UHD Custom Cover UPDATE: DUNE: PART ONE:& PART TWO PROBABLY NOT TO HAVE VARIABLE IMAX ASPECT RATIO (2 Viewers)

[JediFonger]

if ur rich you can replicate that at home =P. maybe not 60ft x 80ft... but if you have $ you can get pretty big, those that can fit a 300" diag. can probably handle 14ft x 20ft 1.43, yes it's not 60ft x 80ft... but it's better than tiny 77 or 85" direct views

but even if not, dark knight+dark knight rises saw 1.43 footage come out in the special trilogy SE white boxset, you can back it up and cook your own 1.43, even if it means downrezzing the 2.39 scope footages and then using your projector in 1440x1080 to "simulate" imax.

personally, that's how i enjoyed snydercut justice league which was ALL about the imax ratio the whole dang thing .

even if directors dont prefer it, i like the fact that it is available to buy if you are a fan and if you are crazy enough to try to replicate it.

 

[Wes Candela]

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.

Agreed.
Denis seems to be of the mindset that IMAX is meant for theatrical viewing.
it's what he is stating in the clip above ( all the way up)


but I do say as a photographer, I personally would want people to see my photograph as close to what I shot as possible.
So why not just show it in 16 x 9 format?

you're not giving us the full IMAX, but you are giving us more above and below in terms of the framed image.
maybe he just wants us to go to the movies now

you're not gonna see DUNE part two at home in 235 to 1 aspect ratio and see all of the beauty of the cinematography.

that's kind of sad to me.
on another note, he is bringing people back into the movie theaters as are so many directors with the use of large format, film and IMAX

we just want to see it all

doesn't sound like he's too bothered by it

 

[mi_z]

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.

And yet other releases on disc with the variable aspect ratio look awesome, including Mission Impossible Fallout. And I don't think they are just visual ambiance for Part 1. The two worm scenes were better framed in the with the expanded aspect ratios, with the best in 1.43.

That being said, since Dune 2 is composed with various aspect ratios in mind with no clear winner, I think it isn't as big as a problem. Would prefer the 16:9 version since large parts of the movie allow that framing.

Deakins didn't want Blade Runner 2049 to be composed for IMAX to begin with. 2.4:1 is the fully intended ratio and the IMAX was out of obligation.

Considering Villeneuve thinks part 1 had the IMAX scene fill the screen, I can surmise he isn't against it like Brad Bird was.

 

[JoshZ]

but I do say as a photographer, I personally would want people to see my photograph as close to what I shot as possible.
So why not just show it in 16 x 9 format?

As a photographer, when you take a picture of something, do you step all the way to the back of the room and shoot it from as far away as possible every time? I'd assume not. I expect that you'd want to compose your shots, make some of them close-ups, some medium, etc. And if the framing winds up looking looser than you'd like, you'll crop those photos in software afterwards.

 

[Wes Candela]

As a photographer, when you take a picture of something, do you step all the way to the back of the room and shoot it from as far away as possible every time? I'd assume not. I expect that you'd want to compose your shots, make some of them close-ups, some medium, etc. And if the framing winds up looking looser than you'd like, you'll crop those photos in software afterwards.

Is this a question?

 

[JoshZ]

Is this a question?

My point is that by opening the mattes, you take away all the close-ups and medium shots, and turn everything into wide master shots. That may be acceptable in an IMAX auditorium where the screen is so large it should exceed your field of vision, but it doesn't work on regular screen sizes.

That's why some director's don't like making the IMAX versions of their movies available on home video. Showing everything on the camera sensor does not represent how they intended the frame to be composed.

 

[Wes Candela]

As a photographer, when you take a picture of something, do you step all the way to the back of the room and shoot it from as far away as possible every time? I'd assume not. I expect that you'd want to compose your shots, make some of them close-ups, some medium, etc. And if the framing winds up looking looser than you'd like, you'll crop those photos in software afterwards.

There’s a lot more to taking a photo than shooting and cropping. I don’t like to crop.

I shoot with prime ones is mostly so my work is usually done in Camera meaning I choose the lens based on what I want to capture and then move closer or back away to capture everything I want in the viewfinder

if I want to shoot in a different aspect to ratio, I choose that during shooting

but then I have to consider how much light do I have? How do I keep the ISO as low as possible? How much aperture do I want to use? Do I want to keep one thing in focus or do I want most of the frame to be in focus?

how fast do I need the shutter to be and if I need it to be slow to capture enough light do I have a tripod and if not, where can I put this camera so that it’s stable for a one second exposure?

