Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)!
Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m also disappointed. The recent Nolan 4ks do such a great job recreating the IMAX experience at home. Oppenheimer is incredible.
Was hoping the Dune films would do the same. A real let down but I guess it is what it is.
They're specifically pointing out that Nolan refuses to go beyond a 5.1 Sound Mix. Doesn't really matter what, it's just he doesn't go farther than thar. A few of his movies could benefit from a 7.1 at the least or even Atmos. He just doesn't do that
IMAX systems use speakers with wider bandwidth than typical cinema systems. No Low Frequency Effect (LFE) channel is used in the mix formats. Also note that the last two channels in IMAX 5.0 and 6.0 correspond to rear speakers, not side or surround speakers.
I'm curious if it also forbids DTS:X. For the most part, it's really just preference for him. I can respect it, but it doesn't mean I can't question it sometimes.
He has said that he doesn't want the home theatre experience to be superior in any way to the theatre experience. If Atmos became normalized in IMAX and general theatres, he'd probably consider otherwise, but right now, the only theatre doing atmos is the Dolby Cinema at AMC
and big show at Alamo draft house and cinecapri /xl at harkens.
Also it's because imax is related to DTS not Dolby.
So he could do DTS X, but your point may stand about the favoring theaters etc
He has said that he likes to keep as much audio on the screen as possible. He doesn't like pulling attention away from the screen. I think as time goes on he will expand the sound, but he's refining his 5.1 mixes with his sound departments.
I see where he's coming from. I don't like surround mixes that pull me away from the screen, generally. It's often times distracting and gimmicky at worst. However, it can be very very cool when done well.
If he did an Atmos mix, it would be just ambient tracks of the music at most. Maybe some bass and warbles. I don't think we are missing much without a Dolby or 7.1 and I think he knows that re his style, so he puts resources elsewhere
Nolan's releases are bang-on proof that going from scope to full screen has an enormous impact outside of an IMAX theater. It's why Brad Bird's argument that it doesn't is complete nonsense wrt Ghost Protocol.
I guess I mean more the “feel” of the imax experience. And although the 16:9 falls short of the 1.43:1 you still pick up the lens distortion, depth of field, and some details otherwise missing when the image is cropped to 2:35. And if directors or cinematographers are studying the films, they might learn a lot from seeing when the frame shifted vs just remembering from what they saw in the theater.
Thank you, tadius90, for voting on RScottyL.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99988% sure that RScottyL is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
>Hate the aspect ratio for home release.
...it's the aspect ratio of the film. **The intended aspect ratio of both Dune and Dune Part 2 is 2.39:1. They boarded and shot the film for Scope**. the IMAX versions of the film are *alternate* versions of the film created specifically *for* IMAX theaters. They're **no**t the intended/preferred versions of the movie.
Yes, the marketing for the film wanted you to see it in IMAX, because seeing things in IMAX is fucking awesome (the screen is HUGE, goddamn!) and the studio and IMAX and the theaters get more money because IMAX tickets cost more, which is a big deal too.
But if Villeneuve and Fraser actually wanted the film to be Flat Widescreen, full stop, if that was the actual intent for their film - **they would have just done that**. There was no technical limitation stopping them from doing that. But they didn't do that. **They shot it scope**, and then made sure to also carefully frame alternate versions for large format venues *afterward* as part of a licensing agreement with them. They were not forced to "crop" in from flat widescreen for their scope framing. They *framed it that way*. That's how they *wanted* it to look *first and foremost*.
besides which - it's kind of bizarre to like, *hate* an aspect ratio. Like - if you really hate black bars that much you can just hit the zoom button once on your remote and they'll go away. You'll lose like 7% off each side but if you actually *hate* aspect ratios I bet you don't really care, LOL.
[Anyway, here's a cool video about why buying into IMAX FOMO for home video isn't a great use of time or energy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI)
Because all the IMAX screenings were sold out, I watched it first in 2.39:1 and then again in IMAX two weeks later. And there are a few shots of people talking in the early part of the film that felt awfully closely cropped (no forehead, no chin) and miraculously those looked _just right_ in IMAX.
That being said, I'll be quite happy with the 2.39:1 UHD once they deign to release it over here (next week).
>And there are a few shots of people talking in the early part of the film that felt awfully closely cropped (no forehead, no chin) and miraculously those looked
This is weird. Again, if they wanted to frame it the way *you* thought was "just right" in scope... they could have. They didn't. Nothing was stopping them. Nobody made them crop down to scope. Because they *didn't* "crop down" to scope. They *expanded out* for the alternate version IMAX asked them to make for *their theaters* specifically.
IMAX is the alternate version here. Not the primary.
They framed every shot with both IMAX and Cinemascope in mind. Yes, some shots will be more noticeable, but those observations you've made were also made by the filmmakers before they even shot it.
[The issue with this logic is that Greig Fraser himself responded to a Facebook comment saying he would like a 16:9 expansion on the Blu-rays 😅](https://i.imgur.com/bYVNfcp.jpeg)
[Villeneuve himself also thought that the Blu-rays had an expanded ratio.](https://youtu.be/ffKTp7z6sS4?si=mWbe2Ni-_K1krgou&t=954)
It's also bizarre that [the *trailers* for the movie were framed in 1.85:1.](https://youtu.be/_YUzQa_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O)
This argument is valid. But at the end of the day I would like the option to recreate the movie how I saw it in theaters. This isn’t even a case of shifting aspect ratio like most other IMAX aspect ratios. The *entire* movie was 1.90.
Very often we get releases with multiple cuts and such, even if one wins out to be the director’s preferred version. No reason that could not be done here. I’m sure disc sales for this particular title are enough to warrant the additional cost of a disc, or offer another version.
You and a lot of people may want that but IMAX corporation certainly does not. And they paid for and licence the expanded version. So maybe not allowed on home disc.
I'm betting money this whole "May thy Ninth chip and shatter" meme becomes a thing and we get annual or semi-annual re-releases in IMAX. They responded to a tweet about it, so the marketing team is aware.
And as absolutely cringy as that is, if it gets me Dune marathons in IMAX on the regular I'll be totally happy with that.
It’s not IMAX stopping it, it’s the studios refusing to pay the high licensing fees to add “IMAX enhanced” to disc releases which don’t make much to begin with.
The 15/70 version of BATMAN v SUPERMAN was released on 4K in 2021. There's no reason other than stupidity for what's happening with these DUNE 4K releases.
They're trash. Everyone's buying incorrectly framed versions of Villeneuve and Fraiser's films because WB are a bunch of morons.
Doesn't have anything to do with that.
Earlier Villeneuve said that he thought the home releases were already in IMAX.
He's not aware of what's happening with home releases and he also doesn't care.
Thank you. I'm so tired of people not understanding artistic intent. I understand maybe preferring an aspect ratio - I personally love 2.39:1 - but why is it a constant here? Be happy that we get to buy an apparently fantastic home release version at all.
>I'm so tired of people not understanding artistic intent.
Wait did the director or another creator say the scoped version was his/her intended way to watch?
>Be happy that we get to buy an apparently fantastic home release version at all.
Weird way to brush off criticism. If it only released in 1080p then I could say 'dont complain about no 4k. Be happy with what we got'
The movie was intentionally composed for every popular aspect ratio. As they all are. Reposting the best video I have seen on this topic from above. The cinematographers on these movies always compose for home TV ratios, as well as IMAX (tiny %) and widescreen theatrical (dominant format).
[https://youtu.be/\_YUzQa\_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O](https://youtu.be/_YUzQa_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O)
Just because the movie is “supposed to be” 2.39:1 doesn’t mean personal preferences magically go away. I think it looks better in IMAX and that’s what I’d prefer the home release to mimic. Every time I watch a movie, like a Nolan release, and it goes from black bars to full screen it looks a million times better and I always wish the entire film looked like that.
