Would you be interested in properly framed IMAX UHD releases?

[Bn43]

I'm wondering if there's a big enough market for them. I just find releases like Blade Runner 2049 so odd. There's all this additional information in the IMAX version, but the studio only gives us a 2.4:1 (or whatever) presentation. I know the studios think people hate black bars on the sides, but aren't the bars on the top and bottom even bigger? If 2.4:1 (or whatever) is the director's preferred aspect ratio, why even shoot it on IMAX? Those cameras are massive and cumbersome, not to mention really expensive.



I don't even much care for the movie, but I'd still watch the IMAX presentation at least once.

Some screenshots I found: https://imgur.com/a/lBJGasw

[Vangeli]

Oh, I was hoping you meant full-frame 70mm with black bars on the sides. I’d like that.

Maybe make it “anamorphic” and encode at the full 3840x2160, then use metadata to either squeeze the video to the proper ratio with black bars on the sides, or use metadata to stretch the frame vertically outside of the display and adjust the frame position vertically on a shot-by-shot basis (don’t want someone’s head to get cut off or something) so a proper full frame presentation AND the widescreen “full frame” presentations we currently get but all on a single disc using the same encode.

It’s so crazy but I love the idea of it.

As to why we don’t get IMAX versions sometimes, that’s because it’s usually a cash grab and not the intended creative vision, as with BR2049.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bn43

I'm wondering if there's a big enough market for them. I just find releases like Blade Runner 2049 so odd. There's all this additional information in the IMAX version, but the studio only gives us a 2.4:1 (or whatever) presentation. I know the studios think people hate black bars on the sides, but aren't the bars on the top and bottom even bigger? If 2.4:1 (or whatever) is the director's preferred aspect ratio, why even shoot it on IMAX? Those cameras are massive and cumbersome, not to mention really expensive.



I don't even much care for the movie, but I'd still watch the IMAX presentation at least once.

Some screenshots I found: https://imgur.com/a/lBJGasw

Lots of misconceptions here. Blade Runner wasn't shown that way, even in IMAX™©, as it was framed for 1.90 in that format. People have referenced those "IMAX" grabs for BR before but they're simply from the fuller camera aperture as shot and used for stills, just as a thousand and one different movies have been shot with more height than what was ever intended to be seen.

And BTW BR2049 wasn't even shot on "IMAX" at all but on the regular Arri Alexa at 3.4K, in fact most movies in recent years that were "IMAX" were done on a digital camera of some description and had nothing to do with the actual ^ 15-perf 65mm cameras that you're referencing (and even then that specific dual-strip 3D monster in the picture has never been used on a full-length motion picture, only on IMAX shorts and documentaries AFAIK).

Dodgy example aside: no, I don't want to see a "properly framed" IMAX version if it's the 1.43 that you're referring to. The whole point of IMAX is not precision framing but to fill the audience's field of view, making it more immersive by planting them inside the action, it's too big for the viewer to take in all at once so they 'follow' the central action while having the extraneous information fill the peripheral vision. Works like gangbusters on a 65 foot screen. On the average home viewing system it makes these IMAX versions look like open-matte TV presentations for the most part, and that's with the 1.78 versions never mind the 1.43! No thanks.

[Kris Deering]

I want the movie to be formatted the way the director intended them to be seen in standard theatrical release. For IMAX productions that used IMAX cameras, I'm fine with 16x9 or the original IMAX aspect ratio (think IMAX documentaries and such). Not interested in the slightest in variable aspect ratio or open matte editions that were specifically for IMAX venue viewing any more than I am interested in going back to pan and scan presentations.

[chip75]

Honestly I would like the taller version to be made available, but when you get stuff that clocks in over an hour like Interstellar, then it isn't practical, but in theory as an extra I'd be all for it.

As Geoff D said, the point is to take the audience out of normal viewing mode into IMAX mode, so whilst it can get much bigger vertically with proper IMAX it's the opposite with home video, due to the deficiencies of the format, so the taller image (1.43:1) would be less imposing than going from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 or 1.78:1.

I know I go on about this, but it would have been fantastic if they'd thought about resolution slightly different, to accommodate projectors. Cinemascope movies (or wider) should have a higher resolution than 16:9 content. But the wider you go with BD and UHD the less real-estate you use.

