designed to mostly fill our 16x9 screens) or the fixed aspect ratio version.
 

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
4,007
Real Name
Wayne
You could always still get an IMAX format release in the future. Batman v. Superman got one just this past year but for some reason they pillar box the IMAX footage as 1.44:1 and then present the scope material as normal scope so the IMAX footage is actually less wide than the scope. I'm not sure anyone is truly happy with that whether you are CIH or CIW.
 

Michel_Hafner

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
1,322
Are you sure about that? I would assume that the workflow went: Photography -> Film Out -> Rescan to DI -> Post-Production (including editing and VFX) -> 3D Conversion last.

Or are you saying that the entire movie was completed digital-to-digital, then output to film, and then scanned back to digital?
The 3D version was derived from the 4K DI without filmout acording to AC magazine. I think this 4K DI is more or less finished or could easily be finished if required.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,269
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
One thing I will say Disney has done well is presenting the ability to watch IMAX enhanced (yes it's not the true full IMAX aspect ratio, but rather an in between state designed to mostly fill our 16x9 screens) or the fixed aspect ratio version.

Those Disney Marvel films are presented at their true IMAX ratios - they were composed to switch from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 and that’s what they do.

The only exception to that is Eternals, which theatrically switched from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 for most of the film, but had about eight minutes that were 1.44:1 in theaters that could show that ratio - otherwise it was 2.40/1.90 at every other IMAX locations. There’s only like a dozen IMAX theaters domestically that play commercial Hollywood films that can do 1.44:1.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,115
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
You could always still get an IMAX format release in the future. Batman v. Superman got one just this past year but for some reason they pillar box the IMAX footage as 1.44:1 and then present the scope material as normal scope so the IMAX footage is actually less wide than the scope. I'm not sure anyone is truly happy with that whether you are CIH or CIW.

I believe that's all down to Zack Snyder's fetish for the IMAX 1.43:1 ratio. He reframed his director's cut of Justice League entirely to 4:3 despite not actually shooting one second of the footage in that format.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,269
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
He didn’t reframe it entirely. He shot the film open matte on 35mm film specifically, which yields an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 (nearly identical to IMAX’s 1.44:1) so that the film could play in conventional theaters at 1.85:1 and be opened up to 1.44:1 for IMAX. Had he not left the project in 2017, that’s the way it would have played in IMAX. He wanted to be able to have the entire IMAX screen filled without the production trade offs that come with using the IMAX cameras. When he was asked by HBO to complete the project, he did so at the ratio he shot it in, allowing the home viewer to experience what would have been the IMAX framing.

This was covered extensively in Justice League threads.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,115
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
He didn’t reframe it entirely. He shot the film open matte on 35mm film specifically, which yields an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 (nearly identical to IMAX’s 1.44:1) so that the film could play in conventional theaters at 1.85:1 and be opened up to 1.44:1 for IMAX. Had he not left the project in 2017, that’s the way it would have played in IMAX. He wanted to be able to have the entire IMAX screen filled without the production trade offs that come with using the IMAX cameras. When he was asked by HBO to complete the project, he did so at the ratio he shot it in, allowing the home viewer to experience what would have been the IMAX framing.

This was covered extensively in Justice League threads.

This sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization. Every movie shot on 35mm with spherical lenses will expose the full 137:1 camera negative, yet they're still composed for matting to 1.85:1.

In any case, my statement about Zack Snyder's fetish for the IMAX 1.43:1 ratio stands. Other directors who've shot on true IMAX 15/70 format have cropped that footage to 16:9 (if not 2.35:1) for home video rather than pillarbox it.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,269
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
This sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization. Every movie shot on 35mm with spherical lenses will expose the full 137:1 camera negative, yet they're still composed for matting to 1.85:1.

In any case, my statement about Zack Snyder's fetish for the IMAX 1.43:1 ratio stands. Other directors who've shot on true IMAX 15/70 format have cropped that footage to 16:9 (if not 2.35:1) for home video rather than pillarbox it.

Call it what you want. There is ample documentation and primary source interviews available to indicate Snyder’s intentions. This has been discussed to death in the Justice League thread. There is no need to carry that discussion over to this thread.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,416
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
This sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization. Every movie shot on 35mm with spherical lenses will expose the full 137:1 camera negative, yet they're still composed for matting to 1.85:1.

In any case, my statement about Zack Snyder's fetish for the IMAX 1.43:1 ratio stands. Other directors who've shot on true IMAX 15/70 format have cropped that footage to 16:9 (if not 2.35:1) for home video rather than pillarbox it.

I certainly questioned the rationale for VAR that switches to the narrower 1.33:1 or 1.43:1 on those flicks and had never asked for that before (while still wanting fixed-width VAR for IMAX sequences... at least in most cases), but I find myself thinking maybe Dune (2021) should really be seen that way (or at least be given that option... for those w/ big enough screens for that to work well enough) due to the compositions for those IMAX sequences -- I actually do find the fixed 2.4:1 version to lose too much visually (consciously for me) and truly underwhelm at times... and maybe merely opening up to 16x9 might not actually be enough...