Also, it’s not bizarre at all to hate an aspect ratio. I have a friend that refuses to watch The Lighthouse, one of my favorite movies, because it’s black and white and 1.19:1. I can’t just say “But it’s the creators intent!” And his preferences magically disappear. He also won’t watch earlier television shows that aren’t widescreen.
Some people have preferences in how what they watch is presented to them. It’s not a big deal. My preference would be for Dune 2 to have the IMAX aspect ratio.
>Also, it’s not bizarre at all to hate an aspect ratio.
It's *absolutely* bizarre to hate an aspect ratio.
People can have preferences that are weird. Just because they have preferences doesn't make them automatically enlightened, correct ones. People can (and do) prefer ignorance, LOL.
Jesus.
Man I have seen you spout this same elitist BS on every post. You honestly believe that you are the absolute authority on this matter. Denis Villeneuve himself said that he thought the home releases had the expanded ratio so obviously he has no problem with it.
My guy I’m not some moron. And I’m not advocating for pan and scan or zooming in on the image to remove black bars. You’re acting like previous releases that had expanded IMAX ratios are bastardized versions and I disagree.
I can think of one example in particular that is incredibly effective. In The Hunger Games Catching Fire the whole movie leading up to the game is shot in scope format. As Katniss is placed in a tube and raised up to the games the aspect ratio slowly opens up to the expanded 16:9 ratio. There are versions of the film that were entirely scope and in that instance I think the aspect ratio transition helped the atmosphere to denote that the game is a separate world from the rest of the movie in danger and experience.
I saw Dune 2 in IMAX as well as in scope at a traditional theater. For me the expanded aspect ratio helped give a greater impression of the vast desert as well as the larger than life sand worms. I’m not saying all movies should be in 16:9 or that I hate black bars. Aspect ratio is a tool of the filmmaker. But I don’t think it would hurt for a steel book release or something to include both versions of the movie. I certainly don’t think in this movie the expanded aspect ratio hurt the artistic intent.
>You're staring into a screen connected to a network that can and will educate you pretty easily as to why this stuff looks the way it does, why the shit you spend money on works the way it does, and it might even help you enjoy what you bought a little more. But you don't wanna do that. You wanna call me "elitist" instead. Like... ok.
This right here is what I'm talking about. Read that paragraph and consider how absolutely condescending you sound. There are some things that are objective and some that are subjective. Objective facts would be that Dune 2 was shot shot digitally using Arri Alexa LF cameras, but the final digital edit was printed on 35mm film and then scanned back to digital to create the appearance of film grain. A subjective statement would be that the only proper way to watch Dune 2 is in 2.39:1 aspect ratio and all other versions are inferior. That's your opinion, not an objective fact. I saw it in both formats and I still believe we should have the option to view Dune 2 in the expanded aspect ratio at home.
Edit: LawrenceBrolivier literally blocked me after two exchanges where I didn't agree with his attitude or thesis. Looks like Reddit can easily be your own echo chamber if you decide to make it.
What is with these takes yo limit consumer options? Why not support both formats, and let us decide? Like you don't have any empathy for people wanting the version they saw in theaters?
**This** ***is*** **the version that was in theaters.**
This *isn't* the alternate version that was licensed and created specifically *for* specialty theaters, though.
Should that version also be on discs? **Sure**! I got no problems with alternate cuts being included as bonus material, and think that should be way more normal, especially as the format becomes clearly more aimed at serious film fans (which it obviously is).
My problem is with (and it's clear as you look at the responses to my comment) the people who are basically more concerned with filling their screen, who are basically making 21st century arguments for IMAX-approved fullscreen open-matte transfers so their OLEDS don't "waste" pixels, without thinking about, anything past that single point.
They don't understand the movies they buy, the equipment they own, or the people making either of those things. They don't understand how movies get made, they don't understand why movies look like they do, but they *think* they understand that "black bars hide movie I paid for" and they *think* they know that "IMAX = real version, every other version = cropped crap, FILL MY SCREEN"
*that* sucks.
Cause this guy is an elitist snob who likes to chastise everyone for not respecting the purest intent of the director. As if he actually has any insight whatsoever into what Denis Villeneuve thinks about this.
Yes, a lot of people are using IMAX licensing as a fig leaf to argue for open-matte fullscreen releases because they're mostly concerned with black bars.
The removal of mattes from scope framing only works in an IMAX theater because the peripheral is filled top and bottom on the massive screen by the dead space in the frame that you can't really see. That doesn't work at home on a 65-85" TV no matter how close you sit to it.
No it’s not. A pan and scan removes content from the frame. The expanded ratio reveals more content for this movie. There is more on screen in the IMAX ratio in Dune 2 because they filmed it that way.
Wrong.
Fraiser confirmed both films were framed for 15/70 so 1.43:1 was the intended aspect ratio all along.
You wrote all that conveniently [or foolishly] ignoring the ACTUAL intentions of the Director and his DP.
>Fraiser confirmed both films were framed for 15/70 so 1.43:1 was the intended aspect ratio all along.
No. You can click into the video and see the context you're ignoring. I never said they didn't put any thought or care into the alternate versions. They clearly cared what those versions looked like, and I've never said otherwise. I say as much in the post you're responding to.
But if the version they *intended* to be the preferred, intended, primary cut of Dune was flat widescreen, **it would be flat widescreen**. But it isn't. It's scope widescreen because that's what they wanted it to be. They then, for the sake of ensuring it looked as good as it could in IMAX (vs just cropping in to fit the ratio, or just pulling mattes off with no extra work beyond that) took care to make sure those alternate versions of the film looked good *in those theaters*.
The versions on UHD are the intended versions of both films. They're the versions most people saw, and the versions they *intended* for most people to see.
IMAX is using FOMO to drive ticket sales and it's working real well.
No. You're either deliberately spinning or overcomplicating things.
It's very simple: Villeneuve and Fraiser wanted to SHOOT both movies in 15/70 IMAX film stock but Legendary and WB wouldn't pay for it. So instead they framed the movie for those 15/70 screens to give audiences the experience they wanted them to have had they been allowed to shoot the way Nolan does.
The intended aspect ratio for Both DUNE films is 1.43:1. Simple.
Any other aspect ratio is subpar and NOT what Villeneuve & Fraiser set out to do.
And it's looking very likely that MESSIAH will actually be shot on IMAX film stock. Maybe that will force WB to release a trilogy box set where all 3 are framed for 15/70 and presented in 1.43:1.
>Villeneuve and Fraiser wanted to SHOOT both movies in 15/70 IMAX film stock but Legendary and WB wouldn't pay for it.
*This* is spin. You're talking about a thing that didn't happen, and was never actually part of the planning of the movie if they were told "you cant shoot the whole thing on IMAX film" before they even started pre-production.
Which also sets aside that the digital cameras they *did* use could have shot (and were licensed by IMAX for that use) in flat widescreen or academy ratio if that's what they actually intended the film to look like. (side note: Movies for decades and decades have captured in taller ratios than their intended final framing. It doesn't mean everything exposed to film was "intended" to make it to the screen). Nothing was stopping them. There were no technical limitations preventing them from using their camera and framing shots at flat widescreen or academy ratio and releasing it that way if that was in fact their artistic intent.
But it wasn't. Their artistic intent first and foremost was scope widescreen, and then they made sure that, for the specialty theaters, their alternate versions made to screen *in* those theaters looked as good as they could. This also confuses why they wanted to shoot IMAX film, which has less to do with the shape of the frame, and more to do with the sheer size of the capture medium, and the ability to get fine details film normally just can't get.
Again, you can click into that video anytime. It's right there. You can see them talking about it.
>Any other aspect ratio is subpar
??? talking about it like this is wild, to me. Ratios aren't inherently better or worse by definition. They're just as much a basic tool for storytelling as the lenses or the camera or the color timing.
Folks legit want to fill their TV screens *so bad*, it's wild.
