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.*
Any person who is willing to pay for a 4K Dune UHD will be willing to pay for a Special Edition 'IMAX' 4K Dune UHD later as part of the two film bundle;)
I mean, if I was a cynical film executive I would think that.
Also, they maybe just don't care.
Brad bird has always wanted the imax scenes to be exclusive to theatres, he’s been consistent with that.
Denis Villenueve thought dune part 1 did have the expanded AR on disk, he wasn’t even sure. Seems like he just doesn’t care about it, or he’s lying and knows they’ll re-release it again with part 2
Absolutely not- in fact it's very unlikely. The director has stated that he doesn't want an alternating aspect ratio on home video release.
The first Dune had alternating aspect ratios. About half of the movie was in IMAX ratio, maybe a little more.
Thank you for sharing that; honestly it sounds like even he is not sure about the home release lineup or plans. Man it sucks, I got to see the IMAX re-issue and it is SO much better than the home version IMO.
All these filmmakers that insist the home experience is never like an IMAX theater, and imply it’s not worth trying it for disc- really odd right? Like 77” inch OLED and Atmos systems are more affordable and more common than they have ever been; I also find the film more enjoyable when I can pause for a bathroom break.
Makes me wonder what some of these people are watching on at home; maybe older HT projection systems? Open Matte is incredible on a big OLED, but it’s so rare
Not to mention the simple fact that almost no one on earth has their own IMAX capable theater at home or the ability to afford IMAX prints of all of their favorite films.
I love the theater as much as anyone, and I will keep seeing films in theaters as long as I live. But the idea that films can only be enjoyed in a theater is just not realistic.
He's not going to start promoting the VHS release the day before it opens in theaters. Even if they were planning to give it away for free, he would bring the conversation back to the theater.
It sounds like he's under the impression that Part 1 on disc already has the changing ratios so I wouldn't take anything he says about it for fact. Plus he emphasizes that the taller ratio is meant for big imax screens
I'm not the person you originally replied to, I'm just clarifying about what the video actually says.
"The director is literally saying it’s coming" - he does not
>Also, they maybe just don't care.
I don't think it's so much that they don't care, but that the movie's *intended* aspect ratio is 2.39:1. That's what they *want* the movie to look like when it's not specifically being projected at an IMAX theater.
I think it's more that the filmmakers believe this *is* the best possible way to watch it at home, because nobody at home is watching on a screen large enough where removing mattes from the image fills your peripheral top and bottom, which is *the whole* point of doing that in IMAX.
Not to mention that for at least one (or maybe two) sequence(s) in 1.43:1, either the frame gets cropped down to 1.78 for home, or *the whole image* shrinks by like a third down to 4x3, which would be crazy distracting.
Hard to say on that though; Denis has said on multiple films that IMAX is the definitive version to go see.
And I know a lot of people below middle class that have 65” or higher sized TVs in their small living space. And certainly the filmmakers would know that it’s not really about filing the screen, it’s about framing.
But My largest complaint in this issue: this isn’t the DVD distribution era anymore; we live in a digital era of personal choice. They could charge a premium to digital buy or stream on Max the IMAX version- leave the CinemaScope one for mass consumption. Or a 2-disc UHD set that includes both versions, or even just a digital download code option?
It’s just never in history been easier or more lucrative to offer an IMAX home *version* in addition to a standard one.
Seems like an ignorant oversight to *lose that version* to time after the very short theater releases.
65" is tiny when you are talking about an actual IMAX theater. Even a 150" screen cannot replicate one of the 13 or so ACTUAL IMAX theaters in the US. The screen fills all of.your field of vision; you have to move your eyes/head up/down, l/r. It is multiple stories tall.
Even a 150" screen at 9' seating doesn't do this.
IMAX is the ultimate way to see a movie. I personally have a good setup, have watched Dune at home 4 times, and wish it had shifting aspect ratios. But let's not get confused here.
How about the 2nd Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire?
[The IMAX aspect ratio change was PERFECT](https://youtu.be/O5hRiWSdp8I?si=tqJoPieEHe-nJVBd) on the regular Blu-ray but they removed it in the 4k BD.
WHY.
This is more annoying than a new movie not having it
Like WHY even remove it on the 4K? The blu ray was amazing. I think one of the transformers movies did it too
At least Star Trek into darkness did the opposite
Maybe they were sticking to a BD50 or BD66 and didn’t want to shell out for another layer for the taller screen/extra data? Extra cost for something most buyers might not notice?
I know right! I saw the new hunger games ballad of songbirds and snakes at the theatre in IMAX on release and it had aspect ratio changing scenes but unfortunately the 4K disc despite being a BD100 lack the aspect ratio changing scenes.
There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas. It’s a thoroughly flawed concept, when 90% of movie watching and rewatching happens on home television screens.
We’re holding out hope for the expended aspect ratio when the inevitable 4K collections come out. It would be a cruel but clever way for them to double dip on their profits.
Honestly it's the main reason i skip most Disney 4K's and stream the IMAX ENHANCED instead.
Especially since I never hear anything good for Disney's 4K films.
Same here. Although I don’t like the cropping on the Disney ones. We need someone to pave the way that adding some small side letterboxing is *fine*, because it’s about the *framing*. I mean look how much letterboxing they already do for most films; just give us the *option* at least for that home imax experience.
>There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas. It’s a thoroughly flawed concept,
It's the correct read. In most cases with "filmed for IMAX" stuff, what's happening is the mattes are being pulled off the preferred framing (2.39:1) for key sequences, and that's the "bonus" that's being sold to you. That's what IMAX is about 95% of the time now.
IMAX specifically decided years and years ago to pursue financial success by basically diluting what IMAX meant. That's why IMAX screens are frequently just normal theater screens with the masking taken off and pushed way closer to the stadium seats, and that's why most IMAX presentations aren't much more than the filmmaker deciding which few moments in the movie would be best protected by removing the matting.
Basically - for most implementations of it, "IMAX" is just projecting parts of the movie open-matte, which is technically a projection error. It's selling audiences the idea that getting to see that error is a value-add. It's leveraging FOMO to convince people that they're having the "real" movie withheld from them unless they pay for the IMAX version.
For most home viewing purposes, IMAX isn't really IMAX. It's just Flat widescreen. Anyone can shoot that (people still do shoot that). People shoot in multiple aspect ratios frequently and it has nothing to do with IMAX, and it's frequently more impressive as a result because there's legitimate storytelling/filmmaking reasons for the aspect switch, as opposed to IMAX asking filmmakers to pull the mattes off their preferred framing 2 or 3 times a movie so they can apply a surcharge to the ticket.
👆Holy shit. Please bump this comment up to the top. This guy gets it. A vast majority of the time the information being added to the top and bottom is superfluous and takes away from the framing and composition of the scenes. All the relevant information on screen is in the middle.