I guess studios thought that TVs would increase in size (and formats would improve), where you're still getting a tremendous widescreen appearance, but it still irks me, slightly.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Some screenshots I found: https://imgur.com/a/lBJGasw

Not sure I've ever seen a more compelling argument against open matte than these screenshots.

[Agent Kay]

65mm in IMAX Oar?
Yes,mintage always wanted this

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

65mm in IMAX Oar?
Yes,mintage always wanted this

Who's mintage?

[Noremac Mij]

Open matte BR2049 looks absolutely lovely. Bring it! I despise 2.35, etc. It’s extremely unpleasant to the eye. I wish TVs and movies were 1.66, the most beautiful and perfect shape. But I’ll take open matte.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Lots of misconceptions here. Blade Runner wasn't shown that way, even in IMAX™©, as it was framed for 1.90 in that format. People have referenced those "IMAX" grabs for BR before but they're simply from the fuller camera aperture as shot and used for stills, just as a thousand and one different movies have been shot with more height than what was ever intended to be seen.

And BTW BR2049 wasn't even shot on "IMAX" at all but on the regular Arri Alexa at 3.4K, in fact most movies in recent years that were "IMAX" were done on a digital camera of some description and had nothing to do with the actual ^ 15-perf 65mm cameras that you're referencing (and even then that specific dual-strip 3D monster in the picture has never been used on a full-length motion picture, only on IMAX shorts and documentaries AFAIK).

Dodgy example aside: no, I don't want to see a "properly framed" IMAX version if it's the 1.43 that you're referring to. The whole point of IMAX is not precision framing but to fill the audience's field of view, making it more immersive by planting them inside the action, it's too big for the viewer to take in all at once so they 'follow' the central action while having the extraneous information fill the peripheral vision. Works like gangbusters on a 65 foot screen. On the average home viewing system it makes these IMAX versions look like open-matte TV presentations for the most part, and that's with the 1.78 versions never mind the 1.43! No thanks.

Okay, but I still don't get part of the argument. So, 1.43:1 isn't ideal, but why wouldn't I take 1.85:1 when the creators went out of their way to make the movie presentable in the more open framing? Nothing is lost by erasing those black bars. If you can't focus on the middle, that's on you. I find cinemascope and the like narrow a lot of the time, and I know it was made for cinemas, not TVs. I don't despise it like the guy above me, but I see where he's coming from. Few people complained about The Wire's widescreen presentation filling the sides with unintended information, so I don't see why filling unused space at the top and bottom of a 16:9 TV is any worse.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Okay, but I still don't get part of the argument. So, 1.43:1 isn't ideal, but why wouldn't I take 1.85:1 when the creators went out of their way to make the movie presentable in the more open framing? Nothing is lost by erasing those black bars. If you can't focus on the middle, that's on you. I find cinemascope and the like narrow a lot of the time, and I know it was made for cinemas, not TVs. I don't despise it like the guy above me, but I see where he's coming from. Few people complained about The Wire's widescreen presentation filling the sides with unintended information, so I don't see why filling unused space at the top and bottom of a 16:9 TV is any worse.

Why wouldn't you? Because you want your screen filled. I don't, I want the framing as it was expressly intended - be it square, oblong, circular, rhomboid, whatever - and, in the case of BR2049, the movie's Oscar-winning cinematographer has categorically stated that the 2.39 was the primary intent and everything else that's tacked on (IMAX, 3D) is mostly just marketing guff, which IMO is designed to hook gullible types into paying dat IMAX/3D premium.

Plenty of people complained about The Wire, Buffy, X-Files etc but it helps that in The Wire's case they went the extra mile to paint out flubs (you know, from revealing information at the sides that was captured but not intended to be seen, hint hint) and they also reframed the 16:9 image in select shots to best represent the intent of the original 4:3 shot. I'd buy a 4:3 HD version of all those shows mentioned (and more) in a heartbeat but nope, we're left with either the screen-filling HD versions or the OAR on a ****ing DVD.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Why wouldn't you? Because you want your screen filled. I don't, I want the framing as it was expressly intended - be it square, oblong, circular, rhomboid, whatever - and, in the case of BR2049, the movie's Oscar-winning cinematographer has categorically stated that the 2.39 was the primary intent and everything else that's tacked on (IMAX, 3D) is mostly just marketing guff, which IMO is designed to hook gullible types into paying dat IMAX/3D premium.