If you’re asking about DUNE part two
I would need to speak with both Greig Fraser and Denis Villeneuve

From what I can tell, the photography was meticulously framed for each scene and shot

The aspect ratio was chosen for each sequence

Denis has stated that for outside scenes he framed in 2.39 for interior shots, 1.90 for the exterior sequencesbans and 1.43 for specific Epic sequences

but in the viewfinder, there was a constant matte marker for 2.39 because of I think we’ve discussed here, anybody watching this in a non-IMAX format or for home viewing would be seeing the film this way, so most of the action needed to take place in this aspect ratio

So again, I say when I personally take a shot I’d like that shot to be seen as I envisioned it

unfortunately, that can only be done on the computer unless I print my shots

but I personally do not like cropping I think that’s what you were asking,
But I’m a photographer. I’m not a cinematographer or a videographer.

The only point I was making in my opinion was that I would like to see the film as envisioned for imax when release for home media as Zack Snyder‘s Justice league was done

Or, variable aspect ratios like Christopher Nolan doeor, variable aspect ratios like Christopher Nolan does
I would much prefer that to see the full scope of what was shot and the intentions of what should be seen by the Director of photography and the Director

It is why I invested in a laserdisc player when I was 15

even though the movie would be presented smaller on my 25 inch tube television, I would be able to see the movie letterboxed

I could see the full composition of the photography

If I had not invested in a laserdisc player, there’s no way I ever would’ve picked up a camera looking at images that way taught me how to compose photographs

 

[Wes Candela]

My point is that by opening the mattes, you take away all the close-ups and medium shots, and turn everything into wide master shots. That may be acceptable in an IMAX auditorium where the screen is so large it should exceed your field of vision, but it doesn't work on regular screen sizes.

That's why some director's don't like making the IMAX versions of their movies available on home video. Showing everything on the camera sensor does not represent how they intended the frame to be composed.

I understand. I disagree, I see the benefit of allowing us to see the film
as composed.

why watch the film in 2.39 if sequences were composed for 1.90 to show more of the films production design and the vistas.

since the film was mostly framed this way...I think 16.9/1:85 to 1 works perfectly At home and us see the environment as intended except for interior shots.

 

[Wes Candela]

My point is that by opening the mattes, you take away all the close-ups and medium shots, and turn everything into wide master shots. That may be acceptable in an IMAX auditorium where the screen is so large it should exceed your field of vision, but it doesn't work on regular screen sizes.

That's why some director's don't like making the IMAX versions of their movies available on home video. Showing everything on the camera sensor does not represent how they intended the frame to be composed.

And good convo @TonyD

 

[JoshZ]

why watch the film in 2.39 if sequences were composed for 1.90 to show more of the films production design and the vistas.

since the film was mostly framed this way...I think 16.9/1:85 to 1 works perfectly At home and us see the environment as intended except for interior shots.

Consider movies shot on traditional 35mm film with "flat" spherical lenses. Since the 1950s, the standard was to use the entire 1.37:1 film negative during photography but matte the image to 1.85:1 during projection. Those movies were composed for 1.85:1, and the extra picture above and below that was never intended to be seen. In many cases, you might see boom microphones or lighting equipment over the actors' heads if you watched the image fully open-matte.

Just because extra image was captured, doesn't mean the filmmakers ever wanted you to see it.

If you’re asking about DUNE part two
I would need to speak with both Greig Fraser and Denis Villeneuve

From what I can tell, the photography was meticulously framed for each scene and shot

The aspect ratio was chosen for each sequence

Denis has stated that for outside scenes he framed in 2.39 for interior shots, 1.90 for the exterior sequencesbans and 1.43 for specific Epic sequences

but in the viewfinder, there was a constant matte marker for 2.39 because of I think we’ve discussed here, anybody watching this in a non-IMAX format or for home viewing would be seeing the film this way, so most of the action needed to take place in this aspect ratio

So again, I say when I personally take a shot I’d like that shot to be seen as I envisioned it

Different filmmakers have different ways of approaching this. As I said earlier, Christopher Nolan loves his variable aspect ratio. Brad Bird does not.

Some directors (such as Scott Derrickson) are pressured into making an alternate IMAX version of their movie only for commercial reasons because IMAX funds a portion of the budget in exchange for the right to market an IMAX exclusive.

In many cases (including every single Marvel movie with an IMAX open-matte or VAR variant), the director composes primarily for 2.35:1 and then just leaves some extra headroom free over the actors. 2.35:1 is their desired composition, while the IMAX version is a compromise they protect for.

 

[OliverK]

I understand. I disagree, I see the benefit of allowing us to see the film
as composed.

why watch the film in 2.39 if sequences were composed for 1.90 to show more of the films production design and the vistas.

since the film was mostly framed this way...I think 16.9/1:85 to 1 works perfectly At home and us see the environment as intended except for interior shots.