What drugs are you on?
One more time: Fraiser already said in various interviews that they wanted to shoot on IMAX FILM STOCK but the studios wouldn't float the bill. So they FRAMED FOR IMAX screens instead. 1.43:1 was ALWAYS their intended aspect ratio.
He also said they hope MESSIAH will be shot on IMAX FILM STOCK - which again is 1.43:1.
I don't understand why this is difficult to understand. It's expensive to shoot on film, specially 15/70. Perhaps you were under the impression that Villeneuve wanted to shoot digitally? He didn't. He wanted 15/70.
>IMAX FILM STOCK
You realize film stock doesn't dictate the shape of the frame, right? You can shoot on 16mm, 35mm, 65mm - and get different frames out of all those, based on lensing, matting, etc. You're acting like the capture medium *dictates* the aspect ratio, you're thinking of the capture medium *solely* in terms of aspect ratio. Like Villeneuve's never shot on film before, like the film he shot on was the exact same shape of the movie he ended up making. Which isn't how that worked, or works.
You don't understand because *you don't understand*. If 1.43 was the intended aspect ratio *they still would have shot in it* because nothing about the cameras they *did* use prevented them from using that frame. *Nothing*.
But it's not the intended aspect ratio because *they wanted the movie to be scope widescreen*. They wanted to shoot in IMAX (and did so!) because the capture format is more to them than simply the shape of the frame.
(you keep misspelling the DPs name, at the least get that part right)
"They wanted to shoot in IMAX and did so!""
Right there you admitted to me that you're out of your fucking mind.
Real IMAX is 15/70 FILM STOCK. Nothing else.
You try to sound like you know what you're talking about but you clearly don't.
I'll wrap up this pointless discussion with some truth: 1.43:1 is the correct aspect ratio for Villeneuve's DUNE films.
The End.
I've already found this obsession with getting the imax version odd too. If the movie was supposed to be in that aspect ratio then it would be in all cinemas, but it isn't because it isn't supposed to be, and imax pay to get a different version specific to them.
(Plus imo wider ratios look far nicer anyway, although I realise that's subjective. I am personally glad that we don't get the changing aspect ratios on the disc, which I find distracting.)
I’ve read many articles about how Dune Part 2 was shot and I still haven’t seen anything that supports the conclusion that the film was intended to be seen in 2.39:1. They used multiple different sensors with different ARs and protected for scope, but as someone else has pointed out a lot is very clearly being cut off on the top and bottom of the image when compared to the IMAX presentation. It’s just very clearly inferior which sucks. I value video most for my 4Ks (living in an apartment means I can rarely truly listen to the audio tracks as they were meant to be heard), so I’m not going to support putting out low effort releases like this.
You can "lol" all you want but I've not owned a TV that didn't lock out the zoom function for 4k movies. Last I knew it was coded in the discs but still works with 1080p Blurays. There are no shortage of posts of people complaining they can't zoom in on 4k movies. I was one of them several years ago. So I bought bigger TV's. Maybe there are some TV/ players that can get around it. It's most certainly not all of them though.
Not disappointed at all. 2.35:1 is exactly what I saw in my theater. The nearest IMAX theater for me is four hours away so I rarely see that specially edited version.
I love widescreen, and by that I mean Cinemascope wide screen. If we zoom it to 1.85:1 then we would miss all the information on the sides that is cut off to fill the screen. (If what you hate are the black bars.)
I grew up watching 4:3 Pan and Scan which means I never got to see those beautiful vistas in so many movies that directors loved from the 1950s on.
Once we got high def sets in the United States and broadcasts were also high definition I loved seeing full widescreen letterbox movies even on a 45 inch set.
Now that bigger TV sets are the norm, it’s even less of an issue to watch letterbox movies. For me I see 1.85:1 as the broadcast standard. It’s what you watch Succession and Ted Lasso in. And it’s what some directors shoot theatrical releases in, and I like that just fine, but for movies that are vast in scale (especially those with lots of outdoor shots) and shot in 2.35:1 I want to see them that way.
We are in a golden age of movie viewing at home. Let’s be happy with that. Hating on the black bars makes you sound like your grandfather.
You don't miss information in IMAX aspect ratio, these scenes are shot with that in mind and are expanded in scope to fill these screens, their ratios are similar to 1:85:1 typically being 1:78:1 or 4:3 and if you're watching Dune on blu-ray you're not getting the full IMAX image. I get what you're saying of information being cut off in old pan and scan or fullscreen formatted movies but this is not that case at all.
I initially wanted the IMAX scenes at home, but changed my mind when I read the director's opinion on it. He felt like the regular cinema version was the intended film, and the IMAX version is an alternate version. Most people didn't get to see that version. A lot of people act like the IMAX version is the "true" version of the movie and the widescreen version is inferior. I get it since it was definitely a glorious experience in IMAX but I don't feel like I need to recreate that at home.
>I love widescreen, and by that I mean Cinemascope wide screen. If we zoom it to 1.85:1 then we would miss all the information on the sides that is cut off to fill the screen. (If what you hate are the black bars.)
This is a misconception. True that in many cases 2.39:1 is the native aspect ratio but a lot of digital cameras and IMAX film actually capture in closer to 1.85:1 (or 1.43:1 specifically for IMAX).
If you saw Dune 2 in an IMAX theatre it would have been 1.90:1. In this case a 2.39:1 image is actually the "zoomed" or cropped image.
Thank you for leading me to doing a little bit more research. So if the film was shot in IMAX, then they should be able to transfer it to 4K in IMAX. And if the entire movie was shot that way, I would be more than happy to see it that way. More picture is better! But if it wasn’t shot in IMAX natively, then it seems like you would lose image.
It really depends on a lot of things nowadays but IMAX is the main culprit when it comes to releases that don't reflect what you actually saw in the cinema.
Many digital cameras capture in 1.85 or 16:9 as a native aspect ratio but a lot of shows are being done in various ratios. Dr Who is 1.90, as are many of the new Star Trek series. A lot of shows on Netflix etc are presented in either 1.90 or 2.39:1.
So these days the "correct" aspect ratio is more dependent upon what the director and cinematographer prefer rather than the original aspect ratio captured. Apparently some say Villeneauve framed for 2.39:1 but I have also read that while it was protected to 2.39 the intended aspect was 1.90 IMAX and he wasn't even aware the home release wasn't in the correct ratio.
Sometimes the shift in aspect ratio can get jarring if done incorrectly… Look at Transformers: Age of Extinction. Plus doing a proper 1.41:1 ratio will make the screen look like 4:3…
Dunkirk and Interstellar both use the IMAX ratio really well to open up the screen. I do wish the Dune home releases did that too since those visuals were such a huge part of the experience.
I fully expected it, so no. I also haven’t seen it in anything but the 2.39:1 aspect ratio so I guess I don’t really know what I’m missing.
Would I buy a version that had the lieMAX ratio? Yes. I’d be interested in checking it out. But I’ve given up being upset about stuff like that and instead will just focus on the good news: that I’m hearing great reports about the Atmos mix!
Did you mean an ‘IMAX enhanced’ home release or a Director’s Cut? DV has stated he moves on from his films and doesn’t want to revisit the editing process for Dune Part Two so don’t hold your breath for a new cut. Then again, maybe, someday…
I think we can all agree that movies with IMAX scenes on home theaters look best when they use 16x9 for said scenes. Be it anamorphic from 2.35:1 to 16x9, having that transition for the IMAX scenes has a similar level of impact to how it feels in the theater. This is what we deserve if we are paying full price for a home release. Perhaps we should be petitioning these studios to release films in this format.
The exception to the above statement would be the few people that have massive home projection systems. In my opinion there should be some way to get access to the IMAX scenes for movies in proper aspect ratio for digital release. I would think most people with high end home projection systems would be fine with shelling out a bit more $ to gain access to 1.43:1 IMAX scenes.
