Dune 4K UHD (2021) ᑐ ᑌ ᑎ ᕮ ¹

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

Not necessarily related to Dune but I’m curious, has any film ever been shot anamorphic but with the camera rotated 90° and desqueezed to a 1:1 ratio or such to retain that anamorphic look but have all that height for reframing and even IMAX?

You mean 17.5mm x 21mm sideways 2xA ?

That gives you a 1.67 AR equivalent of 14.85mm x 24.75mm
which is basically S-35 in 1.66 (of course with the Scope bokeh which is I guess what you want)

If we did that with S-35 18mm x 24mm aperture sideways,
that gives you a 1.5 AR equivalent of 17mm x 25.5mm (slightly bigger)
but still almost S-35 in 1.5 (16mm x 24mm) (of course with the Scope bokeh which is I guess what you want)

Maybe better shoot in VistaVision rotated (8-perf vertical as normal 35mm), which gives you a 1.33 AR equivalent of 25.5mm x 34mm (which would be close (and better) to 1.33 VV at 24mm x 32mm) but with the 2x anamorphic bokeh.

(65mm normal orientated with a 2X lens you'd use 22mm x 15.75mm (equivalent to 15.6mm x 22.3mm) to get 1.43 with broken so that ain't useful at all, better the above options. 65mm 90º rotated, don't even think about it)

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For once I completely agree, and I didn't need to see it in IMAX to realise this as the 'scope framing of the exteriors just looks 'off'.

I don't know why, at this point, we can't just collectively accept that an "epic" movie can be framed entirely for 1.85:1 or 1.90:1, instead of swapping between multiple ratios for the IMAX version and presenting other versions in a compromised Scope-only format.

I mean sometimes the extra IMAX info is extraneous but Dune absolutely felt like it was supposed to seen that way, to the extent that the scope portions almost felt wrong.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

I don't know why, at this point, we can't just collectively accept that an "epic" movie can be framed entirely for 1.85:1 or 1.90:1, instead of swapping between multiple ratios for the IMAX version and presenting other versions in a compromised Scope-only format.

I mean sometimes the extra IMAX info is extraneous but Dune absolutely felt like it was supposed to seen that way, to the extent that the scope portions almost felt wrong.

Who’s “we”? I just wanna see whatever movie in the AR that was intended be it fat or thin, wide or tall, anamorphic or spherical etc. It’s on the filmmakers - or rather their paymasters - who’ve gotten into bed with IMAX to provide a gimmick that gets people into their theaters which is why we have all this exclusive embiggening shite.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Who’s “we”? I just wanna see whatever movie in the AR that was intended be it fat or thin, wide or tall, anamorphic or spherical etc. It’s on the filmmakers - or rather their paymasters - who’ve gotten into bed with IMAX to provide a gimmick that gets people into their theaters which is why we have all this exclusive embiggening shite.

"We" meaning moviegoers and filmmakers alike. I agree, seeing a movie in the intended aspect ratio is the most important part.

I think I explained myself poorly before, but what I mean is, there's still this idea that a "big" movie needs to be in scope, at least partially. But looking at a film like Dune, the expanded IMAX framing looks so good that the Scope scenes feel almost cramped in comparison. I've only seen in it IMAX so I don't know what the Scope-only version looks like, but I can't imagine the tall scenes having the same impact when cropped, either.

Given that I wish the whole movie had been in a taller ratio for all showings, IMAX or not, for consistency. Obviously that's just my opinion but I prefer movies formatted for IMAX to be entirely formatted for IMAX instead of having a shifting AR, and for regular showings to not feel like they're missing something. Jame's Gunn's Suicide Squad being my favorite recent example (and even then he had to defend the decision on twitter from people asking why it wasn't Scope).

[Noremac Mij]

The real question is why do filmmakers still use the hideous scope??? Even 4:3 looks better.

The best kind of scope is open matte scope : )))

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

"We" meaning moviegoers and filmmakers alike. I agree, seeing a movie in the intended aspect ratio is the most important part.

