Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corvaxL t1_iy2gq3e wrote

The thing that makes an IMAX format like this impractical for home release is that some scenes of the movie were fitted to a 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is the same as IMAX 70mm film and the purpose-built IMAX theaters designed to show that. The upper and lower ends of the image stretch into your peripheral vision when watching this in the IMAX theater (which the cinematographer must take into account when framing the shot), but would be pillarboxed when watching it on any other display, including a consumer TV. If you tried to show the full IMAX-format image on your TV, the effect just wouldn't work.

They could, however, use the more limited 1.9:1 IMAX format for a home release, which is the aspect ratio used in retrofitted IMAX theaters found in most multiplexes, and is much closer to the aspect ratio of your TV.

24

Comic_Book_Reader t1_iy2lzfa wrote

Nolan's movies and Nope have 1:9:1/1:78:1 on Blu-Ray.

13

ThePreciseClimber t1_iy2wczm wrote

And I assume Hunger Games 2 as well?

7

Radulno t1_iy4u3wu wrote

Many others too like Avatar. The Marvel movies now are IMAX enhanced on Disney+ which includes that.

To be fair, I always preferred the bigger aspect ratio of IMAX (or TV I guess it's close enough), it makes a film bigger (be it on TV or on screen), don't know why it's not more spread out considering it's also how our TV are

1

BootyMcSqueak t1_iy2yt2a wrote

How can you tell if your local theater is true IMAX format and not retrofitted?

2

corvaxL t1_iy3abr3 wrote

True IMAX screens are absolutely massive and like almost like a square when you're standing in front of them. These are 50-60 feet (15-18m) tall, sometimes even more.

The vast majority of true IMAX theaters are found in museums as IMAX were exclusively used in short documentaries from the first film released in 1970, all the way until The Dark Knight became the first narrative film to use the camera for part of the movie in 2008. Because of how unwieldy the camera is and the extreme expense of the film stock it uses, no feature film has ever used it for its entire run time, and it's unlikely that one ever will.

There are, however, a few full size IMAX theaters out there outside of museums. The IMAX theater is Sydney will be the largest of these, and in the US, there's one in New York in a few in California. Wikipedia's list of IMAX venues denotes which theaters are formatted to the 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

5

kjoro OP t1_iy310ae wrote

The 1.9:1 is a happy medium. Just that kind of experience would be great

2

AlanMorlock t1_iy2vvhn wrote

What nice about Dune is that wile creating the Non-imax versions, instead of essentially pan and scanning, cropping out a more rectangular image from the IMAX scenes, they actually digitally added to the sides of the image to create the more rectangular version. Watching the more normal theatrical version, you aren't losing visual information as you normally would.

1

HugoRBMarques t1_iy35s2q wrote

https://youtu.be/yqnyksnpnHI

According to this video, the sourcing of the ultra-wide version from the 4:3 IMAX version was not done with "digitally adding sides to the image".

That process would not make any sense anyway. Why spend time and resources to add CGI to the sides of the screen, if you can just film the shot you want in ultrawide with IMAX cameras and crop out the top and bottom sections you don't want for the theatrical ultra-wide release, release the full picture in IMAX and spend all the CGI budget refining the effects so they look as realistic as possible?

8

cupofteaonme t1_iy39gky wrote

That video only has the shots in it that were made available in a couple of IMAX teasers and a VFX real. People involved in the film have already explained that while most of the IMAX shots were just done by shooting at the 4:3ish ratio, there are also some shots that were extended on the sides for the widescreen version, along with some shots where objects in the frame were moved around digitally to better fit the framing for each format.

1

HugoRBMarques t1_iy3t4qs wrote

That's interesting. It makes sense to move objects around to fit the framing on both formats, and makes me less sad that I'm not getting the most visual information possible.

I mean, I was sad that there were some shots that the 4:3 worked so much better, like the circular rotating ceiling door opening up, or the shot from the balcony above overviewing the spice harvester carriers with the baloons (there's a whole ship missing in ultra-wide) or the shot of Paul being pulled by Gurney into the thopter while the sandworm swallows the harvester in the background.

1

cupofteaonme t1_iy3u7ob wrote

Yeah, the way I tend to think about it, especially in the case of Dune, is that it was specifically design for two aspect ratios (and a third technically in between). So with the scope ratio I’m not actually missing anything per se, I’m just seeing the image Villeneuve intended for the majority of screening venues, including at home. I can be confident that he composed the images to work well in that aspect ratio, and they do.