The 1.9 scenes were specifically composed for Imax theaters and that is where we can see them. In my home theater I do not want that and I am happy to get scope.

Personally I would go with a director approved fixed aspect ratio version every time but it is not like I can get them for most of these movies so this is a welcome change. That is until it becomes common that we get discs of both versions which would please everybody and frankly make the most sense as both versions were also available theatrically.

 

[Wes Candela]

@JoshZ

Just because extra image was captured, doesn't mean the filmmakers ever wanted you to see it.

I follow what you are saying
I think there may be some confusion though

I am specifically speaking about footage captured in IMAX aspect ratios by the Director and the Director of photography with the intent of projecting it to the audience.

However, with DUNE, part two and Denis, unlike Christopher Nolan, he does not seem interested in releasing that footage on home media

Whereas Christopher Nolan includes the various aspect ratios

i’m not speaking about movies that were shot in 235 or 239, that are now being projected in 16 x 9 aspect ratio, exposing footage at the top and the bottom that was not intended to be viewed.

denis Shot and composed specific scenes with 1:43 and 1:90 aspect ratios for imax theatrical viewing.
meaning he intended that footage to be seen

he simply does not seem to want it seen or is not interested in displaying on home media

if I liken it to a photograph, it would be like Ansel Adams shooting a large format shot in Yosemite national State Park, in 4 x 3 aspect ratio

then displaying the photograph in the gallery showing and cropping the image to 16 x 9.

We, the viewers, would not be seeing his full vision realized

but I believe this is what Denis wants for a Home viewing

 

[Wes Candela]

The 1.9 scenes were specifically composed for Imax theaters and that is where we can see them. In my home theater I do not want that and I am happy to get scope.

Personally I would go with a director approved fixed aspect ratio version every time but it is not like I can get them for most of these movies so this is a welcome change. That is until it becomes common that we get discs of both versions which would please everybody and frankly make the most sense as both versions were also available theatrically.

totally understand Oliver yes, I personally prefer seeing as close to what was composed and shot as possible.

seems to be a point of contention though not all people are of my opinion.

 

[JoshZ]

I am specifically speaking about footage captured in IMAX aspect ratios by the Director and the Director of photography with the intent of projecting it to the audience.

However, with DUNE, part two and Denis, unlike Christopher Nolan, he does not seem interested in releasing that footage on home media

Whereas Christopher Nolan includes the various aspect ratios

i’m not speaking about movies that were shot in 235 or 239, that are now being projected in 16 x 9 aspect ratio, exposing footage at the top and the bottom that was not intended to be viewed.

denis Shot and composed specific scenes with 1:43 and 1:90 aspect ratios for imax theatrical viewing.
meaning he intended that footage to be seen

he simply does not seem to want it seen or is not interested in displaying on home media

Take a Marvel movie like Avengers: Endgame. That movie played in most theaters as 2.35:1. The movie was composed for 2.35:1. But before production, the IMAX corporation gave the studio a small pile of money and said, "Here, take this. Now give us a version of the movie that we can market as an IMAX exclusive."

The studio said, "Absolutely!"

The studio then told the directors, "This is what you're doing." And the directors, not being idiots, said, "Uh, okay. Sure, whatever." So they shot the movie with special IMAX cameras and framed all the shots with enough empty headroom over the actors that it could play in IMAX theaters open-matte.

Now, does that mean the directors preferred the open-matte version or really intended the audience to see all the empty headroom over the actors? Given that every home video release of the movie* has been 2.35:1, probably not.

*(except Disney+ streaming)

 

[Wes Candela]

Take a Marvel movie like Avengers: Endgame. That movie played in most theaters as 2.35:1. The movie was composed for 2.35:1. But before production, the IMAX corporation gave the studio a small pile of money and said, "Here, take this. Now give us a version of the movie that we can market as an IMAX exclusive."

The studio said, "Absolutely!"

The studio then told the directors, "This is what you're doing." And the directors, not being idiots, said, "Uh, okay. Sure, whatever." So they shot the movie with special IMAX cameras and framed all the shots with enough empty headroom over the actors that it could play in IMAX theaters open-matte.

View attachment 217964

Now, does that mean the directors preferred the open-matte version or really intended the audience to see all the empty headroom over the actors? Given that every home video release of the movie has been 2.35:1, probably not.

Well, that’s my point
First off it’s a preference thing
Second off from what you’re saying, the directors were told by IMAX take this money and make this movie ready for an IMAX movie theater

So it sounds like this aspect ratio is not what the directors intended for the film.

(I know some Marvel movies are playing on this Sony IMAX-enhanced channel...
and they’re being shown in open matte.

It’s on my Sony TV. I’ve never seen the channel anywhere else.)

