UHD Custom Cover UPDATE: DUNE: PART ONE:& PART TWO PROBABLY NOT TO HAVE VARIABLE IMAX ASPECT RATIO (1 Viewer)

[Wes Candela]

Dennis Villeneuve saying he is under impression there is already a version of DUNE: PART ONE in circulation with IMAX and 16:9 & 2:35 aspect ratio's.

UPDATE: NOT LIKELY FOR EITHER PART ONE OR PART TWO
​

Thanks for the info @Joe Wong , @Josh Steinberg, @Todd Erwin & @JoshZ

​

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[Todd Erwin]

Not likely, since the first film was 2.39:1 for its entirety when it was released on disc and digital.

 

[Joe Wong]

This post on Reddit suggests it won't have expanded IMAX ratio scenes.



Unfortunate...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Villanueve has chosen not to include the IMAX ratio presentation for any of his prior films that utilized that format. I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that will change.

 

[JoshZ]

Villeneuve seems rather confused in that interview about the fact that we don't already have a Variable Aspect Ratio version on home video. Then he suggests that it would somehow be IMAX's responsibility to make that happen, which is not the case at all.

There have been no announcements for a remastered reissue, and despite his equivocating at the end there about "you're supposed to have a version that exists right now for Part One," I'm pretty sure it was Villeneuve himself who made the call to not release that version on home video. As he tries to explain in the middle of that clip, the IMAX experience cannot be replicated in the home.

 

[Wes Candela]

Not likely, since the first film was 2.39:1 for its entirety when it was released on disc and digital.

Maybe
maybe not
but…this was during an interview for Dune Part Two.
so…
maybe.

 

[Wes Candela]

Not likely, since the first film was 2.39:1 for its entirety when it was released on disc and digital.

Thanks.
disappointed.

 

[Wes Candela]

This post on Reddit suggests it won't have expanded IMAX ratio scenes.



Unfortunate...

ugh. Thanks brother.

 

[Wes Candela]

Villanueve has chosen not to include the IMAX ratio presentation for any of his prior films that utilized that format. I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that will change.

Thanks Josh. Argh

 

[Wes Candela]

Villeneuve seems rather confused in that interview about the fact that we don't already have a Variable Aspect Ratio version on home video. Then he suggests that it would somehow be IMAX's responsibility to make that happen, which is not the case at all.

There have been no announcements for a remastered reissue, and despite his equivocating at the end there about "you're supposed to have a version that exists right now for Part One," I'm pretty sure it was Villeneuve himself who made the call to not release that version on home video. As he tries to explain in the middle of that clip, the IMAX experience cannot be replicated in the home.

Thanks for the updates.
unreal.

 

[JoshZ]

Thanks for the updates.
unreal.

Consider what you really get in an open-matte transfer - mostly a bunch of empty headroom above the actors. In an IMAX theater, the screen is meant to be so large that it exceeds your field of vision. You shouldn't be able to see all the way to the top of the frame without craning your neck. The extra picture information is just visual ambience.

That effect cannot be replicated in the home. On your home screen, you'll always be able to see every inch of the frame, and it will look weird to have the actors positioned low in the middle of the screen with too much headroom over them.

Some directors feel that the IMAX versions of their movies are intended only for IMAX theaters. For home viewing, they prefer that audiences watch the widescreen framing they composed the film for. As one example, Brad Bird was very adamant about this when his Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was released on Blu-ray. He said he found the variable aspect ratio too distracting on smaller screen sizes, even regular non-IMAX theatrical screens. The VAR version only worked in IMAX theaters and nowhere else.

Villeneuve also had Blade Runner 2049 transferred as 2.40:1 for Blu-ray and 4K even though an open-matte version had played in IMAX, so I suspect he may have similar feelings but struggled to articulate them in that interview.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I'd agree Dune 2 probably wouldn't benefit meaningfully from a VAR release for home video... but Dune 1 might (depending) IMHO -- there were definitely some shots clearly composed (much) better for 1.43:1, not just environmental "headroom", but not sure how they would actually translate to 1.78:1 though.

Personally, I also prefer 1.9:1 slightly over scope for Dune 2 -- for instance, there were some shots where people's feet were cut off in scope that detracted... though scope does often look slightly better when such did not occur.

