UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Oppenheimer -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[PMF]

Did anyone ever figure out what percentage of "Oppy" is IMAX?

I searched online and couldn't find a good answer.

Curious why you want to know.

_Man_

It’s an HTF thing.

 

[Wayne_j]

you could just run a timer and hit it every time the aspect ratio changes. Then you have your answer.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

you could just run a timer and hit it every time the aspect ratio changes. Then you have your answer.

Sure - which would be a big old PITA given how brief some of the shifts are, and not worth the effort.

It was a simple question but forget I asked.

 

[Robert Harris]

Sure - which would be a big old PITA given how brief some of the shifts are, and not worth the effort.

It was a simple question but forget I asked.

I may be able to get an answer. But can’t connect until Monday.

 

[JPCinema]

You don't mention aspect ratio. Since the IMAX screen is not 16x9 I fought most of IMAX scenes looked fantastic.
in the theatre But I can't say the same for the 2.35:1 stuff They were mixed.
I heard that only the 4k disc had 2 different aspect ratios, is this true?

The streaming version is only in one aspect ratio

 

[Grady]

Some viewers have expressed an opinion in that they find Barbie more fun and uplifting.

A fun and uplifting film about Oppenheimer is an intriguing concept. Oppenheimer Goes To Camp maybe?

 

[madfloyd]

Watching this film in 4K on a 77" LG G3 OLED panel literally, and no pun intended, blew me away. It is STUNNING, as is the film itself.

How far away did you sit?

 

[dpippel]

How far away did you sit?

8 feet.

 

[OliverK]

8 feet.

That is a very good panel size to seating distance ratio and well suited to appreciate the UHD format.

 

[Dennis Gallagher]

It’s an HTF thing.

I saw the movie in real 15/70 IMAX and found it curious that I didn't notice the shift from the 1:1.43 ratio and what was supposedly standard 2.2 5 perf 70. It seemed that the 2.2 was somewhat cropped. (Somewhat heretical I know, but I suspect I'll probably enjoy the home version on my fairly big deal JVC RS1000; a much brighter picture and probably clearer - plus my geezerly bladder won't be taxed. I'll just have to alert the neighbors when I plan the showing - as I don't want to have the police called in as they were when I attempted a "Tenet" showing. Thankfully this one's just pretty much unending music with the one big boom-boom and not the incessant low bass drone of "Tenet".)

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I saw the movie in real 15/70 IMAX and found it curious that I didn't notice the shift from the 1:1.43 ratio and what was supposedly standard 2.2 5 perf 70. It seemed that the 2.2 was somewhat cropped. (Somewhat heretical I know, but I suspect I'll probably enjoy the home version on my fairly big deal JVC RS1000; a much brighter picture and probably clearer - plus my geezerly bladder won't be taxed. I'll just have to alert the neighbors when I plan the showing - as I don't want to have the police called in as they were when I attempted a "Tenet" showing. Thankfully this one's just pretty much unending music with the one big boom-boom and not the incessant low bass drone of "Tenet".)

Interesting. One friend I went w/ also didn't seem to notice the AR shifts (even after I asked him) even though he works as a grip (though mostly for TV shows/series) and sporadically makes his own short films. Granted, all (or at least vast majority of) the AR shifts were intended to be atmospheric, environmentally peripheral and such, not meant to capture any readily conscious attention, especially when seen on such a giant, 15/70-capable IMAX screen, but still...

_Man_

 

[PMF]

Sure - which would be a big old PITA given how brief some of the shifts are, and not worth the effort.

It was a simple question but forget I asked.

Just because “it’s an HTF thing” doesn't mean the question isn’t interesting. It’s what we do and what specifics draw us in thats leads this forum towards an observation or an instinct not thought of or recognized by others. Looking forward to RAH’s technical findings. Carry on.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Just because “it’s an HTF thing” doesn't mean the question isn’t interesting. It’s what we do and what specifics draw us in thats leads this forum towards an observation or an instinct not thought of or recognized by others. Looking forward to RAH’s technical findings. Carry on.

Likewise, I was merely (literally) just curious why he wanted to know... not at all suggesting anything remotely "controversial" or anything like that, heh...

For me, it just seemed more interesting/meaningful to know/consider/discuss why/how AR shifts were used (and when) instead of some particular, absolute percentage over the length of the film... but would certainly gladly learn of any interesting/meaningful reason(s) for the latter that I simply wasn't aware before (and I'm actually usually someone quite interested in numbers or often even plain trivia as well)...

Anyhoo...

_Man_

 

[PMF]

Likewise, I was merely (literally) just curious why he wanted to know... not at all suggesting anything remotely "controversial" or anything like that, heh...