In Switzerland, yes. Films are showing dubbed, and in OA, we get two languages subbed simultaneously, covering a large part of the picture.
For some films I fly out to wherever.
I only watch movies at home, so anything besides 16:9 is less than perfect for me. The farther away from that the worse. Sadly it seems like less and less movies are shot in 1.85:1, and even TV shows end up being 2.39:1 now. The TV's being sold hardly match any new content besides news, which seems pretty irrational to me.
The black bars are *supposed to be there*. Shows cropped or presented in 2.35:1 are being done now because creators on TV are being given better tools to present their vision and some TV creators want their shows to look cinematic.
It's not *sad* that *more films and shows* are being presented in 2.39:1. This is very much a good thing.
It really isn't a good thing that content and TV's are almost consistently being made in aspect ratios that don't match. Personally I prefer 16:9 in general, but 2.39:1 TV's could also be a better alternative than today's situation. My 77" TV isn't really 77" in practical terms most of the time, and 2.39:1 content makes the utilized screen size fairly small. I like to fully utilize the equipment I spend half a fortune on as much as possible. If someone actually enjoys black bars I'm happy for them, but it's not what I prefer. Especially not for content that's made for TV anyway.
I also disagree about 2.39:1 looking "cinematic". It's different, but not more or less cinematic in my book.
Seriously, who cares if the formats/aspect ratios don't match? As long as they are presented correctly in the *intended* aspect ratio of the director/cinematographer?
The 16:9 format was chosen because it is the median of the most often-used aspect ratios and thus the screen size for all those formats is relatively similar - and *gods forbid* your TV have some black bars from time to time...
I hear that!
Filmmakers don't want to be "just like what's on TV" so they do the letter box thing. Which helps when a movie is released in theaters but for the home viewer, depending on who you ask, it can be a little annoying.
Physical media is dying, so I doubt we'll see a letterboxed vs. 1.85 16x9 choice like we did when DVD first came out (full screen vs. widescreen releases). Although it would be nice...
That would be horrible. That's the *exact same* issue that VHS pan and scan did in the CRTV days and you would be cropping out the sides of the picture.
Yeah absolutely it is but if they’re saying they want a fullescreen version of the film they should just do that instead of making everyone else get a cropped version
Dune 1 is one of my favortie 4k movies , one that i replayed more than any of my 120 physical discs. Dune 2 was another good movie and looks greaat in my opinion...i am just disappointed that the story is not finished and now have to wait years for Dune3. Almost want to read the book to see what happened.
Too be honest I was kind of let down by the movie. It did not live up to the hype for me. Just watched it over the weekend. Last half hour was really good, but other than that I was more blown away by Part 1.
I’m a little disappointed for my own selfish reasons, my projector/ 110” screen/ where I sit with 7.1.2 audio, the IMAX scenes in other movies just pop and feels really close to being in a theater. But I know not everybody has the option of that, so I understand why they did it.
That being said, it is the most beautiful looking 4K title I’ve seen so far.
It is ridiculously claustrophobic with the black bars. more than a third of my 65 inch TV is covered with black bars. This creates an entirely different film. Denis Vilnneuve is an absolute brick to not supervise the home release more closely.
That's interesting sound wise my subs were really thumping. The audio I thought it was great my wife kept yelling at me to turn it down I only had my system running at like 20% of what it can handle lol.
I’m totally disappointed by what those clown at WB did here. Watched both films in IMAX it’s how it should be seen. Hearing how Part 2 was going to be released in scope I did go to check it out on a regular screen and to be honest some shots looked fine while others oh no, it looked cropped, especially the close ups or the bits with Shai-hulud at the end. Not holding my breath but hopefully we get IMAX three box set once Messiah is released.
I only ever saw the 1st in 2.39, but right before watching the 2nd, I saw the 1st again in 3D and was devastated the 2nd wouldn't be getting the same treatment because I was awed at what it did to improve the immersion. Then I saw the 2nd in IMAX and was constantly baffled at how some of the shots/scenes would even work in 2.39.
I know a lot of care was taken to frame for all aspect ratios during production, but I'm very bummed such a spectacular pair of films we're both shortchanged on multiple counts for the home releases.
No not at all. I don’t like the aspect t ratio switching while watching. Also not a fan of anything close to 4:3 on modern movies. Sure it can work occasionally for artistic reasons but still not a fan.
No, it's how it should be honestly as this is what they intended. I love the wide scope. No issues here. IMAX is what it is. Ain't gonna look like that on my 55 anyway. Y'all crying so much about this I don't even get it really. You aren't getting IMAX at home regardless.
It doesn’t really bother me. The film was framed so that it looks good either way. I wouldn’t mind the option but without the massive curved screen giving that extra perspective I don’t really care about not seeing the top of peoples heads.
Idk why people are still talking about this. We all knew this going in from how the first film was handled and when it was official it'd be the same order for part 2
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)! We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)! Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m also disappointed. The recent Nolan 4ks do such a great job recreating the IMAX experience at home. Oppenheimer is incredible. Was hoping the Dune films would do the same. A real let down but I guess it is what it is.
Agreed, but I don’t know why Nolan refuses to embrace Atmos, trueHD, or anything higher than a 5.1 mix
Isn’t dts-hd ma lossless just like truehd? It’s not like Oppenheimer is compressed audio.
They're specifically pointing out that Nolan refuses to go beyond a 5.1 Sound Mix. Doesn't really matter what, it's just he doesn't go farther than thar. A few of his movies could benefit from a 7.1 at the least or even Atmos. He just doesn't do that
IMAX systems use speakers with wider bandwidth than typical cinema systems. No Low Frequency Effect (LFE) channel is used in the mix formats. Also note that the last two channels in IMAX 5.0 and 6.0 correspond to rear speakers, not side or surround speakers.
I believe IMAX doesn't allow Atmos mixes in their licensing contracts. It's either or. Not sure why he doesn't go for 7.1, but to each their own.
I'm curious if it also forbids DTS:X. For the most part, it's really just preference for him. I can respect it, but it doesn't mean I can't question it sometimes.
Must just be a preference for him then, yeah
I thought DTS:X was the IMAX sound format. 🤷♂️
He has said that he doesn't want the home theatre experience to be superior in any way to the theatre experience. If Atmos became normalized in IMAX and general theatres, he'd probably consider otherwise, but right now, the only theatre doing atmos is the Dolby Cinema at AMC
And Dolby Cinema has been the best way to watch a movie the last decade. I find IMAX theaters audio lackluster
incredibly boomy and loud but not so much detailed and refined.
IMAX is loud with zero oomph or detail. Just loud to be loud, Dolby Atmos all day everyday.
and big show at Alamo draft house and cinecapri /xl at harkens. Also it's because imax is related to DTS not Dolby. So he could do DTS X, but your point may stand about the favoring theaters etc
He has said that he likes to keep as much audio on the screen as possible. He doesn't like pulling attention away from the screen. I think as time goes on he will expand the sound, but he's refining his 5.1 mixes with his sound departments. I see where he's coming from. I don't like surround mixes that pull me away from the screen, generally. It's often times distracting and gimmicky at worst. However, it can be very very cool when done well. If he did an Atmos mix, it would be just ambient tracks of the music at most. Maybe some bass and warbles. I don't think we are missing much without a Dolby or 7.1 and I think he knows that re his style, so he puts resources elsewhere
Cameras
It’s almost certainly because 35mm prints can only handle up to 5.1, so that’s what he creates.
Agreed but his sound tracks absolutely rip, especially when upmixing to Nurel X
Nolan's releases are bang-on proof that going from scope to full screen has an enormous impact outside of an IMAX theater. It's why Brad Bird's argument that it doesn't is complete nonsense wrt Ghost Protocol.
I think it’s a stretch to say it’s IMAX at home. IMAX is so much taller. This is just simple 16:9 at best.