It's too bad we can't actually replicate 1.43:1 AR expansion at home...

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Maybe ideally, they would just do periodic IMAX re-release runs of these like they do for Nolan's films. Then, we can just go see it in full IMAX glory once in a good while to go along w/ what we can do at home, heh...

In truth, it's not just the IMAX visuals that would benefit, but also the audio (vs at home for many of us). The soundtracks for many of these are so loud/powerful afterall... and I certainly can't let them blast w/out my neighbors complaining most times, LOL...

_Man_

 

[Joe Wong]

Consider what you really get in an open-matte transfer - mostly a bunch of empty headroom above the actors. In an IMAX theater, the screen is meant to be so large that it exceeds your field of vision. You shouldn't be able to see all the way to the top of the frame without craning your neck. The extra picture information is just visual ambience.

That effect cannot be replicated in the home. On your home screen, you'll always be able to see every inch of the frame, and it will look weird to have the actors positioned low in the middle of the screen with too much headroom over them.

Some directors feel that the IMAX versions of their movies are intended only for IMAX theaters. For home viewing, they prefer that audiences watch the widescreen framing they composed the film for. As one example, Brad Bird was very adamant about this when his Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was released on Blu-ray. He said he found the variable aspect ratio too distracting on smaller screen sizes, even regular non-IMAX theatrical screens. The VAR version only worked in IMAX theaters and nowhere else.

Villeneuve also had Blade Runner 2049 transferred as 2.40:1 for Blu-ray and 4K even though an open-matte version had played in IMAX, so I suspect he may have similar feelings but struggled to articulate them in that interview.

I agree with the majority of your post. I have stated before that an IMAX 1.43:1 screening is pretty much impossible to replicate at home. But if the home video version can expand to 1.78:1, you'd get some sense of what the 1.43:1 scenes are like (but still not the same as seeing the scenes on a 80 x 60 ft screen!). Additionally, if the original was 15/70mm film, you get an amazingly crisp and detailed 1.78:1 transfer (see the Nolan films with 1.78:1 scenes on blu-ray/UHD). Some folks (on an IMAX forum) have said that IMAX 15/70mm film has a resolution approximating 18K!

With respect to the paragraph in your post that I have made bold, I would respectfully disagree. If opening up to 1.43:1 is just mostly revealing extra empty space, then I'm on board with what you're saying, since the director's original intention was on the 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 section of the frame.

However, if you look at the clip @Wes Candela posted in the main Dune Part 2 movie thread (page 29, post 572, or click link below)

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Villeneuve has said that Messiah Is being written right now. That doesn't mean there is an official greenlight for production. They also waited until a few days after Part One opened to make the greenlight of Part Two official. But I think everybody involved intends to do Messiah unless Part...

www.hometheaterforum.com

which compares the IMAX 1.43:1 vs non-1.43:1 scenes in Dune Part 1, you can see the added sense of scale and completeness of composition that a 1.43:1 frame allows, especially for those subjects/objects which are "cut off" in the non-1.43:1 scenes. If a director like Villeneuve/Nolan intentionally frames certain scenes for 1.43:1, then that's what I want to see/experience.

 

[Wes Candela]

I'd agree Dune 2 probably wouldn't benefit meaningfully from a VAR release for home video... but Dune 1 might (depending) IMHO -- there were definitely some shots clearly composed (much) better for 1.43:1, not just environmental "headroom", but not sure how they would actually translate to 1.78:1 though.

Personally, I also prefer 1.9:1 slightly over scope for Dune 2 -- for instance, there were some shots where people's feet were cut off in scope that detracted... though scope does often look slightly better when such did not occur.

It's too bad we can't actually replicate 1.43:1 AR expansion at home...

_Man_

DUNE part two was shot entirely in 1:9 or 1:43
I would say, he framed the film with a taller aspect ratio in mind the entire time
I don’t find variable aspect, ratios, distracting, I enjoy them
We cannot replicate IMAX at home for those of us that want to see the footage that was meant to be seen above and below
This is sad to learn

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

DUNE part two was shot entirely in 1:9 or 1:43
I would say, he framed the film with a taller aspect ratio in mind the entire time
I don’t find variable aspect, ratios, distracting, I enjoy them
We cannot replicate IMAX at home for those of us that want to see the footage that was meant to be seen above and below
This is sad to learn

I found Dune 2 looked more like it was composed primarily for 1.9:1 more or less the entire time w/ (mostly) adequate protection for both scope and 1.43:1 whereas Dune 1 was clearly very often composed optimally for 1.43:1 (and sometimes used vertical panning to compensate in scope) -- the video comparison you provided earlier in the other thread doesn't even show some of the clearer, most negatively impacted examples for me w/ the scope presentation of Dune 1.

