UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Oppenheimer -- in 4k UHD (2 Viewers)

[Colin Jacobson]

I just wish we had the option of buying a 4K disc with 1:78:1 all the way through (first preference) or with 2:20:1 all the way through. The toggling between the two ratios feels diminutive to this great cinematic achievement.

1.78:1 the whole way would seem like the lesser choice since it'd require cropping of a high percentage of the movie.

2.20:1 the whole way makes more sense since that's the way it actually ran on many screens.

 

[bobclampett]

I don’t claim to know anything about IMAX, but the second video I had linked in post 44, the projectionist said Oppenheimer is 70mm IMAX 5 perf.

Thanks, typo error, 70mm is correct, but 15 not 5 perf is correct.

 

[Edwin-S]

What streaming service is getting it? I thought I would go to the theatre to see it, but I just didn't care enough to sit in a broken-ass theatre for 3 hours. It didn't help that all of that Barbenheimer hype crap turned me off of both films.

 

[mskaye]

What streaming service is getting it? I thought I would go to the theatre to see it, but I just didn't care enough to sit in a broken-ass theatre for 3 hours. It didn't help that all of that Barbenheimer hype crap turned me off of both films.

it's avail or will be avail on youtube, apple, amazon for $19.99. its universal so it will stream for free "one day" on Peacock perhaps.
good luck. https://variety.com/2023/film/news/...ppenheimer-blu-ray-evil-streamers-1235790376/

 

[Dave H]

I just wish we had the option of buying a 4K disc with 1:78:1 all the way through (first preference) or with 2:20:1 all the way through. The toggling between the two ratios feels diminutive to this great cinematic achievement.

I've never been a fan of it. If you ever go front projection with a scope screen, you can potentially mask it to 2.20.

 

[JPCinema]

1.78:1 the whole way would seem like the lesser choice since it'd require cropping of a high percentage of the movie.

2.20:1 the whole way makes more sense since that's the way it actually ran on many screens.

The streaming version is 2.20:1
Very disappointing because my 4K disc has not arrived. I’d rather see it in the varying aspect ratio which is what Nolan prefers.

 

[MBH]

1.78:1 the whole way would seem like the lesser choice since it'd require cropping of a high percentage of the movie.

2.20:1 the whole way makes more sense since that's the way it actually ran on many screens.

I agree we should want to replicate the theatrical choice, so I’d be thrilled to own a 4k disc in 2:20:1. Unrelated to this particular film I have a personal preference for 1:85 but I think there’s an interesting scientific reason for why the ratio is pleasing for many to behold no matter how large of a screen you view it on. The position of our eyes on either side of the nose create a natural viewing penumbra with a ratio of around 1:87, so at around 1:85 ratio with a large enough screen we could potentially utilize our entire visual capability.

 

[owen35]

But, as we now know, that bombing was not depicted AT ALL, and instead we had to settle for a brief depiction of the testing of the bomb at Los Alamos. The bulk of the movie consists of small and medium-size groups of people talking together in rooms or occasionally out of doors -- not the kind of scenes that benefit significantly from large format photography.

I read a small article where Nolan addresses this criticism. The film is told specifically from Oppenheimer's point of view (aside from B/W footage), therefore he would not have seen the actual visual destruction of the weapon he fathered. But there are scenes later in the film that visually show that he is fully aware of the cost to human life that he was responsible for (the maimed and burnt bodies specifically).

Agree with that decision or not, but it was a conscious and artistic decision he made to tell his story. Personally, I don't feel the exclusion of seeing the physical destruction is a detriment to the film.

 

[mskaye]

I read a small article where Nolan addresses this criticism. The film is told specifically from Oppenheimer's point of view (aside from B/W footage), therefore he would not have seen the actual visual destruction of the weapon he fathered. But there are scenes later in the film that visually show that he is fully aware of the cost to human life that he was responsible for (the maimed and burnt bodies specifically).

Agree with that decision or not, but it was a conscious and artistic decision he made to tell his story. Personally, I don't feel the exclusion of seeing the physical destruction is a detriment to the film.

An epic quality is not just vast or big but emotional. There are epic emotions on display on Murphy's and the other actor's faces and that's what is epic about Oppenheimer. Nolan is focusing literally on that with his Imax camera. Murphy's eyes are the constant in this film. Nolan puts incredible attention on his gaze, and how his giant intense blue eyes are photographed. It's incredible. The notion that people talking in a room is not worthy of IMAX attention is folly. It may not be what you expected but that doesnt make it less worthy for IMAX. I think Nolan was really influenced by Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc in his concentrating on the actors faces.