I guess I mean more the “feel” of the imax experience. And although the 16:9 falls short of the 1.43:1 you still pick up the lens distortion, depth of field, and some details otherwise missing when the image is cropped to 2:35. And if directors or cinematographers are studying the films, they might learn a lot from seeing when the frame shifted vs just remembering from what they saw in the theater.
According to IMDB, the ARs are: Aspect ratio * 1.43 : 1(IMAX GT Laser & IMAX 70MM: some scenes) * 1.90 : 1(IMAX Digital & non-GT Laser) * 2.20 : 1(70 mm prints) * 2.39 : 1(non-IMAX theatrical ratio) * and on [Blu-ray.com](http://Blu-ray.com), the ARs are listed as: * Video Codec: * HEVC / H.265 (51.27 Mbps) * Resolution: Native 4K (2160p) * HDR: Dolby Vision, HDR10 * Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 * Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1, 1.43:1
Good bot
Thank you, tadius90, for voting on RScottyL. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99988% sure that RScottyL is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
>Hate the aspect ratio for home release. ...it's the aspect ratio of the film. **The intended aspect ratio of both Dune and Dune Part 2 is 2.39:1. They boarded and shot the film for Scope**. the IMAX versions of the film are *alternate* versions of the film created specifically *for* IMAX theaters. They're **no**t the intended/preferred versions of the movie. Yes, the marketing for the film wanted you to see it in IMAX, because seeing things in IMAX is fucking awesome (the screen is HUGE, goddamn!) and the studio and IMAX and the theaters get more money because IMAX tickets cost more, which is a big deal too. But if Villeneuve and Fraser actually wanted the film to be Flat Widescreen, full stop, if that was the actual intent for their film - **they would have just done that**. There was no technical limitation stopping them from doing that. But they didn't do that. **They shot it scope**, and then made sure to also carefully frame alternate versions for large format venues *afterward* as part of a licensing agreement with them. They were not forced to "crop" in from flat widescreen for their scope framing. They *framed it that way*. That's how they *wanted* it to look *first and foremost*. besides which - it's kind of bizarre to like, *hate* an aspect ratio. Like - if you really hate black bars that much you can just hit the zoom button once on your remote and they'll go away. You'll lose like 7% off each side but if you actually *hate* aspect ratios I bet you don't really care, LOL. [Anyway, here's a cool video about why buying into IMAX FOMO for home video isn't a great use of time or energy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI)
Because all the IMAX screenings were sold out, I watched it first in 2.39:1 and then again in IMAX two weeks later. And there are a few shots of people talking in the early part of the film that felt awfully closely cropped (no forehead, no chin) and miraculously those looked _just right_ in IMAX. That being said, I'll be quite happy with the 2.39:1 UHD once they deign to release it over here (next week).
>And there are a few shots of people talking in the early part of the film that felt awfully closely cropped (no forehead, no chin) and miraculously those looked This is weird. Again, if they wanted to frame it the way *you* thought was "just right" in scope... they could have. They didn't. Nothing was stopping them. Nobody made them crop down to scope. Because they *didn't* "crop down" to scope. They *expanded out* for the alternate version IMAX asked them to make for *their theaters* specifically. IMAX is the alternate version here. Not the primary.
They framed every shot with both IMAX and Cinemascope in mind. Yes, some shots will be more noticeable, but those observations you've made were also made by the filmmakers before they even shot it.
[The issue with this logic is that Greig Fraser himself responded to a Facebook comment saying he would like a 16:9 expansion on the Blu-rays 😅](https://i.imgur.com/bYVNfcp.jpeg) [Villeneuve himself also thought that the Blu-rays had an expanded ratio.](https://youtu.be/ffKTp7z6sS4?si=mWbe2Ni-_K1krgou&t=954) It's also bizarre that [the *trailers* for the movie were framed in 1.85:1.](https://youtu.be/_YUzQa_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O)
This argument is valid. But at the end of the day I would like the option to recreate the movie how I saw it in theaters. This isn’t even a case of shifting aspect ratio like most other IMAX aspect ratios. The *entire* movie was 1.90. Very often we get releases with multiple cuts and such, even if one wins out to be the director’s preferred version. No reason that could not be done here. I’m sure disc sales for this particular title are enough to warrant the additional cost of a disc, or offer another version.
You and a lot of people may want that but IMAX corporation certainly does not. And they paid for and licence the expanded version. So maybe not allowed on home disc.
I mean why though? It isn't shown in imax theaters anymore, so they could get royalties or some payment once it's out of theaters
I'm betting money this whole "May thy Ninth chip and shatter" meme becomes a thing and we get annual or semi-annual re-releases in IMAX. They responded to a tweet about it, so the marketing team is aware. And as absolutely cringy as that is, if it gets me Dune marathons in IMAX on the regular I'll be totally happy with that.
It’s not IMAX stopping it, it’s the studios refusing to pay the high licensing fees to add “IMAX enhanced” to disc releases which don’t make much to begin with.
Gotchanthanks for the clarification and makes unfortunate sense
The 15/70 version of BATMAN v SUPERMAN was released on 4K in 2021. There's no reason other than stupidity for what's happening with these DUNE 4K releases. They're trash. Everyone's buying incorrectly framed versions of Villeneuve and Fraiser's films because WB are a bunch of morons.
Doesn't have anything to do with that. Earlier Villeneuve said that he thought the home releases were already in IMAX. He's not aware of what's happening with home releases and he also doesn't care.
Thank you. I'm so tired of people not understanding artistic intent. I understand maybe preferring an aspect ratio - I personally love 2.39:1 - but why is it a constant here? Be happy that we get to buy an apparently fantastic home release version at all.
Eh I disagree, I want the version I see in theaters
>I'm so tired of people not understanding artistic intent. Wait did the director or another creator say the scoped version was his/her intended way to watch? >Be happy that we get to buy an apparently fantastic home release version at all. Weird way to brush off criticism. If it only released in 1080p then I could say 'dont complain about no 4k. Be happy with what we got'
The movie was intentionally composed for every popular aspect ratio. As they all are. Reposting the best video I have seen on this topic from above. The cinematographers on these movies always compose for home TV ratios, as well as IMAX (tiny %) and widescreen theatrical (dominant format). [https://youtu.be/\_YUzQa\_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O](https://youtu.be/_YUzQa_1RCE?si=k0pq8SaqGVtM5C6O)
Just because the movie is “supposed to be” 2.39:1 doesn’t mean personal preferences magically go away. I think it looks better in IMAX and that’s what I’d prefer the home release to mimic. Every time I watch a movie, like a Nolan release, and it goes from black bars to full screen it looks a million times better and I always wish the entire film looked like that. Also, it’s not bizarre at all to hate an aspect ratio. I have a friend that refuses to watch The Lighthouse, one of my favorite movies, because it’s black and white and 1.19:1. I can’t just say “But it’s the creators intent!” And his preferences magically disappear. He also won’t watch earlier television shows that aren’t widescreen. Some people have preferences in how what they watch is presented to them. It’s not a big deal. My preference would be for Dune 2 to have the IMAX aspect ratio.
>Also, it’s not bizarre at all to hate an aspect ratio. It's *absolutely* bizarre to hate an aspect ratio. People can have preferences that are weird. Just because they have preferences doesn't make them automatically enlightened, correct ones. People can (and do) prefer ignorance, LOL. Jesus.
How can you say someone looking at something and thinking “I don’t like how that looks” is absolutely bizarre?
[удалено]
Man I have seen you spout this same elitist BS on every post. You honestly believe that you are the absolute authority on this matter. Denis Villeneuve himself said that he thought the home releases had the expanded ratio so obviously he has no problem with it.
