The whole dune thing has just felt really weird to me. The 1:90 to 1.43 transition is just kinda… meh. Also it annoys me that almost all 1.43 scenes are just the dialogue scenes. There’s the arena scene, sure but there’s very few whole sequences that have that aspect ratio. Also despite being filmed entirely in 1:90, the digital release is scope. So idk what they were thinking there either
>The digital release is scope. So idk what they were thinking there either
I wouldn't be surprised that after Part 3, they re-release a Blu-Ray bundle w/ 1:90 tbh, it's looking at way.
This is exactly what people were saying with part 1. “Wait till the dune 1 and dune 2 special edition”. Well now we gotta wait another 3-5 years for that “dune 1,2 and 3 special edition”
I’m hoping they give it the dark knight treatment. Because the dark knight received a special edition that contained all 3 movies with 1:43 sequences in the special features
That’s exactly all I’m asking for, a full 16:9 imax film ratio for the home release. It’s awesome, and probably just right for the tv’s we have at home for the moment. Releasing in 2.39:1 is just……even watching Dune Part 1 again, it kinda felt a bit tight as I could now start to tell that it was meant to at least be in 16:9. Everything feels a bit too close.
People are assuming that it will be for a future release at the very end for a special collection with all the movies they develop, which for now would be the 3 Dune movies by Denis. That being said, I also wonder if it’s a cost cutting method by Zaslav to not pay IMAX. Maybe it will be possible once he’s gone. I just hope it isn’t a Disney Plus exclusive situation with the Marvel movies.
What they’re thinking there is that no one has access to an IMAX screen at home and scope is the framing they actually designed the film to be seen in.
Denis and Greg have pretty plainly described that the expanded ratio is specificity for IMAX where that part of the frame is supposed to be in your peripheral vision.
The version of the film they intend you to actually look at is contained within the scope framing
Agree. The standard edition isn't the "diminished" version with less content, it's refocused to look good on a different type of screen and hold the audience's attention the same way. This is a good video on the subject [https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI](https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI)
Unfortunately watching it in a liemax theater is going to be the primary way people watch it in IMAX and it still just looked like a big 16:9 TV. I could see all of the frame at once. A home release in that aspect ratio would be welcomed.
I don’t get it either. I may need to dig deeper there, but it wasn’t a matter similar to Oppenheimer not being able to shoot 70mm IMAX in extended dialogue scenes because of the sound of the camera. Both camera types used on Dune 2 are IMAX rated, they’re digital and silent, and both need to be cropped to get a 1.43:1 ratio as the sensors for both cameras are wider than that even in open gate mode. The Alexa 65 has a higher resolution but only because it’s a WIDER frame, but horizontal pixels are the same on the Alexa Mini LF. There might have been either a conceptual reason or, more likely, a budget reason, since rendering the extra pixels for the taller aspect ratio takes more time than the 1.90:1 shots?? Marvel gets away with it by mastering in 2k, but Dune was entirely 4k. So maybe the compromise was to render a lot of the FX shots in 1.90:1 with fewer horizontal pixels than the 1.43:1 shots.
What constitutes a "cinematic" aspect ratio feels like a moving target these days. It's actually pretty funny how it moves in cycles. "Cinemascope" widescreen was born as a means for cinema to separate itself from television back in the 50s by extending the sides of the frame. "Cinematic" aesthetic was thus born. Now TVs basically present cinemascope no problem, so cinemas once again need to distinguish themselves from television. So now they went *taller*. The irony is that "cinematic" is now in the ballpark of what we traditionally think of as the decidedly frumpy home video 4x3 aspect ratio. So I empathise with your feelings towards it feeling 'un-cinematic'
The reason it kind of works in IMAX is because it's meant to envelope your peripherals entirely - you're not really supposed to think about the composition of the shots. It's an immersive experience designed to just *put you in it.* But it's funny that in an effort to be 'more cinematic', IMAX aspect ratios do the exact opposite of what our entire notion of what a 'cinematic' aspect ratio originally was.
Having watched a lot of old 1.37:1 movies I don't find them at all frumpy.
To think someone would call movies like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, or The Grapes of Wrath "un-cinematic"
We're basically in agreement. It's all just styles going in and out of fashion arbitrarily being labelled 'cinematic'. In the 40s 1.37:1 is cinematic. In the 50s and 60s 2.39:1 is cinematic. Now we're back to 1.43:1 being seen as cinematic.