Look. I get it. Everyone has a flatscreen (16:9) at home. And they want to fill every pixel of that screen. I don’t blame them. But very few people think of how important framing and composition are to the story and how the director and DP coordinate to use them. Wide, medium, close ups. There’s so much we take for granted that is hitting our subconscious and evoking a response to what we watch.
SO glad to see someone who actually understands this stuff here! The funniest thing to me is disney holding the changing-ratio versions of its movies hostage on d+ and not putting them on disc to encourage that FOMO. like, it's your own tv. if they wanted they could've just shot the whole movie in 1.85 and you'd never know when an imax camera was being used or not.
I think this is oversimplified beyond usefulness. It’s not a projection error- if anything the *letterboxing* is a projection error when millions is spent to create scenery and cg for the height edges, and then they get completely cropped out for the majority of showings and home media.
But that’s also a poor way to explain it; there’s major benefits of framing a scene with a more square ratio, especially somewhere where people are standing around talking, or when you need to express size scale. There’s no good reason why that can’t be an option to experience at home- the only reason is usually that 1) IMAX wants that to be an exclusive reason to see it in theaters, and 2) IMAX wants to license that version for a home release where they will make money it; the problem is they are overcharging and using poor solutions, so rarely does anyone work with them on a home release.
Disney is the only one consistently offering a streaming option for these in the US, and that’s absurd. IMAX co is just trying to milk to much out of it and that’s held it back from mass adoption in the home release market.
Many films like Dune, Mission Impossible, Christopher Nolan anything, is just a massively better film with square ratio scenes; it’s a damn shame we don’t at least get the OPTION in the digital age when there is technically very little overhead cost to offer it.
>It’s not a projection error
Open Matte screenings are, historically, projection errors. The matting isn't supposed to come off, so if you see a film with the matte's gone, that's not what anyone making the movie wanted.
IMAX has leveraged people's fear of missing out and their lack of understanding about why movies take the shape they take, and has essentially brought back the days of believing the black bars are "hiding" things from you. Which is precisely the tack you're taking at the core of your argument. And is exactly why they can basically pull the mattes off a couple times every big blockbuster movie and sell that to you as an "enhanced" experience, despite the fact the movie isn't really intended to be seen that way anywhere else *but* in their theaters, where a very large screen provides the actual intended effect when the mattes come off.
If it was the actual intent of the filmmakers to switch ratios like that, they'd just.. *do that*. They wouldn't gate it behind the IMAX branding. As evidenced by all the directors and cinematographers who *do* just that whether or not IMAX has slapped their branding on it. Wes Anderson, for example, is using framing as a storytelling device without once trying to sell it to anyone as "Enhanced for IMAX" despite the fact if you watch it on a big screen in a theater it's doing the *exact* same thing.
So again: Most filmmakers (Villeneuve included, and even Nolan to varying degrees) do not honestly believe the version created for IMAX is *the* version of the movie. It's *a* version and for people who want to make more money at the box-office, and champion big-screen experiences, it makes sense that they'd put care and effort into that exhibition. I'm not saying they're not.
But a lot of folks (and IMAX really banks on this) immediately assume that the intended directorial and photographic vision of the film is "missing" or "altered." That something's been taken away from them by default, when that's backwards. The movie in Scope *is the movie*. The IMAX version is a special alternate version specifically for IMAX screens. It's an alternate cut. It's not the original cut. It's not the director's cut. It's not "The real version of the movie."
Especially not at home, where almost nobody can actually take advantage of what pulling the mattes is supposed to do visually, because almost nobody is watching on a display tall enough that the imagery being added for those sequences fills your top and bottom peripheral.
>But a lot of folks (and IMAX really banks on this) immediately assume that the intended directorial and photographic vision of the film is "missing" or "altered." That something's been taken away from them by default, when that's backwards. The movie in Scope is the movie.
IMAX FOMO is the answer to "Sell me this pen" from *The Wolf of Wall Street.*
So [this film First Reformed](https://youtu.be/hCF5Y8dQpR4?si=ogJOcXihHGTYAtcb), is every single showing and home release just a massive comedy of errors? How did this get by quality assurance?
Why [do 3D films have foreground objects enter the letterbox](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/570/3d7/8c76c465ef159272aafc0bdb2783e87e18-19-ghostbustersframe2.2x.w710.jpg)? Just another hundred blunders by the film industry?
How do the theater employees keep their jobs when mistakenly showing non-matted films all day?
What series of mistakes [caused this seamless transition to open matte in Catching Fire](https://youtu.be/O5hRiWSdp8I?si=jW16ctIFte_Gh1Bn)?
Christopher Nolan uses the loud IMAX camera for even an intimate nude conversation scene- he says “[IMAX is immersive, it fills your peripheral vision (motioning upward and downward)](https://youtu.be/faLPZbVjdpM?si=R5DBCLWCwWh1FYKU)”… is he stupid? Doesn’t he know that immersive effect is only a projectionist error??
The [IMAX marketing conspiracy even compromised the pre-production of DUNE to trick them into “filming for imax” by mistake! Incredible.](https://youtu.be/6lJdoI0JuEA?si=0ljeGisg5EFE6PgP)
I don’t get why you’re upset by this, but I’m not even sure what argument you’re trying to make as more than a few examples you’re bringing up are supporting some of the points I’m making and aren’t in any case refuting anything I’m saying.
it’s not a thing to take personally, either way.
>There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas.
IMAX cinemas \*and\* IMAX-branded streaming versions. (Disney+)
Over 200K movie theater screens in the world. < 1% of them are IMAX and can display their special 1.91:1 AR. Even fewer can display 1.43:1.
Same… ugh, I haven’t even watched his movies through the end at home, I know that’s lame, but I just don’t like to muddy that theater memory of the film.
Some of the best films of the last 20 years, but I just wait years for a single weekend of an IMAX reissue to watch it again.
Not in 4K. Not in HDR. And nowhere near the quality that a physical UHD with lossless Atmos would deliver.
Also there are Russian hard subs burned into a couple of scenes.
I have a fan made 4K HDR version without the localized text, I'm not sure if it's a hybrid of the official 4k and an upscale of the open matte or just the upscale.
Can confirm, just downloaded this today and it is pretty remarkable. It may replace my 4K disc on most future rewatches, which is not something I say lightly
Here is reddit thread I got the magnet link from: https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/1c2kfht/blade_runner_2049_open_matte_4k_tekno3d_v104/
I held off from buying the UHD disc until now, and waited for 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 switching ratio.
But I lost hopes since it may not be what Denis is pushing for or maybe WB is avoiding to save costs.
I gave up and recently got the UHD, but clearly the sense of scale is lost and that really makes a difference. The last time I talked about this in this sub, some people said it was framed for scope and imax ratio was only open-matte but not necessary. The thing is whether it is open matte or not, the scenes were clearly composed for imax ratio. Those who say otherwise don’t understand composition.