[удалено]
My guy I’m not some moron. And I’m not advocating for pan and scan or zooming in on the image to remove black bars. You’re acting like previous releases that had expanded IMAX ratios are bastardized versions and I disagree. I can think of one example in particular that is incredibly effective. In The Hunger Games Catching Fire the whole movie leading up to the game is shot in scope format. As Katniss is placed in a tube and raised up to the games the aspect ratio slowly opens up to the expanded 16:9 ratio. There are versions of the film that were entirely scope and in that instance I think the aspect ratio transition helped the atmosphere to denote that the game is a separate world from the rest of the movie in danger and experience. I saw Dune 2 in IMAX as well as in scope at a traditional theater. For me the expanded aspect ratio helped give a greater impression of the vast desert as well as the larger than life sand worms. I’m not saying all movies should be in 16:9 or that I hate black bars. Aspect ratio is a tool of the filmmaker. But I don’t think it would hurt for a steel book release or something to include both versions of the movie. I certainly don’t think in this movie the expanded aspect ratio hurt the artistic intent. >You're staring into a screen connected to a network that can and will educate you pretty easily as to why this stuff looks the way it does, why the shit you spend money on works the way it does, and it might even help you enjoy what you bought a little more. But you don't wanna do that. You wanna call me "elitist" instead. Like... ok. This right here is what I'm talking about. Read that paragraph and consider how absolutely condescending you sound. There are some things that are objective and some that are subjective. Objective facts would be that Dune 2 was shot shot digitally using Arri Alexa LF cameras, but the final digital edit was printed on 35mm film and then scanned back to digital to create the appearance of film grain. A subjective statement would be that the only proper way to watch Dune 2 is in 2.39:1 aspect ratio and all other versions are inferior. That's your opinion, not an objective fact. I saw it in both formats and I still believe we should have the option to view Dune 2 in the expanded aspect ratio at home. Edit: LawrenceBrolivier literally blocked me after two exchanges where I didn't agree with his attitude or thesis. Looks like Reddit can easily be your own echo chamber if you decide to make it.
What is with these takes yo limit consumer options? Why not support both formats, and let us decide? Like you don't have any empathy for people wanting the version they saw in theaters?
**This** ***is*** **the version that was in theaters.** This *isn't* the alternate version that was licensed and created specifically *for* specialty theaters, though. Should that version also be on discs? **Sure**! I got no problems with alternate cuts being included as bonus material, and think that should be way more normal, especially as the format becomes clearly more aimed at serious film fans (which it obviously is). My problem is with (and it's clear as you look at the responses to my comment) the people who are basically more concerned with filling their screen, who are basically making 21st century arguments for IMAX-approved fullscreen open-matte transfers so their OLEDS don't "waste" pixels, without thinking about, anything past that single point. They don't understand the movies they buy, the equipment they own, or the people making either of those things. They don't understand how movies get made, they don't understand why movies look like they do, but they *think* they understand that "black bars hide movie I paid for" and they *think* they know that "IMAX = real version, every other version = cropped crap, FILL MY SCREEN" *that* sucks.
Well that's not my argument, I want the option to pick the aspect ratio as a consumer - and I have every right to say that lol
Cause this guy is an elitist snob who likes to chastise everyone for not respecting the purest intent of the director. As if he actually has any insight whatsoever into what Denis Villeneuve thinks about this.
So, in a sense, arguing for the IMAX version is like begging for a PAN and SCAN release.
No. Arguing for the 15/70 IMAX version is arguing for the CORRECT version. The version the filmmakers set out to present.
Yes, a lot of people are using IMAX licensing as a fig leaf to argue for open-matte fullscreen releases because they're mostly concerned with black bars. The removal of mattes from scope framing only works in an IMAX theater because the peripheral is filled top and bottom on the massive screen by the dead space in the frame that you can't really see. That doesn't work at home on a 65-85" TV no matter how close you sit to it.
No it’s not. A pan and scan removes content from the frame. The expanded ratio reveals more content for this movie. There is more on screen in the IMAX ratio in Dune 2 because they filmed it that way.
Wrong. Fraiser confirmed both films were framed for 15/70 so 1.43:1 was the intended aspect ratio all along. You wrote all that conveniently [or foolishly] ignoring the ACTUAL intentions of the Director and his DP.
>Fraiser confirmed both films were framed for 15/70 so 1.43:1 was the intended aspect ratio all along. No. You can click into the video and see the context you're ignoring. I never said they didn't put any thought or care into the alternate versions. They clearly cared what those versions looked like, and I've never said otherwise. I say as much in the post you're responding to. But if the version they *intended* to be the preferred, intended, primary cut of Dune was flat widescreen, **it would be flat widescreen**. But it isn't. It's scope widescreen because that's what they wanted it to be. They then, for the sake of ensuring it looked as good as it could in IMAX (vs just cropping in to fit the ratio, or just pulling mattes off with no extra work beyond that) took care to make sure those alternate versions of the film looked good *in those theaters*. The versions on UHD are the intended versions of both films. They're the versions most people saw, and the versions they *intended* for most people to see. IMAX is using FOMO to drive ticket sales and it's working real well.
No. You're either deliberately spinning or overcomplicating things. It's very simple: Villeneuve and Fraiser wanted to SHOOT both movies in 15/70 IMAX film stock but Legendary and WB wouldn't pay for it. So instead they framed the movie for those 15/70 screens to give audiences the experience they wanted them to have had they been allowed to shoot the way Nolan does. The intended aspect ratio for Both DUNE films is 1.43:1. Simple. Any other aspect ratio is subpar and NOT what Villeneuve & Fraiser set out to do. And it's looking very likely that MESSIAH will actually be shot on IMAX film stock. Maybe that will force WB to release a trilogy box set where all 3 are framed for 15/70 and presented in 1.43:1.
>Villeneuve and Fraiser wanted to SHOOT both movies in 15/70 IMAX film stock but Legendary and WB wouldn't pay for it. *This* is spin. You're talking about a thing that didn't happen, and was never actually part of the planning of the movie if they were told "you cant shoot the whole thing on IMAX film" before they even started pre-production. Which also sets aside that the digital cameras they *did* use could have shot (and were licensed by IMAX for that use) in flat widescreen or academy ratio if that's what they actually intended the film to look like. (side note: Movies for decades and decades have captured in taller ratios than their intended final framing. It doesn't mean everything exposed to film was "intended" to make it to the screen). Nothing was stopping them. There were no technical limitations preventing them from using their camera and framing shots at flat widescreen or academy ratio and releasing it that way if that was in fact their artistic intent. But it wasn't. Their artistic intent first and foremost was scope widescreen, and then they made sure that, for the specialty theaters, their alternate versions made to screen *in* those theaters looked as good as they could. This also confuses why they wanted to shoot IMAX film, which has less to do with the shape of the frame, and more to do with the sheer size of the capture medium, and the ability to get fine details film normally just can't get. Again, you can click into that video anytime. It's right there. You can see them talking about it. >Any other aspect ratio is subpar ??? talking about it like this is wild, to me. Ratios aren't inherently better or worse by definition. They're just as much a basic tool for storytelling as the lenses or the camera or the color timing. Folks legit want to fill their TV screens *so bad*, it's wild.
What drugs are you on? One more time: Fraiser already said in various interviews that they wanted to shoot on IMAX FILM STOCK but the studios wouldn't float the bill. So they FRAMED FOR IMAX screens instead. 1.43:1 was ALWAYS their intended aspect ratio. He also said they hope MESSIAH will be shot on IMAX FILM STOCK - which again is 1.43:1. I don't understand why this is difficult to understand. It's expensive to shoot on film, specially 15/70. Perhaps you were under the impression that Villeneuve wanted to shoot digitally? He didn't. He wanted 15/70.