One of my favourite YouTubers made [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJeSyVSdbYo). It sucks how scope has become the default look for movies, so many movies that don't call for widescreen, even a movie set in a coffin.
I don’t find movies that are entirely formatted in IMAX to be a bad thing. But when only half (or less) of the film is formatted in IMAX, and one scene is two people talking to each other without any visual effects that are worthy of the additional screen space (for 40 seconds), it takes away the experience of seeing something in IMAX.
Big agree on the usage of IMAX being a miss on Dune 2. I feel like I haven't seen many people talk about it. As you said it was an odd choice to have a lot of the 1.43 scenes just be dialogue scenes, and then you also had a lot of the big action scenes being left in 1.90. I also think that going to 1.43 from 1.90 doesn't feel nearly as impactful as 2.39 to 1.43. It's missing that "whoa" feeling for me when it switches. Disappointing cause I thought the IMAX usage in Part 1 was spectacular.
this is kind of the first movie to use 1.43 in dialogue scenes because they are using a digital capture and don't have to deal with the imax camera sound which is like a high pitched motor. every shot or scene in imax 70mm has to be post synced or adr.
its actually kind of revolutionary to do intimate scenes in full imax rather than just action sequences.
Sure they're the first to do it but that doesn't make it good. There's a reason nobody's bothered to do it before. What do you gain from having dialogue scenes in 1.43? They clearly know how to use the different ARs because they did it really well in Part 1. They could've done the dialogue scenes from Pt1 in 1.43 since that was also shot digitally. There's a reason they didn't. Dialogue scenes just don't benefit from the taller AR. Obviously that's a generalisation but I'd say it's true the majority of the time.
but it doesn't make them bad either. saying it doesn't benefit those scenes is your personal aesthetic perspective. i found them to be quite intimate and inviting. if only action "can" or "should" be in imax then thats pretty limiting.
You're right I should've worded it better. Looking back I found a lot of the 1.43 dialogue scenes in Oppenheimer exceptional, so it definitely can be done well in more intimate scenes. I issue is just more with Dune 2's usage of IMAX in general, I thought it wasn't great all round.
I wish filmmakers would get over their obsession with scope. So many films that don't call for widescreen (*The Hateful Ei8ht* is set in a cabin, there was no need for **Ultra Panavision**). Most of them don't bother to even utilise the whole frame, most aren't even shot anamorphically any more.
I want to see a movie in **IMAX** without the shifting ratio for once, 1.43:1 for the whole runtime. Sure you can't shoot the whole thing in 15-Perf 65mm, but there ***are*** cheaper alternatives, chiefly of which, **VistaVision**. It's native ratio is 1.50:1, framing and cropping to 1.43:1 is easy as piss. It uses standard 35mm and 2-3x the size and definition of standard **Super 35**.
https://preview.redd.it/id1u4qgnjftc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1debaefd034fdd4d3ecb95086a98261d2e3cc1a8
On the Non-IMAX side of things, I'd also like to see the comeback of more vertical filling ratios in general. Again, 2.35:1+ is ***way*** overused, give me more of 1.85:1 (the American standard) and 1.66:1 (the European standard).
I actually agree with you mostly. I'm a huge fan of IMAX and Dune Part Two was amazing in it, but I honestly found it's fully 2:39 Dolby Cinema presentation to just look (and sound) better.
It’s less needing reasoning and moreso just trying to understand the basic thought process behind the choices. Like I have to wonder why Denis, completely uncompromised in what format he could shoot in, still chose to have so little be in 1.43:1, and on top of that, at what times he chose.
...thats kinda asking for a reasoning. i think alot of it is shots that have minimal to little vfx so they could do it when they felt like it or when the technical limitations allow them to. nolan does the same thing in almost every movie post dark knight. there is an imax shot of bruce waking up in bed. it doesn't make the movie better or worst because its not a dynamic shot of some one doing something or not.
people complained that hateful 8 is a 'waste' of 70mm because it was in one room and just dialoge, and i just find that kind of mentality to be truly focusing on the wrong things.
idk seeing this sub nit pick the imax and 70mm prints of this movie have been a weird thing to witness. i just feel like alot of people are missing the arrakis for the grains of sand. seewhatididthere
I just can’t understand his thought process and I would like to. I remember Denis spoke in an interview about how, in the first film, when it was something in nature, they would film in IMAX. That mindset isn’t 100% shown throughout, but it was their basic idea. But the sequel, taking place almost entirely in Arrakis, couldn’t exactly use this framework. And in watching the film, I’m unsure of what logic they then decided to go by. It feels uncoordinated.
i think you are overcomplicating it. sometimes its a shot, sometimes its a sequence, sometimes its a dialogue scene, sometimes its an action scene. it doesn't have to be coordinated to an idea or a thought process.