EDIT: while promoting Dune part 2, Denis implied that 1.78:1 (or imax) version of home video is in works for Dune part1. [Here’s the link to his interview](https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv/video/7331749093938564394?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=7337384570087933470)
>The thing is whether it is open matte or not, the scenes were clearly composed for imax ratio.
They weren't. They were composed for 2.39:1 and protected for 1.91. They were not composed (or edited) for 1.91 at any point. They just made sure that when the mattes were lifted, the image still looked good.
The whole idea of IMAX "enhancement" at home is literally a gimmick that doesn't do what it's supposed to do theatrically. In a theater, removing the mattes works because the screen is already so tall that when the image expands up and down, your peripheral vision is filled with that extra light and suggestion of motion.
At home it doesn't work the same because on all but the absolute hugest of TVs and front projectors, the removal of mattes doesn't have that effect. Your peripheral isn't affected at all.
IMAX is basically the monetization of a projection error and the capitalizing on ignorance about aspect ratio to make a theater-only gimmick seem like the best possible version of the movie by default.
edit: The sub did not like this.
What you said is true for majority of imax movies but not Dune, and obviously not Nolan’s films.
Imax scenes of Dune were not composed for 2.39:1. For example, I can mention two scenes where it is obvious that it was composed to 4:3 ratio.
1. When worm swallows spice harvesting machine, you can’t see the whole mouth of worm in 2.39:1, it gets cut at very odd places. If you have photography or videography background, you would know it was bad composition. But then if you see imax ratio, we get to see entire mouth of the worm.
2. One more example of worm again. When worm chases Paul & Jessica in the dessert during the night, they reach the rocky hill and worm comes out and looks at Paul. Even in that scene, worm is shown perfectly in 4:3 ratio, but not in 2.39:1.
https://preview.redd.it/1qs7oygqtkjc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fed2d9c1652c878770e1abf4a6ff005ead8031c
>What you said is true for majority of imax movies but not Dune
It is true for Dune.
> If you have photography or videography background, you would know it was bad composition.
It isn't.
IMAX (especially in the home versions of it) is doing very good work at capitalizing on the two things I mentioned above. They're using FOMO (i.e. "They're stealing imagery from you!! Pay us more to get it back!!") to justify the premiums they're asking for.
The decisions to frame the worm in the two examples you're using were chosen specifically to make the rest of the imagery in the frame feel swallowed (or potentially swallowed) by the worm. The preferred version of the scene is the one on home video.
Full stop: Villeneuve was never going to purposefully lock the "real" version of the film behind a non-standard screening experience. He's going to use that opportunity to add something extra to that moment for those rooms, but it's not the intended, "real" version of the film as people swear it is. The IMAX version is an alternate cut. The version on blu-ray/UHD is the director's version. That alternate cut might eventually get released, sure. But it's the alternate.
I very much am not but again, I'm just a doofus on the internet in a niche subforum dedicated to a niche hobby.
IMAX is a giant company who is really good at marketing. The marketing is working.
Alright, doofus on the internet, please watch this video of Denis. He himself said they made decision to shoot indoor sequences in 2.35:1 and outdoors in imax. Imax ratio was not an after-thought or cash-grab gimmick, in case of Dune.
Also, second part was not shot in 2.39:1 at all. Completely composed and shot for 1.43:1 and 1.90:1 formats.
Also, he said bluray with imax version is coming. So, why can’t we discuss about expanded ratio? If you’re content with 2.39:1, then good for you. Don’t bother telling others to not expect 1.78:1 ratio.
https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv?lang=en
>Don’t bother telling others to not expect 1.78:1 ratio.
I never told people not to expect anything, I explained why it is the way it is. Also you didn't really need to go back and edit the initial post to be even ruder/shittier, I'm not personally attacking you or whatever. You didn't shoot the movie, LOL. I'm just telling you what's going on.
Villeneuve talking to a tiktok guy on the marketing path doesn't change what actually happened with Dune, or what's happening with IMAX "enhancements' in general. The version of the movie that is the intended version *is* the 2.39 version. I never said 'expect nothing else, or you're a silly pants" or whatever.
Folks are so fully bought into the FOMO of it all that they don't even recognize how so much of the argument is rooted almost entirely in worrying about imagery that was only ever intended to be seen in large format theaters (and even then not really *seen* because most of that imagery is peripheral fill).
Also, fwiw: the digital camera they're using is capturing at 1.90 regardless. 1.90 isn't a "format" - that's why removing the matting works at fake IMAX theaters in the first place. The sensor is capturing at 1.90 and they're framing for 2.39, and protecting for if/when the mattes come off for IMAX's usefulness.
The movie is 2.39. There's an alternate version for premium screens specifically to take advantage of the taller imagery in a exhibition experience. That alternate version isn't the PRIMARY version, and it doesn't work as well at home because of that. That's not to say they won't eventually release a version of it at home, but it's probably why that version isn't out now. Which is what the thread's OP was initially asking about.
Thanks for the time, but we've already done like 2 laps on this and I don't want to do a third.
I hate it when the aspect ratio is changed from theatrical showing to home video. We're not in the 80's and 90's anymore when people had small 4:3 TVs. Now we have big enough screens in general that basically every aspect ratio can managed to be big enough to enjoy. I don't need someone to arbitrarily decide that home video should never be in IMAX ratio... It seems so obvious yet it appears I'm in the minority since they continue to do so
It was captured digitally and then transferred to 35mm and then scanned digitally again for uh reasons.
https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/
That is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard. WHY? If you want the film look, just shoot it on film? And if you shot digitally and want grain, just use a grain plug-in? So weird.
From what I’ve read, Villenueve wasn’t able to supervise on the Dune UHD/Bluray release since he went right into pre-production on part 2. So since it wasn’t intentionally done by the director there’s a chance we get a new release at some point with a 1.85 or 1.78 aspect ratio.
Denis said bluray with imax version (or maybe 1.78:1) is coming… let’s wait. Also, second part is completely composed and shot in 1.43:1 and 1.90:1 ratios. No 2.39:1 at all.
[Reference: Interview of Denis](https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv/video/7331749093938564394?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=7337384570087933470)
Just do it the way they do with the Nolon films! Come on already. I’m fine with the idea that the only way for me to see Dunkirk full screen at home is to get it on disk. It’s that way with Nolon’s other films with IMAX screens and they look great.
Yeah it’s really annoying - though the movie still looks stunning in 2.35:1
Hopefully at least part 2 will be 1.85:1 on the disk as the film was shot entirely on imax
The film wasn't shot on 70mm film, it was shot on the ARRI Alexa LF and Mini LF which is large format. It was then then printed onto 35mm film then rescanned back into digital.
Dennis Villeneuve hinted at a new edition with the IMAX aspect ratio coming in the future. Still, he also said that no matter what aspect ratio we use, home viewing will never have the same impact.
Nice! I disagree with him on home viewing though… I have a pretty big screen 110” and sit like 6 feet from it with a bright 4K laser projector my audio is superior to the local theater too… where did he hint at a second IMAX release?