 

[RichMurphy]

1.78:1 the whole way would seem like the lesser choice since it'd require cropping of a high percentage of the movie.

2.20:1 the whole way makes more sense since that's the way it actually ran on many screens.

Although Crawdaddy laughed at my comment in the press release thread, I ordered the DVD (horrors!) because I wanted the same 2.20:1 presentation I saw in 70mm in the theaters. Again, I have a constant image height CinemaScope screen, and I find varying aspect ratios to be annoying.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Although Crawdaddy laughed at my comment in the press release thread, I ordered the DVD (horrors!) because I wanted the same 2.20:1 presentation I saw in 70mm in the theaters. Again, I have a constant image height CinemaScope screen, and I find varying aspect ratios to be annoying.

I'm sorry about that and have removed that laughing emoji.

 

[RichMurphy]

I'm sorry about that and have removed that laughing emoji.

No need to be sorry, but I appreciate that. For that matter, I also appreciate your efforts to keep these threads on topic. It must be like herding cats sometimes.

 

[Worth]

Although Crawdaddy laughed at my comment in the press release thread, I ordered the DVD (horrors!) because I wanted the same 2.20:1 presentation I saw in 70mm in the theaters. Again, I have a constant image height CinemaScope screen, and I find varying aspect ratios to be annoying.

If you have a constant height screen, wouldn't you get the same result with the 4K or blu-ray by just cropping out the IMAX portions?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If I wanted the constant height version I’d probably opt to purchase the 4K streaming version rather than the standard definition DVD but ultimately that’s why it’s nice we have choices

 

[JoshZ]

If you have a constant height screen, wouldn't you get the same result with the 4K or blu-ray by just cropping out the IMAX portions?

That would only be the case if the 2.20:1 theatrical version is known to be a direct center extraction from the IMAX footage. Given Nolan's past history, that isn't typically the case. He adjusts the framing shot-by-shot to get what he considers the best composition for both formats. Some shots may be direct center, but others may be taken from above or below center.

Other filmmakers may do it differently. Just about every Marvel movie that has an alternate IMAX VAR presentation takes the standard 2.40:1 theatrical version 100% from direct center of the frame.

 

[SD_Brian]

Unrelated to this particular film I have a personal preference for 1:85 but I think there’s an interesting scientific reason for why the ratio is pleasing for many to behold no matter how large of a screen you view it on. The position of our eyes on either side of the nose create a natural viewing penumbra with a ratio of around 1:87, so at around 1:85 ratio with a large enough screen we could potentially utilize our entire visual capability.

My personal preference for 1.85 began when multiplexes converted to fixed-width screens, so the once-upon-a-time thrill of seeing the screen open up wide for Cinemascope changed to the screen being unceremoniously masked by black bars at the top and bottom, finally replicating the home viewing "letterbox" experience in the theater.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No need to be sorry, but I appreciate that. For that matter, I also appreciate your efforts to keep these threads on topic. It must be like herding cats sometimes.

Meow, baby!

 

[RichMurphy]

If you have a constant height screen, wouldn't you get the same result with the 4K or blu-ray by just cropping out the IMAX portions?

As pointed out in post #75, there would be no guarantee that the framing would match Nolan's intentions, and quite likely wouldn't. Arbitrary cropping of images has been a sore spot for me since the one-screen-size-fits-all theatrical screens of the 1970s.

If I wanted the constant height version I’d probably opt to purchase the 4K streaming version rather than the standard definition DVD but ultimately that’s why it’s nice we have choices

That was an option I considered, but I have never purchased a film that way, and am not yet ready to take that plunge. (Although my shelving is reaching capacity)

 

[Tino]

That was an option I considered, but I have never purchased a film that way, and am not yet ready to take that plunge. (Although my shelving is reaching capacity)

Why are you not ready? It looks and sounds terrific in 4K on iTunes. I just sampled a bit of it. And it will most likely go on sale for $9.99 before Christmas. Go for it!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Or, best of both worlds, get the 4K disc, which includes a digital copy, and then you’ll have both the IMAX shifting ratio version on disc and the 70mm constant ratio version on streaming, for the same price.