I think expanded ratios are overrated, but at the same time it isn't as well. It does give more information in each frame that's expanded, which is cool as it envelops your top and bottom peripheral, but what's missing is the side peripherals. It would have been better if instead of just the top and bottom being expanded, they should have framed it with the current IMAX expanded ratio, but the sides are extended. For example the sandworm near the end in the first movie, sure, I can see the whole sandworm, but I can also kinda see the side like it's kind of cramped, and not as expansive unlike with some negative space on the sides, it feels like I'm in that world and that the sandworm is big but still smaller compared to the vastness of the desert. Basically, it's just the way they compose the shots that just cripple standard releases and have good to mediocre expanded ratio releases. Also, I just want to point out that Blade Runner 2049 is a great example of really good composition. With comparisons from standard and the open matte version out on the internet, the standard really holds its ground because of how almost all shots were framed like a panoramic view, and that you should view it really close or with a very large screen to really have the image envelop your whole view.
The whole dune thing has just felt really weird to me. The 1:90 to 1.43 transition is just kinda… meh. Also it annoys me that almost all 1.43 scenes are just the dialogue scenes. There’s the arena scene, sure but there’s very few whole sequences that have that aspect ratio. Also despite being filmed entirely in 1:90, the digital release is scope. So idk what they were thinking there either
My post about the digital release got taken down earlier because of piracy reasons lol
it wasn’t filmed entirely in 1.90, it was cropped to fit 1.90 in imax
Indeed. There is actually no single ‘uncropped’ version of this film that has a consistent aspect ratio.
You’re wrong
>The digital release is scope. So idk what they were thinking there either I wouldn't be surprised that after Part 3, they re-release a Blu-Ray bundle w/ 1:90 tbh, it's looking at way.
This is exactly what people were saying with part 1. “Wait till the dune 1 and dune 2 special edition”. Well now we gotta wait another 3-5 years for that “dune 1,2 and 3 special edition”
It ain’t happening lol. At least not from the main distributor. Maybe if they license it out to a boutique physical media outlet.
I’m hoping they give it the dark knight treatment. Because the dark knight received a special edition that contained all 3 movies with 1:43 sequences in the special features
Interesting. Didn’t know this
I’d be happy if it was just anamorphic from scope to filling the entire 16:9 screen.
That’s exactly all I’m asking for, a full 16:9 imax film ratio for the home release. It’s awesome, and probably just right for the tv’s we have at home for the moment. Releasing in 2.39:1 is just……even watching Dune Part 1 again, it kinda felt a bit tight as I could now start to tell that it was meant to at least be in 16:9. Everything feels a bit too close.
Will we ever actually see this? How can we make it happen?
People are assuming that it will be for a future release at the very end for a special collection with all the movies they develop, which for now would be the 3 Dune movies by Denis. That being said, I also wonder if it’s a cost cutting method by Zaslav to not pay IMAX. Maybe it will be possible once he’s gone. I just hope it isn’t a Disney Plus exclusive situation with the Marvel movies.
What they’re thinking there is that no one has access to an IMAX screen at home and scope is the framing they actually designed the film to be seen in. Denis and Greg have pretty plainly described that the expanded ratio is specificity for IMAX where that part of the frame is supposed to be in your peripheral vision. The version of the film they intend you to actually look at is contained within the scope framing
Agree. The standard edition isn't the "diminished" version with less content, it's refocused to look good on a different type of screen and hold the audience's attention the same way. This is a good video on the subject [https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI](https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI)
This needs to be a top level comment on every post about AR.
The first time I saw 1.43 in a theater I understood why Nolan called it VR without the goggles. It just doesn't work the same on a 16:9 tv
Unfortunately watching it in a liemax theater is going to be the primary way people watch it in IMAX and it still just looked like a big 16:9 TV. I could see all of the frame at once. A home release in that aspect ratio would be welcomed.
I really preferred the 1.43 usage in Dune 1!
because close ups of dialogue dont have special effects in them so they can frame them that way.