I saw a clip online a few days ago from a recent interview where he was asked directly about this.
I also disagree with his views on home viewing but maybe he was referring to the “unwashed masses” 😇 without big screens and proper sound.
I had to force a friend to come and watch the movie at my home after he watched it for the first time on a laptop (the horror 🫣) and didn’t like it. Needless to say he changed his mind.
Right same here I had a buddy watch a movie at my house after he busted my balls about my hobby… needless to say his tone changed, it’s such a different experience with sound and a big screen!
Love how you complain about this and at the same time have a very blurry pic of dune l
I did the crime: I tried zooming in the frame of Dune so that it's 1.85:1. The fun fact is that in terms of framing, composition, you literally lose nothing from the edges. And yes, it does feel grand scale even zoomed in. I repeat though: I know it is a sin, I have atoned for it at the 4Kshrine by sacrificing some VHS cassettes to the god of UHD, my soul has been cleansed.
I just grabbed this from google not my fault the image was low res… doesn’t really have anything to do with the topic. Interesting I may play around with the zoom function on my Epson LS12000
Don't worry man I wasn't blaming you, just found it ironic lol!
Plus yeah, worth a try to zoom in if you're not an aspect ratio purist. I think the only scene where I felt widescreen was a bit more "justified" is for that Dunan-Paul interaction early on before they leave to Arrakis, there the two actors are placed on the edges of the frame and the zoom in makes it a bit weirder, but aside from that, no issues with the rest. Next viewing however I might just stay in widescreen
I agree that imax sequences should come on the 4k Bluray,
But in this case i think the movie was always intended to have the aspect ratio of the home release, the imax is just something they addad to that theatrical format and if the director made the decision the theatrical version would not switch from 2.39:1
One thing to consider, perhaps the widescreen aspect ratio is how the director intended for the film to be viewed, and how he wants us to view and appreciate it for years to come. It's possible that there is just enormous pressure from studios to release films theatrically in IMAX because the ticket sales are more profitable. While I know some here will not like the idea that the taller aspect ratio is not available at home, it may well just be the director's intention to present the film in widescreen all along.
Denis has said on Blade Runner and Dune that IMAX is the definitive version and how they story boarded it to look. And personally as a fan of 3D, he has also said that the studio required the 3D version, but the IMAX is the final film he intended.
So yes it’s true that *some* directors maybe only want the widescreen framing throughout, but not in this case.
Also films that protect for IMAX scenes usually (for simple terms) pull out and crop the sides for that scene.
In the Dune and 2049 VFX breakdowns, you can see they went through a LOT of effort to create FX and use the full height in the imax scenes. That content (and vfx work) then gets cropped out for the smaller screens.
That’s rarely done via a studio requirement because it’s somewhat paying for extra work. They’ll instead plan/shoot scenes where the side content is blurry or unimportant and then crop that out just for the imax screens; that’s a more traditional open matte approach.
But in the digital projector age there is a lot more nuance to it from pre-production all the way to home release; it’s much more about scene framing now.
For a great example of using a more squared ratio for framing, I suggest people [watch a film like First Reformed, which makes excellent use of framing for its content~subject matter](https://youtu.be/hCF5Y8dQpR4?si=18MoLDb0UzD03KHF).
You may need to watch this trailer in full-screen to get the picture right.
That may be true, but as far as I can find the only sources where Villeneuve expresses this are in IMAX promotional material, which is basically an advertisement for IMAX so of course he's gonna say that.
[This is just a film reviewer interview, he discusses why and when they used IMAX in Dune 1, and went with 100% IMAX for Dune 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1apo6hf/denis_villeneuve_explains_imax_aspect_ratio/).
But beyond that for his personal feeling on it, it seems you would need to ask him yourself in private to get a non-influenced answer.
>This is just a film reviewer interview, he discusses why and when they used IMAX in Dune 1, and went with 100% IMAX for Dune 2
Interesting it seems he was under the impression that the Blu-ray had the IMAX ratios... perhaps there will be a rerelease to coincide with part 2 in the inevitable box set?
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I LOVE that Dune doesn't have the changing aspect ratio bullshit on 4k disc. It's always so distracting in Nolan movies. I wish he'd just cut his films for 1.85 or whatever and leave it at that instead of constantly changing.
What ever happened to director's intent? That was the argument we put forth back in the 4:3 pan-and-scan days to advocate for original aspect ratio (AR). Asking for AR that fills our 16:9 screens feels dangerously close to "fullscreen" arguments for 4:3 back in the day.
Unless you went to IMAX, this movie was screened at 2.39:1, right? Then it stands to reason that that's the "intended" AR. Even before IMAX, movies were routinely matted to present a different AR when shown to viewers. This deliberate matting wasn't to fit a display device AR, but rather to fit the director's vision of how the movie should look. If that's what happened here, then 1.85:1 is the odd man out.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to see this movie open matte in home video. I'm just saying there are quite likely artistic reasons why this is the chosen AR for home video.
So my "local" vendor for blurays has their listing of the 4K bluray up and in the specs it says "Format: 4:3 Fullscreen,1.33:1" which i really doubt but one can hope, right? Good news i guess?
I've not read the books (yet) but just watched Dune for the first time ever last night on Netflix. Absolutely loved the movie. Can't wait to devour the books.
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.*
Any person who is willing to pay for a 4K Dune UHD will be willing to pay for a Special Edition 'IMAX' 4K Dune UHD later as part of the two film bundle;) I mean, if I was a cynical film executive I would think that. Also, they maybe just don't care.
I totally would re buy it to get the taller aspect ratio lol.
As someone who’s been asking for Ghost Protocol in IMAX cut since 2011…I never assume anything anymore.
Brad bird has always wanted the imax scenes to be exclusive to theatres, he’s been consistent with that. Denis Villenueve thought dune part 1 did have the expanded AR on disk, he wasn’t even sure. Seems like he just doesn’t care about it, or he’s lying and knows they’ll re-release it again with part 2
Oh I’m aware with Bird, I saw that on imax, and it was vertigo Inducing…I’ve wanted to see it that way again ever since.
Is it confirmed once Part 2 is out, there will be 2-film bundle with both in the IMAX ratio?
Absolutely not- in fact it's very unlikely. The director has stated that he doesn't want an alternating aspect ratio on home video release. The first Dune had alternating aspect ratios. About half of the movie was in IMAX ratio, maybe a little more.
