Wonder Woman 1984 4K UHD (2020)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Well, just because there is a photo of an IMAX film camera on set, that doesn't mean that it was used. I mean, you would assume it was, but certainly, that's not a guarantee that film shot with that camera actually ends up in the finished movie, anyway.





Pieter, I don't see anything in this quotation about IMAX 15/70. Further, the phrase used here is:



which again makes it sound like the plan here was to frame at the IMAX digital AR of 1.90:1. Now, why shoot 15/70 film if you are not going to make use of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio? 1.90:1 is a bizarre ratio to use if you are simply cropping 1.43:1 footage, which in that case should obviously be cropped to 1.78:1...unless you also have IMAX digital footage there in native 1.90:1 as well. Already the article admits that an underwater portion of an IMAX sequence had to be shot digitally with an Alexa 65, So it sounds to me like, at best, the IMAX sequences are a combination of 15/70 and digital or IMAX digital, with probable emphasis on the latter.

Then again, I also understand that IMAX has some control over how their tech is used in these films, so maybe the bulk of it is 15/70, but they didn't like how it looked, so they cropped it all to 1.90:1 themselves?

TBH I think it's simply that shooting 15-perf IMAX doesn't automatically mean that it gets a 1.44 finish. They aimed for 1.90 from the start which is why they snuck the A65 in there for the underwater stuff.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by farerb

But then it's another step towards killing physical media.

not really. This just isn't worth owning. If it was I would gladly buy it. I own the original WW on BD then added the 4K set when I got my first 4K tv.

[levcore]

I'll buy this on 3D and 4K if they release both.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Well, just because there is a photo of an IMAX film camera on set, that doesn't mean that it was used. I mean, you would assume it was, but certainly, that's not a guarantee that film shot with that camera actually ends up in the finished movie, anyway.





Pieter, I don't see anything in this quotation about IMAX 15/70. Further, the phrase used here is:



which again makes it sound like the plan here was to frame at the IMAX digital AR of 1.90:1. Now, why shoot 15/70 film if you are not going to make use of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio? 1.90:1 is a bizarre ratio to use if you are simply cropping 1.43:1 footage, which in that case should obviously be cropped to 1.78:1...unless you also have IMAX digital footage there in native 1.90:1 as well. Already the article admits that an underwater portion of an IMAX sequence had to be shot digitally with an Alexa 65, So it sounds to me like, at best, the IMAX sequences are a combination of 15/70 and digital or IMAX digital, with probable emphasis on the latter.

Then again, I also understand that IMAX has some control over how their tech is used in these films, so maybe the bulk of it is 15/70, but they didn't like how it looked, so they cropped it all to 1.90:1 themselves?

It likely just wasn’t worth it to the filmmakers to compose for/finish in 1.43 when they knew the vast majority of IMAX showings would be in 1.9. But Jenkins is passionate about using film when possible, not to mention the incredible quality 15/70 cameras give, so understandable she chose that capture format.

I think it’s silly to say the IMAX sequences have an emphasis on digital capture because of the underwater section which is just a few shots in a 10 minute sequence. It’s likely done for technical reasons, I recall with the first movie which was also mostly shot on 35mm, they used digital for underwater shots and aerial footage specifically because they found it much easier to do technically.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

TBH I think it's simply that shooting 15-perf IMAX doesn't automatically mean that it gets a 1.44 finish. They aimed for 1.90 from the start which is why they snuck the A65 in there for the underwater stuff.

Are there other features that have shot with the 15/70 film and then finished at the 1.90:1 digital ratio? I'm not aware of any, unless there are IMAX digital documentaries which had to use the film for some sequences.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by levcore

I'll buy this on 3D and 4K if they release both.

Would be surprised if 3D happens, but several shots/moments were clearly designed with 3D in mind.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Would be surprised if 3D happens, but several shots/moments were clearly designed with 3D in mind.

WB actually was putting out 3D discs more regularly than most studios. But I think they haven’t had a 3D movie since Godzilla, King of the Monsters and obviously a lot has changed about the world and release plans since then, so we’ll see.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Would be surprised if 3D happens, but several shots/moments were clearly designed with 3D in mind.