Plenty of people complained about The Wire, Buffy, X-Files etc but it helps that in The Wire's case they went the extra mile to paint out flubs (you know, from revealing information at the sides that was captured but not intended to be seen, hint hint) and they also reframed the 16:9 image in select shots to best represent the intent of the original 4:3 shot. I'd buy a 4:3 HD version of all those shows mentioned (and more) in a heartbeat but nope, we're left with either the screen-filling HD versions or the OAR on a ****ing DVD.

I wasn't complementing The Wire's widescreen presentation, but merely making a point about hypocrisy. I don't care so much about the additional informational, but am pretty bothered by all the information that has been lost. Almost every single shot has been zoomed in the widescreen presentation. I really wish they had compromised for something between 4:3 and 16:9. Most of the scenes could have been expanded on the sides without losing the top and bottom.

Anyway, looking at screenshot comparisons of Blade Runner 2049, I don't get the impression that filling in the black bars would hurt a 16:9 presentation at all. Neither of us is ever gonna see it, though, so who knows?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bn43

I wasn't complementing The Wire's widescreen presentation, but merely making a point about hypocrisy. I don't care so much about the additional informational, but am pretty bothered by all the information that has been lost. Almost every single shot has been zoomed in the widescreen presentation. I really wish they had compromised for something between 4:3 and 16:9. Most of the scenes could have been expanded on the sides without losing the top and bottom.

Anyway, looking at screenshot comparisons of Blade Runner 2049, I don't get the impression that filling in the black bars would hurt a 16:9 presentation at all. Neither of us is ever gonna see it, though, so who knows?

Well, I've got the 1.78 open matte version of BR2049 and to be perfectly honest it's not the most offensive such example of dumping the black bars that I've ever seen, the camera doesn't move a great deal so the framing doesn't seem to have as much conspicuous headroom. It's very much an isolated case though, I saw the 1.78 open matte of Skyfall (shot by the same DP) and it looks much too 'distant', which is precisely why 'IMAX' in the home is mostly wasted on me. Close ups become mediums, mediums become wide shots and wide shots look even more indistinct, for even though the relative width of the imagery is not changing the actual emphasis on it from the framing most certainly is.

[Vangeli]

Huh, I just think it’d be cool to have the full-ratio option on the handful of 70mm IMAX titles, especially with 80”+ TVs getting more common and less expensive.

[Gacivory]

Isn’t filmmaker’s preference/shot for, the properly framed way? So Blade Runner 2049 on disc is in the filmmaker’s preferred ratio. So then it’s already in the “preferred ratio”, unless you mean yours?

[ROSS.T.G.]

I still have nightmares of when I worked in a video store during the dawn of the DVD era with bozos complaining about the “black bars”?

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Isn’t filmmaker’s preference/shot for, the properly framed way? So Blade Runner 2049 on disc is in the filmmaker’s preferred ratio. So then it’s already in the “preferred ratio”, unless you mean yours?

Uh, I said 2.4:1 (or whatever) is the director's preferred aspect ratio, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Though, I never really thought this was a good argument for anything. George Lucas thinks his Special Editions are better, but why should I let his opinion dictate which version of Star Wars I watch? Edit: Oh, you're bothered I said "properly." Geoff D already educated me about that. I was confused by your quoting "preferred."

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

I do wish they'd offer branching to give 1.43:1 option. Like in TFA, Interstellar, Dark Knight R the 1.43:1 was awesome. Sure it become far less wide at home, but whatever, should still offer the option. And for some, like TFA, it's just a few minutes, easy enogh to make branching option with no affect on quality of the encode.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Who's mintage?

Covfefe.

[krismate]

I don't mind black bars really. I respect the creative intent there.

However, I will admit I love the effect of alternating AR's like on a lot of Christopher Nolan movies. There's something awesome about going from dialogue scenes feeling more intimate with 2.4:1 and then the action kicks in, the volume goes up, and the screen expands to 1.78:1 to add to the effect. It's fair to argue that in some scenes the AR switches back and forth too frequently but there are plenty of scenes that hold the AR the entire time.

I do wish more movies that were "shot in IMAX" or had "IMAX scenes" retained the same expanded ratios on disc. A good example is Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. The Burj Khalifa scene looks good on the 4K disc but I know for sure it would look more spectacular if the AR expanded to 1.78:1 for that scene, as the I'm pretty sure those scenes are 15-perf 70mm.