Meanwhile, the 1.43:1 ratio shots were designed both for that ratio, but also for viewing that ratio on the IMAX-sized screen, and I can respect deciding not to expand it for the home video version.

What’s too bad is that the 1.43:1 version is not made available for us to see at home how those images were composed. I wish we could get that version, even just as an extra. I know there was a Dark Knight trilogy box set that had a special feature with all the IMAX footage full frame, and I’d happily take something like that for movies like Dune, Dunkirk, Interstellar, Tenet, etc.

1

HugoRBMarques t1_iy4kqux wrote

Full agree. It's just another version. Why not let the consumer choose how to watch your media, if you have options available?

I'd also be pretty happy with the 16:9 IMAX version. Same with Blade Runner 2049.

1

AlanMorlock t1_iy3re0h wrote

The Imax versions isn't the wider image. What you describe is indeed the more typical approach but wasn't the approach they used in several shots in Dune. I'll try to find some dirrct comparison and vfx reels but in a presentation I attended with thr layout supervisor, and in other reels I've seen, they explained how with the way certain shots were framed in IMAx, there wasn't a good way to crop it down and so they did indeed commit resources to creating more imagery to create the less square aspect ratio versions.

1

HugoRBMarques t1_iy3s2mt wrote

Please do. I'm interested to hear more. Also, did you work in the production of this film, or in something related to it in any way?

1

AlanMorlock t1_iy4gtm1 wrote

No. I attended an animation conference at Webster University last Spring. One of the the presenters was Kristin Pratt, formerly of DNEG who served as the layout supervisor on Dune.

1

HugoRBMarques t1_iy4l140 wrote

DNEG also appears as a logo on the video I posted. Interesting.

But do you work or are studying filmmaking or animation?

1

AlanMorlock t1_iy4igb1 wrote

https://youtu.be/UARrOsNPviA in this video, around the 47 minute mark they cover their "mega frame" techninique of rendering more of the image to the sides to create the non imax versions of the shot when Villeneuvr wasn't haply with the traditional cropping approach.

1

nokinship t1_iy3q6rs wrote

You act like 1.85 or 2.35 aspect ratio is somehow preferable on a 16:9 screen. I much prefer Imax ratio.

1

moofunk t1_iy46ylo wrote

> If you tried to show the full IMAX-format image on your TV, the effect just wouldn't work.

I've never been to an IMAX theatre, but aren't you simply sitting closer to the screen, relatively to its size, compared to a standard screen?

Wouldn't it work the same by sitting closer to your home screen? I get that you still need a big screen at home, and it should be 4-8k at minimum, but I don't see how the effect couldn't be mimicked on a smaller scale.

1

corvaxL t1_iy4ou8k wrote

Technically, you could just sit really close to the screen, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

For one, the screen you're sitting in front of would have to be massive. A 55" or even 65" screen is unlikely to cut it to get an IMAX-like effect with 1.43:1 content. You have to remember that a good chunk of the left and right sides of the screen are going to be chopped off through pillarboxing when watching IMAX-formatted shots. Mixing in the rest of the movie that isn't in this aspect ratio will be especially jarring; either you switch to letterboxing for the 2.39:1 shots (to the point that the shots that are meant to be smaller actually end up larger) or use a tiny center portion of the screen. Either way, the transitions between these aspect ratios will be way more jarring than on a screen properly fitted for it. Screens in IMAX theaters are large enough that switching between these two wildly different aspect ratios in the middle of a movie doesn't ruin the more traditional widescreen scenes.

You also have to keep in mind that the screen at the IMAX theater isn't perfectly flat. The outer edges on all four sides are curved in a bit to try to keep the distance from your eyes to any point on the screen consistent, to the extent that would be possible in a theater with a wide seating area.

All of this isn't to say you can't have a comparably immersive experience watching movies on your TV by sitting really close to the screen. You just need content that's properly sized for that display. A niche, non-standard format like 1.43:1 IMAX is always going to look best in a purpose-built venue that fits the format. You get the best "big screen effect" by just using as much of whatever display you have as possible.

Also remember that most films these days released in IMAX theaters aren't actually in 1.43:1. Most are in 1.9:1 or even 2.39:1, which don't take advantage of the specialty display and will look perfectly normal on your TV, even for any expanded-ratio shots. As far as I'm aware, only two films released this year had any 1.43:1 footage (Lightyear and Nope), and only two others are known to be planned for next year (Oppenheimer and Dune: Part Two).

3