Pre-Order PHE Press Release: Top Gun Maverick (4k UHD) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[YANG]

I'm sure the shifting AR is the choice of the director and, if so, is how he/she wants the film to be presented. Why make such a big deal out of it?

if it was really the Director’s intent, he could have easily opted for all consistent WS1.90:1 aspect ratio for the whole film making process for this sequel. this would easily give a consistent picture height presentation when IMAX photographed parts could blend in easily to the whole film. why bother to use WS2.39:1 photography in the process?

i dont mind other folks calling me odd names for my stand, even when my local hometheater hobbyist folks would refer me as a CCTV- Cinematic Conservative and Tradditional Viewer.

my belief stays. my EVE, Expansive Viewing Experience will always be Horizontal, not Vertical.

 

[Jake Lipson]

if it was really the Director’s intent, he could have easily opted for all consistent WS1.90:1 aspect ratio for the whole film making process for this sequel. this would easily give a consistent picture height presentation when IMAX photographed parts could blend in easily to the whole film. why bother to use WS2.39:1 photography in the process?

Because the contract for IMAX to provide the cameras guarantees them an exclusive version of the film to run on their screens. IMAX wants to be able to promote the expanded aspect ratio as an incentive for people to come see the film in their theaters instead of other theaters. They believe this increases their box office. Films shot with IMAX cameras often get longer runs in IMAX than other films. They don't want you to be able to see the IMAX framing in other theaters. They want to say, "Come to us and see the expanded picture exclusively here."

For example, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 did not screen in IMAX in November 2014. The other Hunger Games films had done well, but IMAX had a deal with Paramount to screen Interstellar for several weeks because Christopher Nolan shot parts of that film with IMAX cameras. Therefore, IMAX could not take Mockingjay Part 1 because it opened something like two weeks or so after Interstellar and Paramount was entitled to keep the film on those screens longer. I saw Interstellar in IMAX in late December 2014 after it opened the first week of November, so I think they had the IMAX screens for a couple of months.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

if it was really the Director’s intent, he could have easily opted for all consistent WS1.90:1 aspect ratio for the whole film making process for this sequel. this would easily give a consistent picture height presentation when IMAX photographed parts could blend in easily to the whole film. why bother to use WS2.39:1 photography in the process?

Pretty clearly, the key filmmakers' intent/view is for shifting AR, not fixed AR whether 1.9:1 or 2.4:1, at least when available... or otherwise, they would've done what you wanted instead.

Whether you like what they intended is of course another story -- and of course, I'm not suggesting you have to like it... as we've all probably had some filmmaker choices we don't like and feel would be better done differently (or in some cases, films not made at all, LOL)...

_Man_

 

[Jake Lipson]

I saw Maverick in theaters twice in scope. I did not attend an IMAX screening. So for me, the scope version is the version that reflects what I saw in the theater. If that version was being made available on Blu-ray, I would get that. As I said, my solution would be to include both versions on the disc release.

But I'm still going to get the Blu-ray as is with the IMAX framing. I love the movie and I want to watch it. Presenting it in the shifting format is a legitimate director-approved aspect ratio, and it isn't likely to get another release.

If you like the movie, skipping the Blu-ray because it is being presented how the director wants it to be presented seems like cutting off your hand to spite your face.

Not having the film in my collection would bother me more than the shifting aspect ratio will.

 

[YANG]

Because the contract for IMAX to provide the cameras guarantees them an exclusive version of the film to run on their screens. IMAX wants to be able to promote the expanded aspect ratio as an incentive for people to come see the film in their theaters instead of other theaters. They believe this increases their box office. Films shot with IMAX cameras often get longer runs in IMAX than other films. They don't want you to be able to see the IMAX framing in other theaters. They want to say, "Come to us and see the expanded picture exclusively here."... ... ...

as much as i can understand that the IMAX “terms and conditions” that secures their stand in the big consumer market, and making them “recognizable” as exclusive niche experience place where a cinema goer can pay to enjoy... Home-end Cinematic setup produces a much different result that turns off some... the sudden collapse from a “full big” screen to a letterbox focus window? nah... not for me.