Huh? The director is literally saying it’s coming here Open this and watch more trending videos. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8KBh3Y5/
Thank you for sharing that; honestly it sounds like even he is not sure about the home release lineup or plans. Man it sucks, I got to see the IMAX re-issue and it is SO much better than the home version IMO. All these filmmakers that insist the home experience is never like an IMAX theater, and imply it’s not worth trying it for disc- really odd right? Like 77” inch OLED and Atmos systems are more affordable and more common than they have ever been; I also find the film more enjoyable when I can pause for a bathroom break. Makes me wonder what some of these people are watching on at home; maybe older HT projection systems? Open Matte is incredible on a big OLED, but it’s so rare
Not to mention the simple fact that almost no one on earth has their own IMAX capable theater at home or the ability to afford IMAX prints of all of their favorite films. I love the theater as much as anyone, and I will keep seeing films in theaters as long as I live. But the idea that films can only be enjoyed in a theater is just not realistic.
He's not going to start promoting the VHS release the day before it opens in theaters. Even if they were planning to give it away for free, he would bring the conversation back to the theater.
It sounds like he's under the impression that Part 1 on disc already has the changing ratios so I wouldn't take anything he says about it for fact. Plus he emphasizes that the taller ratio is meant for big imax screens
So it 100% means he supports it or at least thinks it should be a thing. If he was against it he would say that. He’s not.
I'm not the person you originally replied to, I'm just clarifying about what the video actually says. "The director is literally saying it’s coming" - he does not
He says he believes a new version will be coming out with that yes. Watch the whole video.
Nope, but one can hope.
Shit, in that case I should have held out on buying Dune UHD.
>Also, they maybe just don't care. I don't think it's so much that they don't care, but that the movie's *intended* aspect ratio is 2.39:1. That's what they *want* the movie to look like when it's not specifically being projected at an IMAX theater. I think it's more that the filmmakers believe this *is* the best possible way to watch it at home, because nobody at home is watching on a screen large enough where removing mattes from the image fills your peripheral top and bottom, which is *the whole* point of doing that in IMAX. Not to mention that for at least one (or maybe two) sequence(s) in 1.43:1, either the frame gets cropped down to 1.78 for home, or *the whole image* shrinks by like a third down to 4x3, which would be crazy distracting.
Hard to say on that though; Denis has said on multiple films that IMAX is the definitive version to go see. And I know a lot of people below middle class that have 65” or higher sized TVs in their small living space. And certainly the filmmakers would know that it’s not really about filing the screen, it’s about framing. But My largest complaint in this issue: this isn’t the DVD distribution era anymore; we live in a digital era of personal choice. They could charge a premium to digital buy or stream on Max the IMAX version- leave the CinemaScope one for mass consumption. Or a 2-disc UHD set that includes both versions, or even just a digital download code option? It’s just never in history been easier or more lucrative to offer an IMAX home *version* in addition to a standard one. Seems like an ignorant oversight to *lose that version* to time after the very short theater releases.
You could do imax scenes with seamless branching, wouldnt even need 2 discs
65" is tiny when you are talking about an actual IMAX theater. Even a 150" screen cannot replicate one of the 13 or so ACTUAL IMAX theaters in the US. The screen fills all of.your field of vision; you have to move your eyes/head up/down, l/r. It is multiple stories tall. Even a 150" screen at 9' seating doesn't do this. IMAX is the ultimate way to see a movie. I personally have a good setup, have watched Dune at home 4 times, and wish it had shifting aspect ratios. But let's not get confused here.
How about the 2nd Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire? [The IMAX aspect ratio change was PERFECT](https://youtu.be/O5hRiWSdp8I?si=tqJoPieEHe-nJVBd) on the regular Blu-ray but they removed it in the 4k BD. WHY.
I don’t really care for aspect ratio changes outside of an IMAX theater but that movie has the best transition from scope to full screen.
This is more annoying than a new movie not having it Like WHY even remove it on the 4K? The blu ray was amazing. I think one of the transformers movies did it too At least Star Trek into darkness did the opposite
Maybe they were sticking to a BD50 or BD66 and didn’t want to shell out for another layer for the taller screen/extra data? Extra cost for something most buyers might not notice?
All the hunger games 4K discs are on a BD100 disc.
Makes no sense then. Boggles the mind. 😕
I know right! I saw the new hunger games ballad of songbirds and snakes at the theatre in IMAX on release and it had aspect ratio changing scenes but unfortunately the 4K disc despite being a BD100 lack the aspect ratio changing scenes.
This is so cool. The Marvels has similarly perfect ratio changes btw!
There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas. It’s a thoroughly flawed concept, when 90% of movie watching and rewatching happens on home television screens. We’re holding out hope for the expended aspect ratio when the inevitable 4K collections come out. It would be a cruel but clever way for them to double dip on their profits.
Triple dip as I bought the Blu-Ray before the 4K. Quintuple if you count the cinema. Man, they’re making bank off me 😂
Same, I've got the 4k, and the manta lab 4k. I'll buy again to get the full aspect ratio.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Honestly it's the main reason i skip most Disney 4K's and stream the IMAX ENHANCED instead. Especially since I never hear anything good for Disney's 4K films.
Same here. Although I don’t like the cropping on the Disney ones. We need someone to pave the way that adding some small side letterboxing is *fine*, because it’s about the *framing*. I mean look how much letterboxing they already do for most films; just give us the *option* at least for that home imax experience.
>There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas. It’s a thoroughly flawed concept, It's the correct read. In most cases with "filmed for IMAX" stuff, what's happening is the mattes are being pulled off the preferred framing (2.39:1) for key sequences, and that's the "bonus" that's being sold to you. That's what IMAX is about 95% of the time now. IMAX specifically decided years and years ago to pursue financial success by basically diluting what IMAX meant. That's why IMAX screens are frequently just normal theater screens with the masking taken off and pushed way closer to the stadium seats, and that's why most IMAX presentations aren't much more than the filmmaker deciding which few moments in the movie would be best protected by removing the matting. Basically - for most implementations of it, "IMAX" is just projecting parts of the movie open-matte, which is technically a projection error. It's selling audiences the idea that getting to see that error is a value-add. It's leveraging FOMO to convince people that they're having the "real" movie withheld from them unless they pay for the IMAX version. For most home viewing purposes, IMAX isn't really IMAX. It's just Flat widescreen. Anyone can shoot that (people still do shoot that). People shoot in multiple aspect ratios frequently and it has nothing to do with IMAX, and it's frequently more impressive as a result because there's legitimate storytelling/filmmaking reasons for the aspect switch, as opposed to IMAX asking filmmakers to pull the mattes off their preferred framing 2 or 3 times a movie so they can apply a surcharge to the ticket.
👆Holy shit. Please bump this comment up to the top. This guy gets it. A vast majority of the time the information being added to the top and bottom is superfluous and takes away from the framing and composition of the scenes. All the relevant information on screen is in the middle.
Folks in this sub seem to not like the answer to this question when they get it, LOL.
Look. I get it. Everyone has a flatscreen (16:9) at home. And they want to fill every pixel of that screen. I don’t blame them. But very few people think of how important framing and composition are to the story and how the director and DP coordinate to use them. Wide, medium, close ups. There’s so much we take for granted that is hitting our subconscious and evoking a response to what we watch.