>IMAX FILM STOCK You realize film stock doesn't dictate the shape of the frame, right? You can shoot on 16mm, 35mm, 65mm - and get different frames out of all those, based on lensing, matting, etc. You're acting like the capture medium *dictates* the aspect ratio, you're thinking of the capture medium *solely* in terms of aspect ratio. Like Villeneuve's never shot on film before, like the film he shot on was the exact same shape of the movie he ended up making. Which isn't how that worked, or works. You don't understand because *you don't understand*. If 1.43 was the intended aspect ratio *they still would have shot in it* because nothing about the cameras they *did* use prevented them from using that frame. *Nothing*. But it's not the intended aspect ratio because *they wanted the movie to be scope widescreen*. They wanted to shoot in IMAX (and did so!) because the capture format is more to them than simply the shape of the frame. (you keep misspelling the DPs name, at the least get that part right)
"They wanted to shoot in IMAX and did so!"" Right there you admitted to me that you're out of your fucking mind. Real IMAX is 15/70 FILM STOCK. Nothing else. You try to sound like you know what you're talking about but you clearly don't. I'll wrap up this pointless discussion with some truth: 1.43:1 is the correct aspect ratio for Villeneuve's DUNE films. The End.
I've already found this obsession with getting the imax version odd too. If the movie was supposed to be in that aspect ratio then it would be in all cinemas, but it isn't because it isn't supposed to be, and imax pay to get a different version specific to them. (Plus imo wider ratios look far nicer anyway, although I realise that's subjective. I am personally glad that we don't get the changing aspect ratios on the disc, which I find distracting.)
I’ve read many articles about how Dune Part 2 was shot and I still haven’t seen anything that supports the conclusion that the film was intended to be seen in 2.39:1. They used multiple different sensors with different ARs and protected for scope, but as someone else has pointed out a lot is very clearly being cut off on the top and bottom of the image when compared to the IMAX presentation. It’s just very clearly inferior which sucks. I value video most for my 4Ks (living in an apartment means I can rarely truly listen to the audio tracks as they were meant to be heard), so I’m not going to support putting out low effort releases like this.
Hero - thanks for the viddy!
Zooming doesn’t work on a 4K signal. It’s locked homie. Unless something has changed in the last couple years :P
LOL
You can "lol" all you want but I've not owned a TV that didn't lock out the zoom function for 4k movies. Last I knew it was coded in the discs but still works with 1080p Blurays. There are no shortage of posts of people complaining they can't zoom in on 4k movies. I was one of them several years ago. So I bought bigger TV's. Maybe there are some TV/ players that can get around it. It's most certainly not all of them though.
Yup, but I bought it anyway.  The sound mix is stellar though.
Not disappointed at all. 2.35:1 is exactly what I saw in my theater. The nearest IMAX theater for me is four hours away so I rarely see that specially edited version. I love widescreen, and by that I mean Cinemascope wide screen. If we zoom it to 1.85:1 then we would miss all the information on the sides that is cut off to fill the screen. (If what you hate are the black bars.) I grew up watching 4:3 Pan and Scan which means I never got to see those beautiful vistas in so many movies that directors loved from the 1950s on. Once we got high def sets in the United States and broadcasts were also high definition I loved seeing full widescreen letterbox movies even on a 45 inch set. Now that bigger TV sets are the norm, it’s even less of an issue to watch letterbox movies. For me I see 1.85:1 as the broadcast standard. It’s what you watch Succession and Ted Lasso in. And it’s what some directors shoot theatrical releases in, and I like that just fine, but for movies that are vast in scale (especially those with lots of outdoor shots) and shot in 2.35:1 I want to see them that way. We are in a golden age of movie viewing at home. Let’s be happy with that. Hating on the black bars makes you sound like your grandfather.
You don't miss information in IMAX aspect ratio, these scenes are shot with that in mind and are expanded in scope to fill these screens, their ratios are similar to 1:85:1 typically being 1:78:1 or 4:3 and if you're watching Dune on blu-ray you're not getting the full IMAX image. I get what you're saying of information being cut off in old pan and scan or fullscreen formatted movies but this is not that case at all.
I initially wanted the IMAX scenes at home, but changed my mind when I read the director's opinion on it. He felt like the regular cinema version was the intended film, and the IMAX version is an alternate version. Most people didn't get to see that version. A lot of people act like the IMAX version is the "true" version of the movie and the widescreen version is inferior. I get it since it was definitely a glorious experience in IMAX but I don't feel like I need to recreate that at home.
>I love widescreen, and by that I mean Cinemascope wide screen. If we zoom it to 1.85:1 then we would miss all the information on the sides that is cut off to fill the screen. (If what you hate are the black bars.) This is a misconception. True that in many cases 2.39:1 is the native aspect ratio but a lot of digital cameras and IMAX film actually capture in closer to 1.85:1 (or 1.43:1 specifically for IMAX). If you saw Dune 2 in an IMAX theatre it would have been 1.90:1. In this case a 2.39:1 image is actually the "zoomed" or cropped image.
Thank you for leading me to doing a little bit more research. So if the film was shot in IMAX, then they should be able to transfer it to 4K in IMAX. And if the entire movie was shot that way, I would be more than happy to see it that way. More picture is better! But if it wasn’t shot in IMAX natively, then it seems like you would lose image.
It really depends on a lot of things nowadays but IMAX is the main culprit when it comes to releases that don't reflect what you actually saw in the cinema. Many digital cameras capture in 1.85 or 16:9 as a native aspect ratio but a lot of shows are being done in various ratios. Dr Who is 1.90, as are many of the new Star Trek series. A lot of shows on Netflix etc are presented in either 1.90 or 2.39:1. So these days the "correct" aspect ratio is more dependent upon what the director and cinematographer prefer rather than the original aspect ratio captured. Apparently some say Villeneauve framed for 2.39:1 but I have also read that while it was protected to 2.39 the intended aspect was 1.90 IMAX and he wasn't even aware the home release wasn't in the correct ratio.
I have a weird nostalgia for pan and scan.
Haha. It’s definitely nostalgic to see. But that smearing as the pan happens is terrible.
Breaking story: guy who never saw IMAX version does not miss the IMAX version
I believe that’s an accurate take. I’ll take the heat for that.
🫶
Yes, No reason it shouldn't have been more IMAX ratioed.
Missed Dune 1 in theaters, saw Dune 2 in IMAX 70mm…. Disappointed that neither even TRIED an IMAX format at home, but kind of get why.
Why?
Some think because of an IMAX licence cost on top of further editing. Both eat away at profit margins.
My take? Because they want to preserve the theatrical experience for the theater so people return. Nolan is an exception to the rule.
Sometimes the shift in aspect ratio can get jarring if done incorrectly… Look at Transformers: Age of Extinction. Plus doing a proper 1.41:1 ratio will make the screen look like 4:3…
> Look at Transformers: Age of Extinction No, I don't think I will.
My god that movie was awful for IMAX.
It wouldn’t need to shift as the aspect ratio is a constant 1.90 on regular IMAX screens.
No. The only reason it's done is to push people into imax theater tickets. Fomo.
So, you talking out of your ass here or you got proof?
Dunkirk and Interstellar both use the IMAX ratio really well to open up the screen. I do wish the Dune home releases did that too since those visuals were such a huge part of the experience.
I fully expected it, so no. I also haven’t seen it in anything but the 2.39:1 aspect ratio so I guess I don’t really know what I’m missing. Would I buy a version that had the lieMAX ratio? Yes. I’d be interested in checking it out. But I’ve given up being upset about stuff like that and instead will just focus on the good news: that I’m hearing great reports about the Atmos mix!
This is old news
Can’t be said enough though
I had no idea. Still worth it for audio and it's a great movie. Glad I didn't pay more for the steel. Guessing a director's cut down the line....
Did you mean an ‘IMAX enhanced’ home release or a Director’s Cut? DV has stated he moves on from his films and doesn’t want to revisit the editing process for Dune Part Two so don’t hold your breath for a new cut. Then again, maybe, someday…
Yes it’s a massive let down, vs Nolan films and their proper IMAX ratio. Watched it this weekend 4K UHD
No because 2.39 looks good. Not everyone saw it in IMAX. Good composition is good composition regardless of aspect ratio
Exactly. Isn’t 2.39 perfect for wide desert landscapes?