I think I explained myself poorly before, but what I mean is, there's still this idea that a "big" movie needs to be in scope, at least partially. But looking at a film like Dune, the expanded IMAX framing looks so good that the Scope scenes feel almost cramped in comparison. I've only seen in it IMAX so I don't know what the Scope-only version looks like, but I can't imagine the tall scenes having the same impact when cropped, either.

Given that I wish the whole movie had been in a taller ratio for all showings, IMAX or not, for consistency. Obviously that's just my opinion but I prefer movies formatted for IMAX to be entirely formatted for IMAX instead of having a shifting AR, and for regular showings to not feel like they're missing something. Jame's Gunn's Suicide Squad being my favorite recent example (and even then he had to defend the decision on twitter from people asking why it wasn't Scope).

Having watched the movie in both 4DX and IMAX, I would have to admit that I found the 4DX version to be more fun and more involving. It genuinely gave me more of a "being right there" sensation that was missing from the IMAX version, which can feel almost too overwhelming at times (but not in a fun way)

The rain effects, the shaking of the seats whenever there was a scene in a moving 'thopter or when the sandworms start causing the ground to shake, etc. etc., made it a lot more fun to me. Smoke and light effects, too, can make you feel like you're right in the middle of the action... I believe they used some smell effects as well, whenever there was spice being used in the scene.

Be that as it may, the movie is already gone from Dolby and 4DX screens, and is going to be in IMAX theaters only for about 5 more days, so if you liked what you experience, I would imagine you'd like to maybe catch one more showing before it's gone.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Be that as it may, the movie is already gone from Dolby and 4DX screens, and is going to be in IMAX theaters only for about 5 more days, so if you liked what you experience, I would imagine you'd like to maybe catch one more showing before it's gone.

If IMAX tickets weren't $18 a piece I would. But I'll likely settle for seeing it on a regular screen once.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

If IMAX tickets weren't $18 a piece I would. But I'll likely settle for seeing it on a regular screen once.

You don't have AMC A-List? I've gotten all my Dune IMAX tickets through the A-List, so I paid nothing for them.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

You don't have AMC A-List? I've gotten all my Dune IMAX tickets through the A-List, so I paid nothing for them.

Not currently. Dropped it when the pandemic hit and I'm still being way too cautious about how often I go out for it to be worth it to re-subscribe yet. Dune is the first thing I've seen in theaters since Quiet Place II, and that was the last thing I'd seen since Godzilla vs. Kong.

And yes, I realize all three of those movies involve sign language and monsters that hunt by sound. I did not plan this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

"We" meaning moviegoers and filmmakers alike. I agree, seeing a movie in the intended aspect ratio is the most important part.

I think I explained myself poorly before, but what I mean is, there's still this idea that a "big" movie needs to be in scope, at least partially. But looking at a film like Dune, the expanded IMAX framing looks so good that the Scope scenes feel almost cramped in comparison. I've only seen in it IMAX so I don't know what the Scope-only version looks like, but I can't imagine the tall scenes having the same impact when cropped, either.

Given that I wish the whole movie had been in a taller ratio for all showings, IMAX or not, for consistency. Obviously that's just my opinion but I prefer movies formatted for IMAX to be entirely formatted for IMAX instead of having a shifting AR, and for regular showings to not feel like they're missing something. Jame's Gunn's Suicide Squad being my favorite recent example (and even then he had to defend the decision on twitter from people asking why it wasn't Scope).

If it’s framed properly I don’t care if it’s 2.76 Ultra Panavision. I think the anamorphic stuff in Dune looks great, what bothers me is how awful the ‘scope extraction is in the ‘IMAX’ scenes. I don’t have an inbuilt preference for any one ratio, though I like the intermediate ones like 1.66 and 2.00, they offer something a bit different.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If it’s framed properly I don’t care if it’s 2.76 Ultra Panavision. I think the anamorphic stuff in Dune looks great, what bothers me is how awful the ‘scope extraction is in the ‘IMAX’ scenes. I don’t have an inbuilt preference for any one ratio, though I like the intermediate ones like 1.66 and 2.00, they offer something a bit different.