Since I've already seen it 2x in true (1.43:1) IMAX and 2x via HBO Max (on my 120" screen), I probably have my fill of it for a good while... quite likely until much closer to the theatrical release of Part 2... at which point I'm hoping to revisit in a brief, true IMAX theatrical rerelease (even though I very rarely ever revisit movies in theaters)... Otherwise, I might just see it again on HBO Max at some point in between, but will likely not buy a disc w/ just the fixed 2.4:1 version for the foreseeable future -- I have too many titles in my backlog anyway and do not feel like seeing this in plain 2.4:1 again anytime soon...

_Man_
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,269
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I don’t really think it’s fair to call 1.43:1 screens “true imax” and 1.90:1 locations “faux-max” or whatever. They’re all real IMAX theaters, operated by the IMAX corporation, running specially mastered versions of films provided by the IMAX corporation. It’s all real. It’s not all identical, but it’s all really IMAX.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,416
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
I don’t really think it’s fair to call 1.43:1 screens “true imax” and 1.90:1 locations “faux-max” or whatever. They’re all real IMAX theaters, operated by the IMAX corporation, running specially mastered versions of films provided by the IMAX corporation. It’s all real. It’s not all identical, but it’s all really IMAX.

I'm guessing that's another evolving can of worms we probably don't need/want to get into here, hehheh...

I haven't seen the 1.9:1 version, so don't know how I'd really feel about it at this point...

_Man_
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,115
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
Call it what you want. There is ample documentation and primary source interviews available to indicate Snyder’s intentions. This has been discussed to death in the Justice League thread. There is no need to carry that discussion over to this thread.

I did not (and still do not) care enough about either version of Justice League to read a thread devoted to it. :)
 

SimonTC

Grip
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
20
Real Name
Simon
If they were going for that look it would make more sense to do a filmout of it all - it will also with the effects blending in.

Personally I think that they should have shot with a larger sensor and filmed out to 65mm 5-perf. The look would still have been filmic but with improved detail.
The director and cinematographer shot with a variety of formats before deciding on what look they wanted, including 65MM 5-perf.
I don’t really think it’s fair to call 1.43:1 screens “true imax” and 1.90:1 locations “faux-max” or whatever. They’re all real IMAX theaters, operated by the IMAX corporation, running specially mastered versions of films provided by the IMAX corporation. It’s all real. It’s not all identical, but it’s all really IMAX.
LIEmax (not faux-max)
Seems a lot of it is mere marketing though if they don't use actual IMAX cameras to capture footage for the films, DUNE excepted of course.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,832
The director and cinematographer shot with a variety of formats before deciding on what look they wanted, including 65MM 5-perf.

LIEmax (not faux-max)
Seems a lot of it is mere marketing though if they don't use actual IMAX cameras to capture footage for the films, DUNE excepted of course.
Wasn't digital chosen mostly for convenience? In that case I understand they would not use 65mm 5-perf for shooting but they could have used it for the filmout.

In any case the decision has been made but it certainly was a weird one!
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
22,269
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Yeah, I have a big problem with the term LIEmax because it implies someone is lying when that is not the case. It wasn’t cute a decade ago and now more often than not people just throw it in to thread crap. No one is lying. When you buy a ticket to an IMAX auditorium, you are going to see a film in a space controlled by the IMAX corporation, on equipment chosen and installed by the IMAX corporation, with DCPs specifically mastered by the IMAX corporation.

Now obviously I will agree that an IMAX auditorium in a multiplex is a different experience than a purpose built venue designed for 15/70 film projection. But that simply means that there are different varieties of IMAX auditoriums, just the same as not every AMC multiplex has the same design as every other AMC multiplex. But there’s no lie involved.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
21,137
Real Name
Malcolm
And if the concern is the use of actual IMAX cameras during filming, that's on the creators/director, not the theater showing the film they're provided.
 

SimonTC

Grip
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
20
Real Name
Simon
And if the concern is the use of actual IMAX cameras during filming, that's on the creators/director, not the theater showing the film they're provided.
It seems like a cheat though, not using them. Just showing it in an IMAX branded cinema isn't enough. It dilutes the brand.

Usually something like a Dolby Cinema doesn't advertise/show a film as Dolby Cinema if it doesn't have Dolby EDR and Atmos.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
9,009
It seems like a cheat though, not using them. Just showing it in an IMAX branded cinema isn't enough. It dilutes the brand.

Usually something like a Dolby Cinema doesn't advertise/show a film as Dolby Cinema if it doesn't have Dolby EDR and Atmos.
I don't see it as diluting the brand. I see it as a corporation that needed to create another option for a large format screen that filled a gap between the standard theatre screen and the 15/70 format that IMAX originally built their brand on. Going to digital IMAX made it easier for film makers to include more IMAX shot footage than could otherwise be done due to the size, weight and unwieldiness of IMAX's 15/70 format cameras.

The only problem was IMAX created a space where other theatre chains could compete with them by creating their own branded large format digital screens, whereas the original IMAX format had zero competition because the format was too inconvenient to film Hollywood features with. Up until Nolan's use of the format, IMAX 15/70 was only suitable pretty well for relatively short films of a documentary nature.

Even now, Nolan is the only one who has used IMAX 15/70 to extensively shoot a film in "Dunkirk".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
349,578
Messages
4,884,768
Members
142,624
Latest member
francischen
Recent bookmarks
0
Top