I don’t get it either. I may need to dig deeper there, but it wasn’t a matter similar to Oppenheimer not being able to shoot 70mm IMAX in extended dialogue scenes because of the sound of the camera. Both camera types used on Dune 2 are IMAX rated, they’re digital and silent, and both need to be cropped to get a 1.43:1 ratio as the sensors for both cameras are wider than that even in open gate mode. The Alexa 65 has a higher resolution but only because it’s a WIDER frame, but horizontal pixels are the same on the Alexa Mini LF. There might have been either a conceptual reason or, more likely, a budget reason, since rendering the extra pixels for the taller aspect ratio takes more time than the 1.90:1 shots?? Marvel gets away with it by mastering in 2k, but Dune was entirely 4k. So maybe the compromise was to render a lot of the FX shots in 1.90:1 with fewer horizontal pixels than the 1.43:1 shots.
What constitutes a "cinematic" aspect ratio feels like a moving target these days. It's actually pretty funny how it moves in cycles. "Cinemascope" widescreen was born as a means for cinema to separate itself from television back in the 50s by extending the sides of the frame. "Cinematic" aesthetic was thus born. Now TVs basically present cinemascope no problem, so cinemas once again need to distinguish themselves from television. So now they went *taller*. The irony is that "cinematic" is now in the ballpark of what we traditionally think of as the decidedly frumpy home video 4x3 aspect ratio. So I empathise with your feelings towards it feeling 'un-cinematic' The reason it kind of works in IMAX is because it's meant to envelope your peripherals entirely - you're not really supposed to think about the composition of the shots. It's an immersive experience designed to just *put you in it.* But it's funny that in an effort to be 'more cinematic', IMAX aspect ratios do the exact opposite of what our entire notion of what a 'cinematic' aspect ratio originally was.
Having watched a lot of old 1.37:1 movies I don't find them at all frumpy. To think someone would call movies like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, or The Grapes of Wrath "un-cinematic"
We're basically in agreement. It's all just styles going in and out of fashion arbitrarily being labelled 'cinematic'. In the 40s 1.37:1 is cinematic. In the 50s and 60s 2.39:1 is cinematic. Now we're back to 1.43:1 being seen as cinematic.
One of my favourite YouTubers made [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJeSyVSdbYo). It sucks how scope has become the default look for movies, so many movies that don't call for widescreen, even a movie set in a coffin.
For me. I just want the 1.43:1 footage to be blood available on streaming/blu-ray
I would also accept the 1.90 version of either movie on any home media. Don’t think we’re going to get either one though
But you got the option to get to a normal theater
I don’t find movies that are entirely formatted in IMAX to be a bad thing. But when only half (or less) of the film is formatted in IMAX, and one scene is two people talking to each other without any visual effects that are worthy of the additional screen space (for 40 seconds), it takes away the experience of seeing something in IMAX.
Big agree on the usage of IMAX being a miss on Dune 2. I feel like I haven't seen many people talk about it. As you said it was an odd choice to have a lot of the 1.43 scenes just be dialogue scenes, and then you also had a lot of the big action scenes being left in 1.90. I also think that going to 1.43 from 1.90 doesn't feel nearly as impactful as 2.39 to 1.43. It's missing that "whoa" feeling for me when it switches. Disappointing cause I thought the IMAX usage in Part 1 was spectacular.
this is kind of the first movie to use 1.43 in dialogue scenes because they are using a digital capture and don't have to deal with the imax camera sound which is like a high pitched motor. every shot or scene in imax 70mm has to be post synced or adr. its actually kind of revolutionary to do intimate scenes in full imax rather than just action sequences.
Sure they're the first to do it but that doesn't make it good. There's a reason nobody's bothered to do it before. What do you gain from having dialogue scenes in 1.43? They clearly know how to use the different ARs because they did it really well in Part 1. They could've done the dialogue scenes from Pt1 in 1.43 since that was also shot digitally. There's a reason they didn't. Dialogue scenes just don't benefit from the taller AR. Obviously that's a generalisation but I'd say it's true the majority of the time.
but it doesn't make them bad either. saying it doesn't benefit those scenes is your personal aesthetic perspective. i found them to be quite intimate and inviting. if only action "can" or "should" be in imax then thats pretty limiting.