 

[YANG]

'Avengers: Endgame' 4K Blu-ray Set To Frustrate AV Fans

Like its predecessor, Endgame misses out on a couple of key picture quality features

www.forbes.com

Some viewers feel distracted when films change aspect ratios to signify a switch to IMAX resources....

yeah... I'm one such individual.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Because the contract for IMAX to provide the cameras guarantees them an exclusive version of the film to run on their screens. IMAX wants to be able to promote the expanded aspect ratio as an incentive for people to come see the film in their theaters instead of other theaters. They believe this increases their box office. Films shot with IMAX cameras often get longer runs in IMAX than other films. They don't want you to be able to see the IMAX framing in other theaters. They want to say, "Come to us and see the expanded picture exclusively here."

For example, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 did not screen in IMAX in November 2014. The other Hunger Games films had done well, but IMAX had a deal with Paramount to screen Interstellar for several weeks because Christopher Nolan shot parts of that film with IMAX cameras. Therefore, IMAX could not take Mockingjay Part 1 because it opened something like two weeks or so after Interstellar and Paramount was entitled to keep the film on those screens longer. I saw Interstellar in IMAX in late December 2014 after it opened the first week of November, so I think they had the IMAX screens for a couple of months.

That doesn't really explain the shifting AR choice though. IF shifting AR was not actually desired/intended, they could've gone entirely 1.9:1 -- that was part of Yang's point. And if IMAX wants an exclusive, they could've still offered the same fixed 2.4:1 for all other screens.

Personally, I don't really care that much for the 1.9:1 AR for IMAX, especially done the way many such movies seem to be (like many Marvel flicks seem done as complete afterthought for Disney+) -- that AR along w/ the associated tech seem born of serious compromises largely for commercial reasons, not so much artistic nor even (higher) technical quality, but almost the opposite. For IMAX, give me the original ~1.43:1 AR *and* resolution (or at least something much closer to that), but yeah, unfortunately, that AR wouldn't be practical for at-home presentation (or would likely completely defeat the immersion intention).

Yang's beef isn't w/out legitimacy. He finds the shifting AR a distraction -- I don't know what FOV his setup yields, but that may be a (very) significant factor. Many of us do not (or at least not enough so) -- FWIW, the FOV on my setup is over 45 degrees, and honestly, for such IMAX shifting AR, I would certainly like bigger FOV than that, but my current space doesn't really allow (even though my PJ could actually do larger).

@YANG, as someone already suggested, maybe you could find a way to reframe the image to your liking (at least for most cases), if shifting AR bothers you enough. IF it bothered me that much, that's what I'd probably do. Fortunately, it doesn't bother me (at least on my setup) -- and I would much rather stick w/ the filmmakers' intents.

_Man_

 

[Jake Lipson]

Home-end Cinematic setup produces a much different result that turns off some... the sudden collapse from a “full big” screen to a letterbox focus window?

I am not arguing that point. Like I said, I think the solution is to include both formats.

But what we are talking about here is filmmaker intent. This is the most successful movie in Paramount's history. There is no way that they would release it without consulting the director. They are right to release what Kosinski wants for the film that he made.

That doesn't mean you have to buy it. But If you like the movie enough to want to buy it, you are only hurting yourself by not doing so. Paramount is going to make money hand over fist with this disc. They won't miss the money you withhold from them, but you will miss out on the opportunity to own the film. Because we know that the streaming version uses the shifting aspect ratio, and the disc is apparently using the shifting aspect ratio, there may not be a way for you to view the film at home without this. Are you okay with never seeing the film again?

It is entirely your decision what to do with your money. If you want to boycott this release, that is your prerogative. If both formats were available, I would choose to watch the scope version. I find shifting aspect ratios distracting as well. So I'm not unsympathetic to your case. But I love the movie and I want to own the Blu-ray. So of course I'm going to get it.

