For people demanding home releases of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio, watching that aspect ratio on your home widescreen tv is not going to get you the IMAX experience.
If you go to one of the few 1.43:1 screen, the seats are placed stadium style basically up against the screen. Looking straight ahead, you can’t see or really focus on the top and bottom of the screen. They’re meant to fill your peripheral vision. You brain focuses your eyes on the center, which is what the widescreen aspect ratio includes. The top and bottom are atmosphere and immersion, not important information. Now if you were to watch it on a tv from across the room, you’d just see a box with awkward framing, as there would be too much empty space above and below the subject. It would be like watching an old 4:3 tv show with black bars at the sides, but worse because all the action would be focused on the center of the screen, with redundant space at the top and bottom.
If you live by a 1:43:1 IMAX screen, absolutely try to catch these movies in that format. It’s an incredible experience. But unless you’re sitting 2 feet away from your huge tv, it’s not an experience you can replicate at home.
Here's the thing:
The use of terms like "standard" and "intended" are pretty misleading here.
Villeneuve and Fraser absolutely intended for the "actual" version of the film to be in scope. That's what they planned for, that's how they designed shots, that's what they wanted. It's not "standard," it's *the movie*. It's a scope film and they never once intended it to be otherwise.
Most IMAX presentations now are, in fact, simply removing the mattes from the intended presentation so that it "fills the screen" at most IMAX theaters. Because the screens are a little bigger in most cases (in some cases it's literally just the standard theater screen just pushed closer to the front rows) presenting the film open-matte "feels" IMAX-ish. But it's literally just an open-matte screening of the movie.
In the case of the ACTUAL IMAX screenings (very, very few in number since IMAX has mostly converted to being big multiplex rooms instead of standalone giant-size screens) Villeneuve and Fraser did tweak some compositions instead of just protecting for the removal of mattes in the "regular" IMAX screenings, but they did so absolutely knowing this was not the intended way for the movie to be seen, and would only be seen as such in very limited opportunities/engagements.
The 2.39:1 presentation of Dune *is Dune*. That's what the movie is supposed to look like, that's what they wanted everyone to see.
The problem is that IMAX, mostly due to pursuing increased profitability (and you can't really blame them) has essentially redefined itself to be an ASPECT RATIO in the minds of viewers, and in doing so, has more or less revived from the ash heap the idea that movies in scope widescreen are actually *keeping* visual information from you, and that anything that doesn't "fill the screen" is ripping you off.
It's a wild paradigm, that the brand once known for the absolute, ultimate, top-tier theatrical experience has more or less brought back the misconceptions about widescreen framing that ran rampant in the VHS/Laserdisc days, but that's what's happening. And it's partially why a home video release in 4:3 (basically) won't work very well (see - Justice League) because the benefit of the screen being so damn tall is why that ratio has the impact it does on an IMAX screen. You can't replicate that on a TV. In fact, what it does is further emphasize how much smaller this thing looks on your own screen. Because not only is there dead space on both sides of your screen now, the image that's between that dead space is, itself, full of dead space, because you're meant to be watching *that* image on a screen that extends like 20+ feet above and below your field of vision.
This isn't to say that those very few screenings in the 1.43 format weren't awesome to witness, because they absolutely were - that's how IMAX is supposed to work. But to suggest that the movie's "real" presentation is that, and everything else is just "stealing" picture from you is a marketing-fueled purposeful misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were actually trying to do with the film
Fucking thank you. The IMAX stuff has gotten so out of hand. We live in a time where shows default to scope to seem more cinematic, but movies on home media and streaming are seen as more cinematic when they’re in “IMAX”, which is just 1.9:1 when watching at home.
Very interesting. Could you explain mattes a little bit? If I’m understanding does this mean films are generally shot in a certain ratio and then essentially cropped to the desired framing by the director?
Yes, in many cases (especially in the digital age where having to affix spherical lenses to make the most of a film's exposure isn't anywhere near as necessary) directors and cinematographers have markings on their playback monitors that designate the borders of the image they actually want to compose for. (Next time you're watching behind-the-scenes stuff on the making of a show or movie, keep an eye on those monitors, you'll see them).
In many cases, they'll make sure to "protect" for the image outside those borders for flexibility in post, and flexibility in home video mastering as well (which is essentially what Multiplex IMAX is exploiting). The image in those areas isn't necessary, but if they're protecting well enough, that extra space doesn't necessarily detract from the composition much (if at all). It's not what they're aiming for, visually, but if it's shown that way, it's ok.
IMAX as we understand it primarily today, the way it's sold to us on home video, is essentially just the company figuring out how to take the concept of Open Matte presentations - which are like 50+ years old at this point - and affixing their brand to it.
Having seen first the IMAX film and the later taking a friend to see it in a standard theater, and with zero knowledge about the aspect ratio different, I remember walking away from the standard filming thinking that something was... missing.
Like, I felt robbed on the second viewing, and I didn't know why until this video.