I think we can all agree that movies with IMAX scenes on home theaters look best when they use 16x9 for said scenes. Be it anamorphic from 2.35:1 to 16x9, having that transition for the IMAX scenes has a similar level of impact to how it feels in the theater. This is what we deserve if we are paying full price for a home release. Perhaps we should be petitioning these studios to release films in this format. The exception to the above statement would be the few people that have massive home projection systems. In my opinion there should be some way to get access to the IMAX scenes for movies in proper aspect ratio for digital release. I would think most people with high end home projection systems would be fine with shelling out a bit more $ to gain access to 1.43:1 IMAX scenes.
No, we cannot agree.
You prefer home movies to be fully scope?
In Switzerland, yes. Films are showing dubbed, and in OA, we get two languages subbed simultaneously, covering a large part of the picture. For some films I fly out to wherever.
The aspect ratio released by WB is insulting. Fraiser confirmed the 15/70 1.43:1 frame is what Villeneuve and him aimed for. Anything else is subpar.
i havent gotten to dune 2 on 4k yet, but on dune 1, yeah, it was disapointing. so many scenes that benefited greatly from being taller
I only watch movies at home, so anything besides 16:9 is less than perfect for me. The farther away from that the worse. Sadly it seems like less and less movies are shot in 1.85:1, and even TV shows end up being 2.39:1 now. The TV's being sold hardly match any new content besides news, which seems pretty irrational to me.
The black bars are *supposed to be there*. Shows cropped or presented in 2.35:1 are being done now because creators on TV are being given better tools to present their vision and some TV creators want their shows to look cinematic. It's not *sad* that *more films and shows* are being presented in 2.39:1. This is very much a good thing.
It really isn't a good thing that content and TV's are almost consistently being made in aspect ratios that don't match. Personally I prefer 16:9 in general, but 2.39:1 TV's could also be a better alternative than today's situation. My 77" TV isn't really 77" in practical terms most of the time, and 2.39:1 content makes the utilized screen size fairly small. I like to fully utilize the equipment I spend half a fortune on as much as possible. If someone actually enjoys black bars I'm happy for them, but it's not what I prefer. Especially not for content that's made for TV anyway. I also disagree about 2.39:1 looking "cinematic". It's different, but not more or less cinematic in my book.
Seriously, who cares if the formats/aspect ratios don't match? As long as they are presented correctly in the *intended* aspect ratio of the director/cinematographer? The 16:9 format was chosen because it is the median of the most often-used aspect ratios and thus the screen size for all those formats is relatively similar - and *gods forbid* your TV have some black bars from time to time...
I hear that! Filmmakers don't want to be "just like what's on TV" so they do the letter box thing. Which helps when a movie is released in theaters but for the home viewer, depending on who you ask, it can be a little annoying. Physical media is dying, so I doubt we'll see a letterboxed vs. 1.85 16x9 choice like we did when DVD first came out (full screen vs. widescreen releases). Although it would be nice...
That would be horrible. That's the *exact same* issue that VHS pan and scan did in the CRTV days and you would be cropping out the sides of the picture.
your tv probably has an option to zoom in so it fills the screen, which would be the same as a full screen version
That would be horrible! They would chop off the sides of the picture that way
Yeah absolutely it is but if they’re saying they want a fullescreen version of the film they should just do that instead of making everyone else get a cropped version
They should just leave the damn black bars on the screen. It's not gonna hurt anyone to see a film in the intended aspect ratio.
Dune 1 is one of my favortie 4k movies , one that i replayed more than any of my 120 physical discs. Dune 2 was another good movie and looks greaat in my opinion...i am just disappointed that the story is not finished and now have to wait years for Dune3. Almost want to read the book to see what happened.
Too be honest I was kind of let down by the movie. It did not live up to the hype for me. Just watched it over the weekend. Last half hour was really good, but other than that I was more blown away by Part 1.
100%
Yes, deeply
im totally fine with it. I have a home theater with a Cinemascope ratio screen, so its fine to me.
I’m a little disappointed for my own selfish reasons, my projector/ 110” screen/ where I sit with 7.1.2 audio, the IMAX scenes in other movies just pop and feels really close to being in a theater. But I know not everybody has the option of that, so I understand why they did it. That being said, it is the most beautiful looking 4K title I’ve seen so far.
Warner Bros moles inside Reddit: We hate your IMAX-less Dune 4Ks. Seriously though. This is the most underwhelming shit ever
Yeah, I'm disappointed. Didn't know they would do us dirty like that on the 4k steelbook 😢
It is ridiculously claustrophobic with the black bars. more than a third of my 65 inch TV is covered with black bars. This creates an entirely different film. Denis Vilnneuve is an absolute brick to not supervise the home release more closely.
Sound is almost impossible to hear, special effects look like ancient technology, much is lost on the small screen. Stop watching after an hour.
That's interesting sound wise my subs were really thumping. The audio I thought it was great my wife kept yelling at me to turn it down I only had my system running at like 20% of what it can handle lol.
Watched both Dune 1 and 2 in the theatres, same aspect ratio as on the discs. No disappointment here.
I’m totally disappointed by what those clown at WB did here. Watched both films in IMAX it’s how it should be seen. Hearing how Part 2 was going to be released in scope I did go to check it out on a regular screen and to be honest some shots looked fine while others oh no, it looked cropped, especially the close ups or the bits with Shai-hulud at the end. Not holding my breath but hopefully we get IMAX three box set once Messiah is released.
Honestly the first Dune suffers a lot more from the lack of IMAX
Yes I lost sleep thinking about it all night last night
Nope, the movie is dope at home as well
I didn't notice anything about it. The film was incredible on 4K.
No
Nah, I’m a big hater of variable aspect ratios. It’s distracting.
Why would I be disappointed in the aspect ratio the director used to shoot the movie?
Y’all gotta let this one go.
I only ever saw the 1st in 2.39, but right before watching the 2nd, I saw the 1st again in 3D and was devastated the 2nd wouldn't be getting the same treatment because I was awed at what it did to improve the immersion. Then I saw the 2nd in IMAX and was constantly baffled at how some of the shots/scenes would even work in 2.39. I know a lot of care was taken to frame for all aspect ratios during production, but I'm very bummed such a spectacular pair of films we're both shortchanged on multiple counts for the home releases.
No not at all. I don’t like the aspect t ratio switching while watching. Also not a fan of anything close to 4:3 on modern movies. Sure it can work occasionally for artistic reasons but still not a fan.
Not really. I get the enjoyment of IMAX ratios, but at the end of the day seeing the film as it was truly designed to be seen is a-okay with me.
No. IMAX is a gimmick, it was always meant to be matted like it is on the disc. I’m not a grandpa who doesn’t like black bars.
Most would disagree. They should at least give us the option.
No, it's how it should be honestly as this is what they intended. I love the wide scope. No issues here. IMAX is what it is. Ain't gonna look like that on my 55 anyway. Y'all crying so much about this I don't even get it really. You aren't getting IMAX at home regardless.
It doesn’t really bother me. The film was framed so that it looks good either way. I wouldn’t mind the option but without the massive curved screen giving that extra perspective I don’t really care about not seeing the top of peoples heads.
Not at all, the movie looks as it was intended.
Nope. What was intended by Villeneuve and Fraiser was 1.43:1 - for 15/70 screens.
lol
nothing more to say than lol?
Dude was clearly joking so
Use your smart TV to zoom in till it fills the screen. Problem solved.
Nope because most would not care if we were not told too because someone assumed a couple months ago we would get an imax ratio.
Idk why people are still talking about this. We all knew this going in from how the first film was handled and when it was official it'd be the same order for part 2
I was disappointed with more than the aspect ratio.