 

[YANG]

@YANG, as someone already suggested, maybe you could find a way to reframe the image to your liking (at least for most cases), if shifting AR bothers you enough. IF it bothered me that much, that's what I'd probably do. Fortunately, it doesn't bother me (at least on my setup) -- and I would much rather stick w/ the filmmakers' intents.

_Man_

my order of the 75inch mega screen TV(considering my new apartment size limitation) comes with a feature to set the TV as 21:9 device. i guess I'll test it out with the only 2 mixed ratio discs, Dunkirk and MI:6 DVD to determine if i can accept mixed ratio releases... anyway this mixed ratio shifting still gives me itches.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I think the solution is to include both formats.

<snipped>

If both formats were available, I would choose to watch the scope version. I find shifting aspect ratios distracting as well. So I'm not unsympathetic to your case. But I love the movie and I want to own the Blu-ray. So of course I'm going to get it.

I suspect if there's enough demand for it, they could likely provide both options on the same disc merely w/ some authoring/mastering "trickery"... at least in most cases where the 2.4:1 frame is fixed (likely dead center) inside the taller AR.

Something like that was tried briefly at one point back during the earlier(?) DVD days when some studios/producers were still trying to cater to viewers who preferred open matte over letterboxed on their (still mainstream majority) 4x3 TVs. I recall at least a few DVDs (by Anchor Bay?) were authored/mastered to offer optional masking of the otherwise open matte image -- I don't believe they used any branching to do it nor did they put 2 separate transfers on the disc.

I imagine they could probably do similarly for this issue, if there's enough demand -- or they could simply do seamless branching if the IMAX sequences don't total too many minutes (and require too much extra space). That's probably much more likely/feasible than adding a 2nd disc. OR maybe they could just offer the fixed 2.4:1 version as a digital/streaming extra as a compromise (that might be less costly to them)? Disney sorta does the opposite for Marvel flicks w/ this latter approach by offering the opened up "IMAX" version on Disney+ instead.

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

my order of the 75inch mega screen TV(considering my new apartment size limitation) comes with a feature to set the TV as 21:9 device. i guess I'll test it out with the only 2 mixed ratio discs, Dunkirk and MI:6 DVD to determine if i can accept mixed ratio releases... anyway this mixed ratio shifting still gives me itches.

Yeah, not sure how I'd feel about the shifting AR now on a <=75" display from normal viewing distances. I've been using a PJ for a fairly long time now and never wanna go back to smaller than 100" from say 10ft away even for fixed 1.85:1 content. I've settled on 120" from 10-10.5ft these days, but had planned on 135" at one point. Even when I watch something on my PC, my 27" QHD monitor actually yields a FOV that's pretty close to my current FP setup.

Anyway, hope your new TV works out great for you, including in this respect...

_Man_

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Pretty clearly, the key filmmakers' intent/view is for shifting AR, not fixed AR whether 1.9:1 or 2.4:1, at least when available... or otherwise, they would've done what you wanted instead.

Precisely - at least for digital IMAX.

Filmmakers have been reluctant to shoot full features entirely 65mm IMAX due to the technical constraints of the system - loud camera, bulky camera, etc.

But AFAIK, digital IMAX comes with none of those issues, and filmmakers have shot movies entirely - or close to it - in that format.

So if they choose different ARs for digital IMAX, that's almost certainly by design.

They likely want those 1.90:1 scenes to "pop" and differentiate from the rest.

 

[YANG]

Precisely - at least for digital IMAX.

Filmmakers have been reluctant to shoot full features entirely 65mm IMAX due to the technical constraints of the system - loud camera, bulky camera, etc... ... ... ...They likely want those 1.90:1 scenes to "pop" and differentiate from the rest.

from WS2.4 TO WS1.9 TO WS2.4 Then WS1.9 And back again in a single full duration running time of the whole movie? that's a mega ride more eye popping than a roller coaster ride... to the eyes!

to avoid visual sickness to their consumers, and beating the complexities of blending, shouldn't the filmakers should had considered WS1.85 to the rest of the content?

the inconsistencies could be barely noticeable to most eyes...