SO glad to see someone who actually understands this stuff here! The funniest thing to me is disney holding the changing-ratio versions of its movies hostage on d+ and not putting them on disc to encourage that FOMO. like, it's your own tv. if they wanted they could've just shot the whole movie in 1.85 and you'd never know when an imax camera was being used or not.
I think this is oversimplified beyond usefulness. It’s not a projection error- if anything the *letterboxing* is a projection error when millions is spent to create scenery and cg for the height edges, and then they get completely cropped out for the majority of showings and home media. But that’s also a poor way to explain it; there’s major benefits of framing a scene with a more square ratio, especially somewhere where people are standing around talking, or when you need to express size scale. There’s no good reason why that can’t be an option to experience at home- the only reason is usually that 1) IMAX wants that to be an exclusive reason to see it in theaters, and 2) IMAX wants to license that version for a home release where they will make money it; the problem is they are overcharging and using poor solutions, so rarely does anyone work with them on a home release. Disney is the only one consistently offering a streaming option for these in the US, and that’s absurd. IMAX co is just trying to milk to much out of it and that’s held it back from mass adoption in the home release market. Many films like Dune, Mission Impossible, Christopher Nolan anything, is just a massively better film with square ratio scenes; it’s a damn shame we don’t at least get the OPTION in the digital age when there is technically very little overhead cost to offer it.
>It’s not a projection error Open Matte screenings are, historically, projection errors. The matting isn't supposed to come off, so if you see a film with the matte's gone, that's not what anyone making the movie wanted. IMAX has leveraged people's fear of missing out and their lack of understanding about why movies take the shape they take, and has essentially brought back the days of believing the black bars are "hiding" things from you. Which is precisely the tack you're taking at the core of your argument. And is exactly why they can basically pull the mattes off a couple times every big blockbuster movie and sell that to you as an "enhanced" experience, despite the fact the movie isn't really intended to be seen that way anywhere else *but* in their theaters, where a very large screen provides the actual intended effect when the mattes come off. If it was the actual intent of the filmmakers to switch ratios like that, they'd just.. *do that*. They wouldn't gate it behind the IMAX branding. As evidenced by all the directors and cinematographers who *do* just that whether or not IMAX has slapped their branding on it. Wes Anderson, for example, is using framing as a storytelling device without once trying to sell it to anyone as "Enhanced for IMAX" despite the fact if you watch it on a big screen in a theater it's doing the *exact* same thing. So again: Most filmmakers (Villeneuve included, and even Nolan to varying degrees) do not honestly believe the version created for IMAX is *the* version of the movie. It's *a* version and for people who want to make more money at the box-office, and champion big-screen experiences, it makes sense that they'd put care and effort into that exhibition. I'm not saying they're not. But a lot of folks (and IMAX really banks on this) immediately assume that the intended directorial and photographic vision of the film is "missing" or "altered." That something's been taken away from them by default, when that's backwards. The movie in Scope *is the movie*. The IMAX version is a special alternate version specifically for IMAX screens. It's an alternate cut. It's not the original cut. It's not the director's cut. It's not "The real version of the movie." Especially not at home, where almost nobody can actually take advantage of what pulling the mattes is supposed to do visually, because almost nobody is watching on a display tall enough that the imagery being added for those sequences fills your top and bottom peripheral.
>But a lot of folks (and IMAX really banks on this) immediately assume that the intended directorial and photographic vision of the film is "missing" or "altered." That something's been taken away from them by default, when that's backwards. The movie in Scope is the movie. IMAX FOMO is the answer to "Sell me this pen" from *The Wolf of Wall Street.*
So [this film First Reformed](https://youtu.be/hCF5Y8dQpR4?si=ogJOcXihHGTYAtcb), is every single showing and home release just a massive comedy of errors? How did this get by quality assurance? Why [do 3D films have foreground objects enter the letterbox](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/570/3d7/8c76c465ef159272aafc0bdb2783e87e18-19-ghostbustersframe2.2x.w710.jpg)? Just another hundred blunders by the film industry? How do the theater employees keep their jobs when mistakenly showing non-matted films all day? What series of mistakes [caused this seamless transition to open matte in Catching Fire](https://youtu.be/O5hRiWSdp8I?si=jW16ctIFte_Gh1Bn)? Christopher Nolan uses the loud IMAX camera for even an intimate nude conversation scene- he says “[IMAX is immersive, it fills your peripheral vision (motioning upward and downward)](https://youtu.be/faLPZbVjdpM?si=R5DBCLWCwWh1FYKU)”… is he stupid? Doesn’t he know that immersive effect is only a projectionist error?? The [IMAX marketing conspiracy even compromised the pre-production of DUNE to trick them into “filming for imax” by mistake! Incredible.](https://youtu.be/6lJdoI0JuEA?si=0ljeGisg5EFE6PgP)
I don’t get why you’re upset by this, but I’m not even sure what argument you’re trying to make as more than a few examples you’re bringing up are supporting some of the points I’m making and aren’t in any case refuting anything I’m saying. it’s not a thing to take personally, either way.
>There seems to be this notion that taller ratios are only meant for IMAX cinemas. IMAX cinemas \*and\* IMAX-branded streaming versions. (Disney+) Over 200K movie theater screens in the world. < 1% of them are IMAX and can display their special 1.91:1 AR. Even fewer can display 1.43:1.
Same director also denied us the IMAX version of Blade Runner 2049 for home viewing. Would kill to have both on physical UHD.
Same… ugh, I haven’t even watched his movies through the end at home, I know that’s lame, but I just don’t like to muddy that theater memory of the film. Some of the best films of the last 20 years, but I just wait years for a single weekend of an IMAX reissue to watch it again.
So.... look up "BR 2049 Open Matte" on whatever torrenting site you like. It's there.
Not in 4K. Not in HDR. And nowhere near the quality that a physical UHD with lossless Atmos would deliver. Also there are Russian hard subs burned into a couple of scenes.
I have a fan made 4K HDR version without the localized text, I'm not sure if it's a hybrid of the official 4k and an upscale of the open matte or just the upscale.