For me, it just seemed more interesting/meaningful to know/consider/discuss why/how AR shifts were used (and when) instead of some particular, absolute percentage over the length of the film... but would certainly gladly learn of any interesting/meaningful reason(s) for the latter that I simply wasn't aware before (and I'm actually usually someone quite interested in numbers or often even plain trivia as well)...

Anyhoo...

_Man_

Not to mention that we, at HTF, also like and respect Colin very well.

 

[Tino]

Not to mention that we, at HTF, also like and respect Colin very well.

Do we really tho?

 

[sbjork]

For me, it just seemed more interesting/meaningful to know/consider/discuss why/how AR shifts were used (and when) instead of some particular, absolute percentage over the length of the film... but would certainly gladly learn of any interesting/meaningful reason(s) for the latter that I simply wasn't aware before (and I'm actually usually someone quite interested in numbers or often even plain trivia as well)...

That's a case where you'll probably be disappointed. There's not necessarily a reason for the shifts themselves. It all comes down to which shots allowed them to use the IMAX cameras and which didn't. For example, Nolan really did want to shoot all of Dunkirk in IMAX, but the cameras weren't practical for every situation. So the actual shifting ratios from shot to shot tends to be random, with no intentional aesthetic effect. It's kind of like Lindsay Anderson's If...., where people have spent a lot of time trying to find deep meaning behind the shifts from color to black-and-white, but it all came down to the fact that latter scenes were easier to light for black-and-white. Anderson did end up liking the effect that the switching produced, but it was originally shot that way for practical reasons and the aesthetic effects were inadvertent.

With the shifting ratios in Nolan's films, it used to bother me a bit in earlier stuff like The Dark Knight, but he's been doing it for so long at this point that you just accept the randomness of it and don't necessarily even pay attention to all of the switches.

 

[Robert Saccone]

We got around to watching the 4K UHD last night. As impressed as I was with the presentation I was as equally if not more impressed with the soundtrack. Incredible amount of bass. I was surprised that it was *only* a DTS-HD 5.1 soundtrack and not DTS-X.

 

[OliverK]

Sure - which would be a big old PITA given how brief some of the shifts are, and not worth the effort.

It was a simple question but forget I asked.

I was curious myself and it looks like the Imax to standard 65mm ratio that made it to the final film is about 40 to 60. As for 35mm origination it looks like 35mm cameras were only used for high speed special effects shots so content on screen that was shot in 35mm may not even come to a minute.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Do we really tho?

 

[Nelson Au]

I watched Oppenheimer for the very first time last night on the new 4K blu ray. I had no idea how this film would depict the story of Oppenheimer and the development of the bomb. I also in my usual manner did not try to seek out any information about the plot and who is in the cast.

RAH, you were not kidding, this is pure cinema. I think that to mean the way Hitchcock made his films, using the images to tell the story through the character’s points of view. There was so much imagery shown of what the character is seeing in their minds verses what was really going on around them. That was clear to show what Oppenheimer was really thinking, or his wife Kitty was thinking. You can really feel Oppenheimer’s thinking shift.

I only knew who the actor was playing Oppenheimer. I remembered him from the Batman films, he has the right look. I had no idea that Robert Downey Jr playing Strauss! He looked so different. I did not even know the story of how his character fits into history. Emily Blunt was equally unrecognizable. As well I didn’t know who portrayed Truman! And the many other actors in the film were unknown to me or surprises. I thought Matt Damon’s presence was the only actor who stood out and seemed miscast. I could see it was Damon and so the baggage that he brings, though I was able to see past that in Oppenheimer because the story is so heavy.

I watched on my little 83” OLED and the image was stunning. And in some shots when I my eye wandered a bit, I could see the aspect ratio change. I think it was for scenes when Nolan wanted to emphasize the expanse of the environment or mood. It was mainly unnoticeable to me.

As far as the audio from this disc, I have a very old and small subwoofer and I recently had recalibrated all the speaker levels. I do not have Atmos capability and is just a 5.1 set-up. With the recalibrated audio system, I was feeling very well enveloped by the sounds and music. And someone said be prepared for the subwoofer to be working hard. That was certainly true as I never thought my subwoofer could actually make me feel it!

I could not help but think how naive the scientists at Los Alamos we’re for the first atomic bomb test. They seemed so close to the explosion! or it could just be how Nolan designed the shots so you can still see the test rig in the same shot as all the people who were in their lawn chairs watching as if it were a sporting event! Of course they just had no idea of the power they were about to witness.

This was certainly a long film, but it did move along at a brisk pace and it was engrossing. What I didn’t expect was all the senate committee stuff and what Strauss was trying to do. It was also interesting to see the more progressive thinking of of some people at that time in history such as the leanings of Tatlock that gets Oppenheimer in trouble.