 

[JoshZ]

A few points here:

There is no 1.43:1 version of Top Gun: Maverick. The movie was shot with IMAX digital cameras, which have a native ratio of 1.89:1. It would have been very impractical to shoot with bulky IMAX 15/70 film cameras in the cramped confines of the jet cockpits (though Christopher Nolan seemed to manage it with Dunkirk, so who knows?).

Given that Joseph Kosinski also employed a Variable Aspect Ratio format for Tron: Legacy, it appears that he is a fan of that format. Maverick being presented as VAR was very likely his choice. HOWEVER, alternate IMAX aspect ratios are not always a director choice. In many cases, the IMAX Corporation mandates the creation of an exclusive version of the movie in exchange for funding and equipment they provide to the production. We've seen cases before where the filmmakers have explicitly instructed that home video copies of their movies not use the VAR or open-matte versions that played in IMAX (e.g. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Blade Runner 2049).

Home theater projector users can restore the 2.35:1 CIH version of the movie by adding electronic blanking to the top and bottom of the frame (assuming the projector model offers that feature). That's how I choose to watch movies like this on my 2.35:1 CIH screen.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

from WS2.4 TO WS1.9 TO WS2.4 Then WS1.9 And back again in a single full duration running time of the whole movie? that's a mega ride more eye popping than a roller coaster ride... to the eyes!

to avoid visual sickness to their consumers, and beating the complexities of blending, shouldn't the filmakers should had considered WS1.85 to the rest of the content?

the inconsistencies could be barely noticeable to most eyes...

You seem to expand YOUR issues with changing ARs with the belief that EVERYONE has issues with changing ARs.

"Visual sickness"? Have there been actual reports of "sickness" due to changing ARs?

People get motion sick from shakycam but I've never heard of that issue with changing ARs.

We get it: you don't like changing ARs.

But clearly lots of people are fine with them. "Maverick" is still on IMAX screens, so obviously most viewers are fine with the shifts!

 

[YANG]

...We get it: you don't like changing ARs.

But clearly lots of people are fine with them. "Maverick" is still on IMAX screens, so obviously most viewers are fine with the shifts!

It's Switching/Shifting Aspect Ratios, aka SARs, that heightens and lowers picture heights in a presentation process in a big-eye-popping inconsistent run.
Not Changing, aka CARs, where one is opened to accept a original theatrical screened film to be cropped, either on left and right or top or bottom to heighten the “sense” of the film to what the original film to be related to the genre.

using back the homevideo release of TOPGUN way back to laserdisc time. the one and only release i encountered and owned till today was the “Remastered Edition” of the movie with DD5.1 and surprisingly... WS1.90:1 “IMAX-ish” Aspect Ratio! ...although the DVD release some years later trim it further to the “correct” WS2.35:1 and brought over to Bluray...

 

[Wayne_j]

If watching on a flat screen you could put cardboard strips on the top and bottom of the screen where the 2.4 aspect ratio would be and then you wouldn't have to see any of the remaining picture information.

 

[YANG]

and... i’ve forgotten to add... as your last line points out, folks are still patronizing the IMAX screen Cinemas to catch up on Maverick. what's the ticket price now after months of screening? how many theatrical screens are still screening Maverick in WS2.39:1 and what's the patron numbers to those? especially when the Maverick is now available thru streaming platforms?

look... i cant stop anybody from going to the IMAX screen cinema for the IMAX experience they initially paid for.

but when we are back to home, we dont get the big picture from the cinematic presentation even though it was presented in the wider scope ratio of WS2.35:1.

 

[YANG]

If watching on a flat screen you could put cardboard strips on the top and bottom of the screen where the 2.4 aspect ratio would be and then you wouldn't have to see any of the remaining picture information.

that was... the original trick employed by hobbyist when the first few SARs flicks was released to homevideo formats. however till today, do they still do that? effectiveness?
i don't know.

lets see how my new TV performs when i engage its 21:9 device mode.

 

[Tino]

i dont mind other folks calling me odd names for my stand,

Who has called you odd names? No one here has.