But in this case, sounds like the director chose 2:35 and IMAX altered the intent.

But with DUNE, Denis wanted to fill the image tall and did

But will not give us any extra footage for the top and the bottom for home media Release (or Warners won't?)

To me, it's just my snobby preference.

 

[YANG]

...That may be acceptable in an IMAX auditorium where the screen is so large it should exceed your field of vision, but it doesn't work on regular screen sizes...

BINGO!
i should had scored a prize for that sentiments i shared in other threads... but u describe it, short and sharp!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

And yet other releases on disc with the variable aspect ratio look awesome, including Mission Impossible Fallout. And I don't think they are just visual ambiance for Part 1. The two worm scenes were better framed in the with the expanded aspect ratios, with the best in 1.43.

That being said, since Dune 2 is composed with various aspect ratios in mind with no clear winner, I think it isn't as big as a problem. Would prefer the 16:9 version since large parts of the movie allow that framing.

Deakins didn't want Blade Runner 2049 to be composed for IMAX to begin with. 2.4:1 is the fully intended ratio and the IMAX was out of obligation.

Considering Villeneuve thinks part 1 had the IMAX scene fill the screen, I can surmise he isn't against it like Brad Bird was.

No idea about BR2049... though I certainly didn't feel like anything substantial was missing from the 2.4:1 4K release, but then again, I've never seen it in IMAX, so...

But yes, I tend to agree (as I mentioned whether here or the other related threads before) that the 1st film definitely made much more/better use of 1.43:1 IMAX than Dune 2 (and also in contrast to the 2.4:1 framing of the rest). OTOH, I really don't feel like I need 1.43:1 at all for Dune 2 though there may be some brief moments that benefit just a (very) little bit, but definitely not much IMHO.

I'd be very happy w/ a constant 1.9:1 (or 1.85:1 or 16x9) version of Dune 2 on disc -- there are a few moments/shots when it looks almost like 2.4:1, but those weren't caused by technical framing instead of just the nature of the moments/shots (usually seen via a character's spectacles of some sort... though there's also at least one moment where the top and bottom looks blocked out by the deep shadows of the spaces in the scene instead)...

_Man_

 

[OliverK]

totally understand Oliver yes, I personally prefer seeing as close to what was composed and shot as possible.

seems to be a point of contention though not all people are of my opinion.

You get the taller pictures / changing aspect ratios much more often than I am getting a constant picture so you are better off than me

The solution really would be to have both versions for every movie that has them. For example Tenet was shot in 65mm 5-perf and Imax but there is a director approved 5-perf version that is nowhere to be seen for home theaters that very often have wider screens. Why should that not be seen in my home theater where I do not happen to have an Imax screen but where I can handle an aspect ratio of 2.2:1 just fine?

Same with Dune: The preferred version of the director is in scope but why can people with a 16:9 screen not choose to watch the version that has been composed for Imax? It is just sad that it always has to be one or the other.

 

[Wes Candela]

You get the taller pictures / changing aspect ratios much more often than I am getting a constant picture so you are better off than me

The solution really would be to have both versions for every movie that has them. For example Tenet was shot in 65mm 5-perf and Imax but there is a director approved 5-perf version that is nowhere to be seen for home theaters that very often have wider screens. Why should that not be seen in my home theater where I do not happen to have an Imax screen but where I can handle an aspect ratio of 2.2:1 just fine?

Same with Dune: The preferred version of the director is in scope but why can people with a 16:9 screen not choose to watch the version that has been composed for Imax? It is just sad that it always has to be one or the other.

Oh I feel the same way @OliverK , well said.(written)
it is sad, right?
it's a letdown that the versions aren't available.
personally, I didn't mind watching Zack Snyder's Justice League in IMAX aspect ratio. And that was pretty radical of him to release it only in IMAX 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
Both versions of the film would be ideal for those of us that wpuld like to have the option to see, Say Dune Part Two, in various aspect ratios and a standard scope aspect ratio.
maybe just a limited edition of 4K's that offer one or the other.

it's funny that here we are and i'm asking to see movies at home in a taller format as shown in theaters
while 35 years ago I was complainkng that films weren't being released on VHS in letterboxed format to allow us to see the films
as they were seen in theaters, wider...instead of pan and scan (awful)

"You can't always get what you want"

 

[JoshZ]

Same with Dune: The preferred version of the director is in scope but why can people with a 16:9 screen not choose to watch the version that has been composed for Imax? It is just sad that it always has to be one or the other.

Well, you didn't make the movie and he did.

I haven't seen Dune 2 yet, but as far as Part 1 goes, I would have preferred that it not be so boring and maybe star someone less sullen and mopey than Timmy Chalamet. But I didn't make the movie, so I just have to accept that I don't get a say in those decisions.