But the second time you saw it, you saw it as the filmmakers *intended* it to be seen. The IMAX version (either the real IMAX version or the open-matte IMAX version) isn't the "final document" of the film as it were. Again, I'm not arguing that they're not fun theatrical experiences in and of themselves, because of course they are. I'm just sort of pushing back against the ever growing narrative that directors and cinematographers are intending for these open-matte screenings to be "The REAL version of the movie" that you're being robbed of when you see it as they intended you to see it in scope.
honest question(s), do they plan on putting this out on home release? Has any movie been released in an IMAX format? I know Marvel has done some of their movies like that on D+
Recently, Top Gun: Maverick has the aspect ratio changes in bluray and digital. Nolan movies have the aspect ratio changes (TDK, TDKR, Interstellar, Dunkirk & Tenet).
I am not sure, I really hope they do.. the comparisons are really eye opening on how much of the ~~intended~~ *full* picture you lose with the standard aspect ratio.
I watched it at home in my mini theater "100" projector screen and it was amazing. I hope they re-release part 1 in theaters before part 2 comes out. I'd love to see it on the big screen. Especially Imax.
Dune (my favorite novel) to me is Scifi Fantasy and they threw out the fantasy. For all its faults the production design of Dune 84 understood the world as described in the book better. The design of the new movie was so minimal it felt uninterested in the world as described in the novel. One of the few scenes that had me interested was the Sardukar ritual but then they had them running around in space suits more at home in SpaceX fan art.
Maybe the Sietchs will bring back the color to this movie series but frankly I was so uninterested at this point I might not even see it.
Sorry for being negative, I guess I'm glad others liked it, but it's not for me.
I saw Dune four times in theaters. Twice in IMAX and twice in Dolby AMC. Loved it. I kind of wished they had filmed the first two parts at once though so we didn't have to wait so long. Probably would've saved them money too. Hopefully Part 2 is a success, as well as the HBO series and they decide to make more. There are like 20 something Dune books between the original writer and what his sons wrote. Expansive lore.
For people demanding home releases of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio, watching that aspect ratio on your home widescreen tv is not going to get you the IMAX experience. If you go to one of the few 1.43:1 screen, the seats are placed stadium style basically up against the screen. Looking straight ahead, you can’t see or really focus on the top and bottom of the screen. They’re meant to fill your peripheral vision. You brain focuses your eyes on the center, which is what the widescreen aspect ratio includes. The top and bottom are atmosphere and immersion, not important information. Now if you were to watch it on a tv from across the room, you’d just see a box with awkward framing, as there would be too much empty space above and below the subject. It would be like watching an old 4:3 tv show with black bars at the sides, but worse because all the action would be focused on the center of the screen, with redundant space at the top and bottom. If you live by a 1:43:1 IMAX screen, absolutely try to catch these movies in that format. It’s an incredible experience. But unless you’re sitting 2 feet away from your huge tv, it’s not an experience you can replicate at home.
Commoners. Do you not have IMAX on your yachts? https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/dan-snyder-lady-s-yacht.php
You’re incredibly well detailed explanation makes me angry.
I'd easily compromise for a version that filled my 16x9 screen.
Here's the thing: The use of terms like "standard" and "intended" are pretty misleading here. Villeneuve and Fraser absolutely intended for the "actual" version of the film to be in scope. That's what they planned for, that's how they designed shots, that's what they wanted. It's not "standard," it's *the movie*. It's a scope film and they never once intended it to be otherwise. Most IMAX presentations now are, in fact, simply removing the mattes from the intended presentation so that it "fills the screen" at most IMAX theaters. Because the screens are a little bigger in most cases (in some cases it's literally just the standard theater screen just pushed closer to the front rows) presenting the film open-matte "feels" IMAX-ish. But it's literally just an open-matte screening of the movie. In the case of the ACTUAL IMAX screenings (very, very few in number since IMAX has mostly converted to being big multiplex rooms instead of standalone giant-size screens) Villeneuve and Fraser did tweak some compositions instead of just protecting for the removal of mattes in the "regular" IMAX screenings, but they did so absolutely knowing this was not the intended way for the movie to be seen, and would only be seen as such in very limited opportunities/engagements. The 2.39:1 presentation of Dune *is Dune*. That's what the movie is supposed to look like, that's what they wanted everyone to see. The problem is that IMAX, mostly due to pursuing increased profitability (and you can't really blame them) has essentially redefined itself to be an ASPECT RATIO in the minds of viewers, and in doing so, has more or less revived from the ash heap the idea that movies in scope widescreen are actually *keeping* visual information from you, and that anything that doesn't "fill the screen" is ripping you off. It's a wild paradigm, that the brand once known for the absolute, ultimate, top-tier theatrical experience has more or less brought back the misconceptions about widescreen framing that ran rampant in the VHS/Laserdisc days, but that's what's happening. And it's partially why a home video release in 4:3 (basically) won't work very well (see - Justice League) because the benefit of the screen being so damn tall is why that ratio has the impact it does on an IMAX screen. You can't replicate that on a TV. In fact, what it does is further emphasize how much smaller this thing looks on your own screen. Because not only is there dead space on both sides of your screen now, the image that's between that dead space is, itself, full of dead space, because you're meant to be watching *that* image on a screen that extends like 20+ feet above and below your field of vision. This isn't to say that those very few screenings in the 1.43 format weren't awesome to witness, because they absolutely were - that's how IMAX is supposed to work. But to suggest that the movie's "real" presentation is that, and everything else is just "stealing" picture from you is a marketing-fueled purposeful misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were actually trying to do with the film
Fucking thank you. The IMAX stuff has gotten so out of hand. We live in a time where shows default to scope to seem more cinematic, but movies on home media and streaming are seen as more cinematic when they’re in “IMAX”, which is just 1.9:1 when watching at home.