I don't have a preference one way or the other either.

I just feel in this circumstance, it's unfortunate that, like you said, the scope version of the IMAX scenes is suboptimal. I don't know if the reframing could have been done better or not, but just based on how well-composed they were in IMAX, I would think any scope extraction would reduce their impact to a degree.

I realize I'm crying over spilled milk saying I wish the whole movie had been IMAX-formatted like The Suicide Squad was for the sake of consistency, but I think it's similar to wishing certain scenes from the book had been included, or not liking the casting of a certain character, or whatever other complaint can be had about any film.

I greatly enjoyed it either way.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Trouble is, they'd just get what Lionsgate/SC give them and Catching Fire is fooked everywhere, even on the 4K HDR stream it's the same. Needs a proper remaster from the source files.

The Hunger Games movies were done so early they don't even have Dolby Vision, something that LG includes on pretty much all their 4K releases.

I can definitely see them re-doing the series either next year for the first film's anniversary, or whenever the movie adaptation of "The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes" comes out(most likely 2023).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

The Hunger Games movies were done so early they don't even have Dolby Vision, something that LG includes on pretty much all their 4K releases.

I can definitely see them re-doing the series either next year for the first film's anniversary, or whenever the movie adaptation of "The Ballad Of Songbirds And Snakes" comes out(most likely 2023).

That's what I'm hoping, yep. Either something for the 10th anniversary or for the new movie, Lionsgate will prolly do both

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's what I'm hoping, yep. Either something for the 10th anniversary or for the new movie, Lionsgate will prolly do both

I bought the Hunger Games movies three times already and it'll frustrate me if have to buy them again, but I will if they do them properly.

[jett]

Originally Posted by gpn

Have you seen a UHD with IMAX scenes? I'm going to guess no, because if you had you'd know it's not just the aspect ratio change, but the perceived increase in resolution and clarity too. The Mission Impossible: Fallout UHD looks great overall, but the helicopter scenes in IMAX at the end are at a whole different level.

FYI this isn't going to matter with Dune because the entire movie was filmed with the same digital cameras. You're not going to see a drastic uptick in image quality in certain scenes like in other movies that were actually filmed with IMAX cameras.

[Merkur]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

Given that I wish the whole movie had been in a taller ratio for all showings, IMAX or not, for consistency. Obviously that's just my opinion but I prefer movies formatted for IMAX to be entirely formatted for IMAX instead of having a shifting AR, and for regular showings to not feel like they're missing something. Jame's Gunn's Suicide Squad being my favorite recent example (and even then he had to defend the decision on twitter from people asking why it wasn't Scope).

One issue I can think of is, most screens - at least where I'm at - are scope. It'll be pillar-boxed. No one makes scope versions of flat movies.

Making it IMAX exclusive, they can have both. A scope version for standard theaters and a taller version for IMAX.

[Spiderwalk]

Originally Posted by Farerb

I bought the Hunger Games movies three times already and it'll frustrate me if have to buy them again, but I will if they do them properly.

[Show spoiler]

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Merkur

One issue I can think of is, most screens - at least where I'm at - are scope. It'll be pillar-boxed. No one makes scope versions of flat movies.

Making it IMAX exclusive, they can have both. A scope version for standard theaters and a taller version for IMAX.

Interesting. Most screens where I live are flat, not scope, so in my mind, flat is always bigger. I forget that that varies by region.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by jett

FYI this isn't going to matter with Dune because the entire movie was filmed with the same digital cameras. You're not going to see a drastic uptick in image quality in certain scenes like in other movies that were actually filmed with IMAX cameras.

This has amazing quality beginning to end, the IMAX frame just let's you see more of it and on those screens, way more detail.
Even in 2k xenon the level of detail in one scene blew me away.

[Krynoid-Man]

I saw it at a regular screening and an IMAX screening (well partially), and honesty I thought the IMAX scenes looked perfectly fine in scope.