Same but WB has been more reliable than most other studios with 3D discs. 3D pre orders already went up in India so there was a smidgen of hope it might get a 3D disc.

Otherwise 4K UHD it is, big fan of the first movie.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

WB actually was putting out 3D discs more regularly than most studios. But I think they haven’t had a 3D movie since Godzilla, King of the Monsters and obviously a lot has changed about the world and release plans since then, so we’ll see.

I will be really interested to see if this gets a 3D release, especially after the divisive reviews and at least what amounts to a cancelled 3D theatrical release. Did the film actually play in 3D anywhere?

[levcore]

Yes, posters in the 3D thread have been talking about it and some have seen it in 3D.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

WB actually was putting out 3D discs more regularly than most studios. But I think they haven’t had a 3D movie since Godzilla, King of the Monsters and obviously a lot has changed about the world and release plans since then, so we’ll see.

Originally Posted by levcore

Same but WB has been more reliable than most other studios with 3D discs. 3D pre orders already went up in India so there was a smidgen of hope it might get a 3D disc.

Otherwise 4K UHD it is, big fan of the first movie.

The main reason I'm not so optimistic is because of the streaming debut, but then I remember that it also got a theatrical release, so maybe we'll get one. If we do, I'll certainly get it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Are there other features that have shot with the 15/70 film and then finished at the 1.90:1 digital ratio? I'm not aware of any, unless there are IMAX digital documentaries which had to use the film for some sequences.

Lucy shot some 15-perf and that was matted to 2.40, it didn't even get an embiggened IMAX version at all.

But I do see what you're driving at, that 15-perf usually leads to 1.44 for the IMAX version, but 15-perf been used so sparingly over the last few years that the IMAX digital ratio has pretty much become the default since then. Plus proper 1.44 15/70 prints are all but dead, you're not going to see them for anything other than a Nolan film every few years during which time the amount of 15/70 projektors shrinks even more. IMAX laser does have its own 1.44 mode, sure, but the native aspect of the chips is 1.90, as it is at most new IMAX locations. And them using A65 on WW84 is a honking great sign that they weren't looking at going with 1.44 in the first place, though they could've cropped it out of the 2.11 open gate mode I suppose.

It'll be interesting to see how the new Bond film handles it to see if WW84 was a a one-off or the start of a new trend to move away from 1.44. We know for sure that NTTD was shot using some 15-perf, as well as centre-extraction 5-perf.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

2.20? There was no 2.20 65mm on WW84. If you're referring to Tenet that was mos def finished out to 1.44 for the native IMAX stuff, what we're wondering is why WW84 didn't get a similar finish seeing as they did actually shoot some of it on native 15-perf IMAX as well. But it seems as if there was no concession to 1.44 for the finish of WW84's IMAX scenes, despite what the IMDB sez, and that 1.90 was always gonna be the final IMAX ratio for this show, hence the presentation as such on video rather than having it be 1.78 like Tenet.

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I distinctly remember someone linking a magazine article where they specifically mention that the dialogue shots for the Imax scenes were filmed in 5-perf.

You can’t trust imdb. I still remember when they were filming here in the DC area back in 2018 and the format listed at the time was anamorphic and not Super 35. On several of my days/nights off I was able to watch them filming in Georgetown and, at one point, managed to get a pretty good up-close look at one of the 35mm cameras. The lenses were unmistakably spherical.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I distinctly remember someone linking a magazine article where they specifically mention that the dialogue shots for the Imax scenes were filmed in 5-perf.

You can’t trust imdb. I still remember when they were filming here in the DC area back in 2018 and the format listed at the time was anamorphic and not Super 35. On several of my days/nights off I was able to watch them filming in Georgetown and, at one point, managed to get a pretty good up-close look at one of the 35mm cameras. The lenses were unmistakably spherical.

Yours is the first I've heard of 5-perf being used on WW84 in any capacity. You sure you're not confusing it with NTTD? That definitely used 5-perf for the dialogue stuff.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I distinctly remember someone linking a magazine article where they specifically mention that the dialogue shots for the Imax scenes were filmed in 5-perf.