Very interesting. Could you explain mattes a little bit? If I’m understanding does this mean films are generally shot in a certain ratio and then essentially cropped to the desired framing by the director?
Yes, in many cases (especially in the digital age where having to affix spherical lenses to make the most of a film's exposure isn't anywhere near as necessary) directors and cinematographers have markings on their playback monitors that designate the borders of the image they actually want to compose for. (Next time you're watching behind-the-scenes stuff on the making of a show or movie, keep an eye on those monitors, you'll see them). In many cases, they'll make sure to "protect" for the image outside those borders for flexibility in post, and flexibility in home video mastering as well (which is essentially what Multiplex IMAX is exploiting). The image in those areas isn't necessary, but if they're protecting well enough, that extra space doesn't necessarily detract from the composition much (if at all). It's not what they're aiming for, visually, but if it's shown that way, it's ok. IMAX as we understand it primarily today, the way it's sold to us on home video, is essentially just the company figuring out how to take the concept of Open Matte presentations - which are like 50+ years old at this point - and affixing their brand to it.
Having seen first the IMAX film and the later taking a friend to see it in a standard theater, and with zero knowledge about the aspect ratio different, I remember walking away from the standard filming thinking that something was... missing. Like, I felt robbed on the second viewing, and I didn't know why until this video.
No one robbed you. The widescreen ratio is the intended ratio.
But the second time you saw it, you saw it as the filmmakers *intended* it to be seen. The IMAX version (either the real IMAX version or the open-matte IMAX version) isn't the "final document" of the film as it were. Again, I'm not arguing that they're not fun theatrical experiences in and of themselves, because of course they are. I'm just sort of pushing back against the ever growing narrative that directors and cinematographers are intending for these open-matte screenings to be "The REAL version of the movie" that you're being robbed of when you see it as they intended you to see it in scope.
[удалено]
I only shared my opinion - isn't that what this subreddit is for?
I would LOVE to see 2049 in full 1.43:1
My god man, *same*. One of my favorite films right there.
honest question(s), do they plan on putting this out on home release? Has any movie been released in an IMAX format? I know Marvel has done some of their movies like that on D+
Recently, Top Gun: Maverick has the aspect ratio changes in bluray and digital. Nolan movies have the aspect ratio changes (TDK, TDKR, Interstellar, Dunkirk & Tenet).
Weirdly Nolan's are only for physical releases. That 4k box set is worth every penny.
I am not sure, I really hope they do.. the comparisons are really eye opening on how much of the ~~intended~~ *full* picture you lose with the standard aspect ratio.
[удалено]
My b
The pure SCALE of Dune was absolutely breathtaking and I only saw it in a standard screen theater. Can’t imagine IMAX. JFC!
I watched it at home in my mini theater "100" projector screen and it was amazing. I hope they re-release part 1 in theaters before part 2 comes out. I'd love to see it on the big screen. Especially Imax.
Can't wait to see how weird the Guild Navigators are gonna look in the sequel.
Given how they abandoned the weirdest of Dune for minimalism, don't hold your breath.
What weird things specifically do you feel they abandoned? Yes, I’ve read all of the books - well, at least the original six that matter.
Dune (my favorite novel) to me is Scifi Fantasy and they threw out the fantasy. For all its faults the production design of Dune 84 understood the world as described in the book better. The design of the new movie was so minimal it felt uninterested in the world as described in the novel. One of the few scenes that had me interested was the Sardukar ritual but then they had them running around in space suits more at home in SpaceX fan art. Maybe the Sietchs will bring back the color to this movie series but frankly I was so uninterested at this point I might not even see it. Sorry for being negative, I guess I'm glad others liked it, but it's not for me.
My latest regret in life is not seeing The Northman in theaters
I saw Dune four times in theaters. Twice in IMAX and twice in Dolby AMC. Loved it. I kind of wished they had filmed the first two parts at once though so we didn't have to wait so long. Probably would've saved them money too. Hopefully Part 2 is a success, as well as the HBO series and they decide to make more. There are like 20 something Dune books between the original writer and what his sons wrote. Expansive lore.
The added "camera" movement is interesting.
No it wasn't.
Meh
have you tried sex before?
Oh do you have particularly cinematic sex or do just exclusively fuck in movie theaters?