I'd definitely very gladly go see Dune 1 at the Lincoln Square IMAX again whenever they might do another re-release. I was largely satisfied w/ Dune 2 in digital IMAX 1.9:1 and Dolby Cinema (scope)... by just sitting close enough to yield nearly as large viewing angle as at Lincoln Square IMAX... except the digital IMAX (in 2K?) was definitely noticeably inferior in PQ at that distance and, yeah, the Dolby 4K's PQ still wasn't quite as good (as 15/70mm IMAX) outside of somewhat greater DR/contrast -- the 15/70mm IMAX presentation does seem to degrade a good deal though when far enough off the prime/sweetspot section of seating (as I found in my most recent viewing)...

_Man_

 

[YANG]

... ...Some directors feel that the IMAX versions of their movies are intended only for IMAX theaters. For home viewing, they prefer that audiences watch the widescreen framing they composed the film for. As one example, Brad Bird was very adamant about this when his Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was released on Blu-ray. He said he found the variable aspect ratio too distracting on smaller screen sizes, even regular non-IMAX theatrical screens. The VAR version only worked in IMAX theaters and nowhere else.

Villeneuve also had Blade Runner 2049 transferred as 2.40:1 for Blu-ray and 4K even though an open-matte version had played in IMAX, so I suspect he may have similar feelings but struggled to articulate them in that interview.

the crucial part that some other directors like McQuarrie and Nolan and Peele don't bother when their works were in plan to be release in home media.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I generally find shifting aspect ratios to be pretty distracting myself, even on an IMAX screen. But there is something to be said for the picture filling your entire field of view, so going from 1.90 to 1.43 on a "classic" IMAX screen that's like 4 or 5 stories tall does make a certain kind of sense. And of course, there's no way to replicate that on a home screen unless you pillarbox the 1.43 and then windowbox the 1.90 for the whole movie, so I'm fine with the consistent 2.39 for Dune 2 (though the consistent 1.90 would also be acceptable). As a side note, I actually appreciate Christopher Nolan's practice of releasing both the variable and consistent ratio versions of his films in different home formats, so at least they're both available in some form.

But if it were only about aspect ratio numbers, then there would really be no reason to create a scope version at all, as the 1.90 version would fit very comfortably within the standard flat 1.85 DCP container (such as with THE SUICIDE SQUAD and THE FLASH), so at some point it can't help feeling like a gimmick.

 

[TravisR]

Consider what you really get in an open-matte transfer - mostly a bunch of empty headroom above the actors. In an IMAX theater, the screen is meant to be so large that it exceeds your field of vision. You shouldn't be able to see all the way to the top of the frame without craning your neck. The extra picture information is just visual ambience.

It'd be nice if the IMAX version of every movie was included on home video but you hit on why that it never really bothers me when it's not. I want it more as a way to scratch my completist itch than wanting to try (and fail) to recreate the IMAX experience at home.

 

[JoshZ]

the crucial part that some other directors like McQuarrie and Nolan and Peele don't bother when their works were in plan to be release in home media.

I did say some directors.

Obviously, Christopher Nolan loves his Variable Aspect Ratio. There's also Michael Bay, whose last Transformers movie changes aspect ratio approximately every 1.3 seconds. Guys like them think the VAR format works fine on home video.

However, other directors such as Brad Bird disagree. Scott Derrickson was also really pissed off when he learned that Disney+ is streaming his Doctor Strange in VAR format without his permission. He sides with Brad Bird that he only intended that version for IMAX theaters, not home video.

Given that Denis Villeneuve has had two movies (Blade Runner 2049 and Dune Part One) released exclusively in 2.40:1 on home video despite playing open-matte or VAR in IMAX theaters, I'm inclined to suspect he's in the latter camp.