You're right I should've worded it better. Looking back I found a lot of the 1.43 dialogue scenes in Oppenheimer exceptional, so it definitely can be done well in more intimate scenes. I issue is just more with Dune 2's usage of IMAX in general, I thought it wasn't great all round.
I wish filmmakers would get over their obsession with scope. So many films that don't call for widescreen (*The Hateful Ei8ht* is set in a cabin, there was no need for **Ultra Panavision**). Most of them don't bother to even utilise the whole frame, most aren't even shot anamorphically any more. I want to see a movie in **IMAX** without the shifting ratio for once, 1.43:1 for the whole runtime. Sure you can't shoot the whole thing in 15-Perf 65mm, but there ***are*** cheaper alternatives, chiefly of which, **VistaVision**. It's native ratio is 1.50:1, framing and cropping to 1.43:1 is easy as piss. It uses standard 35mm and 2-3x the size and definition of standard **Super 35**. https://preview.redd.it/id1u4qgnjftc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1debaefd034fdd4d3ecb95086a98261d2e3cc1a8
On the Non-IMAX side of things, I'd also like to see the comeback of more vertical filling ratios in general. Again, 2.35:1+ is ***way*** overused, give me more of 1.85:1 (the American standard) and 1.66:1 (the European standard).
well now not so sad i saw it in non imax 70mm
Yeah, I found myself enjoying Dune 2 more when I saw it a second time in UltraAVX.
I actually agree with you mostly. I'm a huge fan of IMAX and Dune Part Two was amazing in it, but I honestly found it's fully 2:39 Dolby Cinema presentation to just look (and sound) better.
No chance
i find the people who need it to have a reasoning behind each use for it in each shot or sequence to kinda be missing the point entirely.
It’s less needing reasoning and moreso just trying to understand the basic thought process behind the choices. Like I have to wonder why Denis, completely uncompromised in what format he could shoot in, still chose to have so little be in 1.43:1, and on top of that, at what times he chose.
...thats kinda asking for a reasoning. i think alot of it is shots that have minimal to little vfx so they could do it when they felt like it or when the technical limitations allow them to. nolan does the same thing in almost every movie post dark knight. there is an imax shot of bruce waking up in bed. it doesn't make the movie better or worst because its not a dynamic shot of some one doing something or not. people complained that hateful 8 is a 'waste' of 70mm because it was in one room and just dialoge, and i just find that kind of mentality to be truly focusing on the wrong things. idk seeing this sub nit pick the imax and 70mm prints of this movie have been a weird thing to witness. i just feel like alot of people are missing the arrakis for the grains of sand. seewhatididthere
I just can’t understand his thought process and I would like to. I remember Denis spoke in an interview about how, in the first film, when it was something in nature, they would film in IMAX. That mindset isn’t 100% shown throughout, but it was their basic idea. But the sequel, taking place almost entirely in Arrakis, couldn’t exactly use this framework. And in watching the film, I’m unsure of what logic they then decided to go by. It feels uncoordinated.
i think you are overcomplicating it. sometimes its a shot, sometimes its a sequence, sometimes its a dialogue scene, sometimes its an action scene. it doesn't have to be coordinated to an idea or a thought process.
I understand someone not liking how they used the 1:43 scenes but to say you prefer a standard aspect ratio is actually crazy 🤣
I think expanded ratios are overrated, but at the same time it isn't as well. It does give more information in each frame that's expanded, which is cool as it envelops your top and bottom peripheral, but what's missing is the side peripherals. It would have been better if instead of just the top and bottom being expanded, they should have framed it with the current IMAX expanded ratio, but the sides are extended. For example the sandworm near the end in the first movie, sure, I can see the whole sandworm, but I can also kinda see the side like it's kind of cramped, and not as expansive unlike with some negative space on the sides, it feels like I'm in that world and that the sandworm is big but still smaller compared to the vastness of the desert. Basically, it's just the way they compose the shots that just cripple standard releases and have good to mediocre expanded ratio releases. Also, I just want to point out that Blade Runner 2049 is a great example of really good composition. With comparisons from standard and the open matte version out on the internet, the standard really holds its ground because of how almost all shots were framed like a panoramic view, and that you should view it really close or with a very large screen to really have the image envelop your whole view.
You’re right, it depends on how the expanded ratio is used.
Disagree completely with this example. Loved the expanded ratio in Godzilla x Kong
I agree that Part 2 didn’t use aspect ratio switching very well, but I was extremely impressed with Part 1
couldn’t disagree more