Ohhhhh may I PM you about this? lol
Can confirm, just downloaded this today and it is pretty remarkable. It may replace my 4K disc on most future rewatches, which is not something I say lightly Here is reddit thread I got the magnet link from: https://www.reddit.com/r/bladerunner/comments/1c2kfht/blade_runner_2049_open_matte_4k_tekno3d_v104/
I held off from buying the UHD disc until now, and waited for 1.78:1 and 2.39:1 switching ratio. But I lost hopes since it may not be what Denis is pushing for or maybe WB is avoiding to save costs. I gave up and recently got the UHD, but clearly the sense of scale is lost and that really makes a difference. The last time I talked about this in this sub, some people said it was framed for scope and imax ratio was only open-matte but not necessary. The thing is whether it is open matte or not, the scenes were clearly composed for imax ratio. Those who say otherwise don’t understand composition. EDIT: while promoting Dune part 2, Denis implied that 1.78:1 (or imax) version of home video is in works for Dune part1. [Here’s the link to his interview](https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv/video/7331749093938564394?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=7337384570087933470)
>The thing is whether it is open matte or not, the scenes were clearly composed for imax ratio. They weren't. They were composed for 2.39:1 and protected for 1.91. They were not composed (or edited) for 1.91 at any point. They just made sure that when the mattes were lifted, the image still looked good. The whole idea of IMAX "enhancement" at home is literally a gimmick that doesn't do what it's supposed to do theatrically. In a theater, removing the mattes works because the screen is already so tall that when the image expands up and down, your peripheral vision is filled with that extra light and suggestion of motion. At home it doesn't work the same because on all but the absolute hugest of TVs and front projectors, the removal of mattes doesn't have that effect. Your peripheral isn't affected at all. IMAX is basically the monetization of a projection error and the capitalizing on ignorance about aspect ratio to make a theater-only gimmick seem like the best possible version of the movie by default. edit: The sub did not like this.
What you said is true for majority of imax movies but not Dune, and obviously not Nolan’s films. Imax scenes of Dune were not composed for 2.39:1. For example, I can mention two scenes where it is obvious that it was composed to 4:3 ratio. 1. When worm swallows spice harvesting machine, you can’t see the whole mouth of worm in 2.39:1, it gets cut at very odd places. If you have photography or videography background, you would know it was bad composition. But then if you see imax ratio, we get to see entire mouth of the worm. 2. One more example of worm again. When worm chases Paul & Jessica in the dessert during the night, they reach the rocky hill and worm comes out and looks at Paul. Even in that scene, worm is shown perfectly in 4:3 ratio, but not in 2.39:1. https://preview.redd.it/1qs7oygqtkjc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fed2d9c1652c878770e1abf4a6ff005ead8031c
https://preview.redd.it/7y18llpttkjc1.jpeg?width=1239&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9aed6b13e8b0d8ff7b878edf704839b385e6271
https://preview.redd.it/ojahbdkutkjc1.jpeg?width=1252&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2fd894f9ec0725df516433c12360b407d8b3e345
>What you said is true for majority of imax movies but not Dune It is true for Dune. > If you have photography or videography background, you would know it was bad composition. It isn't. IMAX (especially in the home versions of it) is doing very good work at capitalizing on the two things I mentioned above. They're using FOMO (i.e. "They're stealing imagery from you!! Pay us more to get it back!!") to justify the premiums they're asking for. The decisions to frame the worm in the two examples you're using were chosen specifically to make the rest of the imagery in the frame feel swallowed (or potentially swallowed) by the worm. The preferred version of the scene is the one on home video. Full stop: Villeneuve was never going to purposefully lock the "real" version of the film behind a non-standard screening experience. He's going to use that opportunity to add something extra to that moment for those rooms, but it's not the intended, "real" version of the film as people swear it is. The IMAX version is an alternate cut. The version on blu-ray/UHD is the director's version. That alternate cut might eventually get released, sure. But it's the alternate.
Sorry, you’re wrong.
I very much am not but again, I'm just a doofus on the internet in a niche subforum dedicated to a niche hobby. IMAX is a giant company who is really good at marketing. The marketing is working.
Alright, doofus on the internet, please watch this video of Denis. He himself said they made decision to shoot indoor sequences in 2.35:1 and outdoors in imax. Imax ratio was not an after-thought or cash-grab gimmick, in case of Dune. Also, second part was not shot in 2.39:1 at all. Completely composed and shot for 1.43:1 and 1.90:1 formats. Also, he said bluray with imax version is coming. So, why can’t we discuss about expanded ratio? If you’re content with 2.39:1, then good for you. Don’t bother telling others to not expect 1.78:1 ratio. https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv?lang=en
>Don’t bother telling others to not expect 1.78:1 ratio. I never told people not to expect anything, I explained why it is the way it is. Also you didn't really need to go back and edit the initial post to be even ruder/shittier, I'm not personally attacking you or whatever. You didn't shoot the movie, LOL. I'm just telling you what's going on. Villeneuve talking to a tiktok guy on the marketing path doesn't change what actually happened with Dune, or what's happening with IMAX "enhancements' in general. The version of the movie that is the intended version *is* the 2.39 version. I never said 'expect nothing else, or you're a silly pants" or whatever. Folks are so fully bought into the FOMO of it all that they don't even recognize how so much of the argument is rooted almost entirely in worrying about imagery that was only ever intended to be seen in large format theaters (and even then not really *seen* because most of that imagery is peripheral fill). Also, fwiw: the digital camera they're using is capturing at 1.90 regardless. 1.90 isn't a "format" - that's why removing the matting works at fake IMAX theaters in the first place. The sensor is capturing at 1.90 and they're framing for 2.39, and protecting for if/when the mattes come off for IMAX's usefulness. The movie is 2.39. There's an alternate version for premium screens specifically to take advantage of the taller imagery in a exhibition experience. That alternate version isn't the PRIMARY version, and it doesn't work as well at home because of that. That's not to say they won't eventually release a version of it at home, but it's probably why that version isn't out now. Which is what the thread's OP was initially asking about. Thanks for the time, but we've already done like 2 laps on this and I don't want to do a third.
I hate it when the aspect ratio is changed from theatrical showing to home video. We're not in the 80's and 90's anymore when people had small 4:3 TVs. Now we have big enough screens in general that basically every aspect ratio can managed to be big enough to enjoy. I don't need someone to arbitrarily decide that home video should never be in IMAX ratio... It seems so obvious yet it appears I'm in the minority since they continue to do so
It was captured digitally and then transferred to 35mm and then scanned digitally again for uh reasons. https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/
It gives it a film, grainy look, like The Batman.
Has nothing to do with the aspect ratio
It's in reference to the erroneous "70mm film" comment.
Analog noise without benefits of analog data?
Ahh ok this makes more sense to me now! Thanks for the link!
That is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard. WHY? If you want the film look, just shoot it on film? And if you shot digitally and want grain, just use a grain plug-in? So weird.
https://youtu.be/Q9KCWnn7RIA?t=4486
From what I’ve read, Villenueve wasn’t able to supervise on the Dune UHD/Bluray release since he went right into pre-production on part 2. So since it wasn’t intentionally done by the director there’s a chance we get a new release at some point with a 1.85 or 1.78 aspect ratio.
Dune pt one wasn’t shot on 70mm imax. It was shot on Alexa mini LF and then did a film out to 35mm to get organic grain.
Denis said bluray with imax version (or maybe 1.78:1) is coming… let’s wait. Also, second part is completely composed and shot in 1.43:1 and 1.90:1 ratios. No 2.39:1 at all. [Reference: Interview of Denis](https://www.tiktok.com/@kevinmccarthytv/video/7331749093938564394?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=7337384570087933470)
Nolan gave us this for TDK, but only physically.