You can’t trust imdb. I still remember when they were filming here in the DC area back in 2018 and the format listed at the time was anamorphic and not Super 35. On several of my days/nights off I was able to watch them filming in Georgetown and, at one point, managed to get a pretty good up-close look at one of the 35mm cameras. The lenses were unmistakably spherical.

You may be recalling Batman v Superman. There was some 5/65 used for dialogue sequences in the IMAX portions there.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Lucy shot some 15-perf and that was matted to 2.40, it didn't even get an embiggened IMAX version at all.

But I do see what you're driving at, that 15-perf usually leads to 1.44 for the IMAX version, but 15-perf been used so sparingly over the last few years that the IMAX digital ratio has pretty much become the default since then. Plus proper 1.44 15/70 prints are all but dead, you're not going to see them for anything other than a Nolan film every few years during which time the amount of 15/70 projektors shrinks even more. IMAX laser does have its own 1.44 mode, sure, but the native aspect of the chips is 1.90. And them using A65 on WW84 is a honking great sign that they weren't looking at going with 1.44 in the first place, though they could've cropped it out of the 2.11 open gate mode I suppose.

It'll be interesting to see how the new Bond film handles it to see if WW84 was a a one-off or the start of a new trend to move away from 1.44. We know for sure that NTTD was shot using some 15-perf, as well as centre-extraction 5-perf.

Wasn't Lucy shot before the IMAX digital formats came out, though? I could be wrong, but I thought that was around 2016 or so?

I know 15/70 can and has been matted to all different sorts of ARs over the years, I just find the choice of 1.90:1 a little perplexing unless there is IMAX digital footage in there as well, and that, to my mind, calls into question just how much of the IMAX footage is "IMAX film", meaning what is being advertised. If the opening sequence is 10-15 minutes but most of that is IMAX digital and Alexa 65, then I would consider it a swindle to call that an "IMAX film sequence", which to me is a phrase that implies that the entirety or majority of the sequence was captured on 15/70 film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Wasn't Lucy shot before the IMAX digital formats came out, though? I could be wrong, but I thought that was around 2016 or so?

I know 15/70 can and has been matted to all different sorts of ARs over the years, I just find the choice of 1.90:1 a little perplexing unless there is IMAX digital footage in there as well, and that, to my mind, calls into question just how much of the IMAX footage is "IMAX film", meaning what is being advertised. If the opening sequence is 10-15 minutes but most of that is IMAX digital and Alexa 65, then I would consider it a swindle to call that an "IMAX film sequence", which to me is a phrase that implies that the entirety or majority of the sequence was captured on 15/70 film.

Did 'they' ever call it that though? And it looks so 'digital' anyway with all the dreadful CG in the opening scene that even if they did use mostly 15-perf it didn't count for much, so the 1.90 thing starts to make more sense to me.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Did 'they' ever call it that though? And it looks so 'digital' anyway with all the dreadful CG in the opening scene that even if they did use mostly 15-perf it didn't count for much, so the 1.90 thing starts to make more sense to me.

https://www.imax.com/news/wonder-wom...shot-imax-film

[newtonp01]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Are there other features that have shot with the 15/70 film and then finished at the 1.90:1 digital ratio? I'm not aware of any, unless there are IMAX digital documentaries which had to use the film for some sequences.

Last Jedi cropped the IMAX footage to 2.35:1. Besides for Lucy, Tree of Life also apparently uses some IMAX shots.

If we add films cropped to 2.35 on home media though, there's a pretty decent list.

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

If the opening sequence is 10-15 minutes but most of that is IMAX digital and Alexa 65, then I would consider it a swindle to call that an "IMAX film sequence", which to me is a phrase that implies that the entirety or majority of the sequence was captured on 15/70 film.

I mean if you're saying that then you can't really say that Force Awakens, BvS, or Into Darkness had full IMAX scenes either since at least 50% of those shots are full CG!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

https://www.imax.com/news/wonder-wom...shot-imax-film

Thanks. And yet...note the "see 26% more picture" marketing guff that accompanies that video. 26% is what 'they' quote when embiggening 2.40 to 1.90 so I think we have our answer as to what the IMAX AR was intended to be, regardless of image capture.