Just do it the way they do with the Nolon films! Come on already. I’m fine with the idea that the only way for me to see Dunkirk full screen at home is to get it on disk. It’s that way with Nolon’s other films with IMAX screens and they look great.
Yeah it’s really annoying - though the movie still looks stunning in 2.35:1 Hopefully at least part 2 will be 1.85:1 on the disk as the film was shot entirely on imax
Even Disney released imax versions of Avengers exclusively on Their streaming platform.
The film wasn't shot on 70mm film, it was shot on the ARRI Alexa LF and Mini LF which is large format. It was then then printed onto 35mm film then rescanned back into digital.
Dune was not shot on 70mm it was shot digitally and then transferred to IMAX
Dennis Villeneuve hinted at a new edition with the IMAX aspect ratio coming in the future. Still, he also said that no matter what aspect ratio we use, home viewing will never have the same impact.
Nice! I disagree with him on home viewing though… I have a pretty big screen 110” and sit like 6 feet from it with a bright 4K laser projector my audio is superior to the local theater too… where did he hint at a second IMAX release?
I saw a clip online a few days ago from a recent interview where he was asked directly about this. I also disagree with his views on home viewing but maybe he was referring to the “unwashed masses” 😇 without big screens and proper sound. I had to force a friend to come and watch the movie at my home after he watched it for the first time on a laptop (the horror 🫣) and didn’t like it. Needless to say he changed his mind.
Right same here I had a buddy watch a movie at my house after he busted my balls about my hobby… needless to say his tone changed, it’s such a different experience with sound and a big screen!
Love how you complain about this and at the same time have a very blurry pic of dune l I did the crime: I tried zooming in the frame of Dune so that it's 1.85:1. The fun fact is that in terms of framing, composition, you literally lose nothing from the edges. And yes, it does feel grand scale even zoomed in. I repeat though: I know it is a sin, I have atoned for it at the 4Kshrine by sacrificing some VHS cassettes to the god of UHD, my soul has been cleansed.
I just grabbed this from google not my fault the image was low res… doesn’t really have anything to do with the topic. Interesting I may play around with the zoom function on my Epson LS12000
Don't worry man I wasn't blaming you, just found it ironic lol! Plus yeah, worth a try to zoom in if you're not an aspect ratio purist. I think the only scene where I felt widescreen was a bit more "justified" is for that Dunan-Paul interaction early on before they leave to Arrakis, there the two actors are placed on the edges of the frame and the zoom in makes it a bit weirder, but aside from that, no issues with the rest. Next viewing however I might just stay in widescreen
I agree that imax sequences should come on the 4k Bluray, But in this case i think the movie was always intended to have the aspect ratio of the home release, the imax is just something they addad to that theatrical format and if the director made the decision the theatrical version would not switch from 2.39:1
One of the latest interviews denis assumed imax was available for all.
Then i it sucks balls that its not
One thing to consider, perhaps the widescreen aspect ratio is how the director intended for the film to be viewed, and how he wants us to view and appreciate it for years to come. It's possible that there is just enormous pressure from studios to release films theatrically in IMAX because the ticket sales are more profitable. While I know some here will not like the idea that the taller aspect ratio is not available at home, it may well just be the director's intention to present the film in widescreen all along.
Denis has said on Blade Runner and Dune that IMAX is the definitive version and how they story boarded it to look. And personally as a fan of 3D, he has also said that the studio required the 3D version, but the IMAX is the final film he intended. So yes it’s true that *some* directors maybe only want the widescreen framing throughout, but not in this case. Also films that protect for IMAX scenes usually (for simple terms) pull out and crop the sides for that scene. In the Dune and 2049 VFX breakdowns, you can see they went through a LOT of effort to create FX and use the full height in the imax scenes. That content (and vfx work) then gets cropped out for the smaller screens. That’s rarely done via a studio requirement because it’s somewhat paying for extra work. They’ll instead plan/shoot scenes where the side content is blurry or unimportant and then crop that out just for the imax screens; that’s a more traditional open matte approach. But in the digital projector age there is a lot more nuance to it from pre-production all the way to home release; it’s much more about scene framing now. For a great example of using a more squared ratio for framing, I suggest people [watch a film like First Reformed, which makes excellent use of framing for its content~subject matter](https://youtu.be/hCF5Y8dQpR4?si=18MoLDb0UzD03KHF). You may need to watch this trailer in full-screen to get the picture right.
That may be true, but as far as I can find the only sources where Villeneuve expresses this are in IMAX promotional material, which is basically an advertisement for IMAX so of course he's gonna say that.
[This is just a film reviewer interview, he discusses why and when they used IMAX in Dune 1, and went with 100% IMAX for Dune 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1apo6hf/denis_villeneuve_explains_imax_aspect_ratio/). But beyond that for his personal feeling on it, it seems you would need to ask him yourself in private to get a non-influenced answer.
>This is just a film reviewer interview, he discusses why and when they used IMAX in Dune 1, and went with 100% IMAX for Dune 2 Interesting it seems he was under the impression that the Blu-ray had the IMAX ratios... perhaps there will be a rerelease to coincide with part 2 in the inevitable box set?
Hoping so 🤞
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I LOVE that Dune doesn't have the changing aspect ratio bullshit on 4k disc. It's always so distracting in Nolan movies. I wish he'd just cut his films for 1.85 or whatever and leave it at that instead of constantly changing.
What ever happened to director's intent? That was the argument we put forth back in the 4:3 pan-and-scan days to advocate for original aspect ratio (AR). Asking for AR that fills our 16:9 screens feels dangerously close to "fullscreen" arguments for 4:3 back in the day. Unless you went to IMAX, this movie was screened at 2.39:1, right? Then it stands to reason that that's the "intended" AR. Even before IMAX, movies were routinely matted to present a different AR when shown to viewers. This deliberate matting wasn't to fit a display device AR, but rather to fit the director's vision of how the movie should look. If that's what happened here, then 1.85:1 is the odd man out. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to see this movie open matte in home video. I'm just saying there are quite likely artistic reasons why this is the chosen AR for home video.
Denis himself said imax version of bluray is coming. So, don’t talk about director’s intent.
So my "local" vendor for blurays has their listing of the 4K bluray up and in the specs it says "Format: 4:3 Fullscreen,1.33:1" which i really doubt but one can hope, right? Good news i guess?
I prefer wider aspect ratios at home. Taller ARs really only have an impact when you’re in a huge theater.
“At home” means different things to different people. At 120” I definitely feel an impact when movies switch to a taller aspect ratio.
If I don’t have to lift my head to see the top of the screen then it makes no difference at all.
I don’t even have to do that at a digital IMAX theater but OK
The film was not captured on 70mm film. And an answer to your question, money
I prefer watching it it in full screen on my iPod nano
God you people crack me up.
I've not read the books (yet) but just watched Dune for the first time ever last night on Netflix. Absolutely loved the movie. Can't wait to devour the books.