With IMAX releases like Villeneuve’s DUNE Part 2 and Nolan’s Oppenheimer comes the perennial debate on aspect ratios. Which framing is best? Who’s getting more? Who’s getting less? But there’s a bit more nuance to this debate. These questions miss a key component of the filmmaking process: the DIRECTOR’S INTENT. They fail to acknowledge the way cinematographers like Greig Fraser or Hoyte van Hoytema are carefully composing these frames with multiple deliverables in mind - this is not pan & scan. So let’s look at films ranging from Titanic to DUNE to Oppenheimer to see just how filmmakers compose their movies with every frame in mind.
//SOURCES
Dune: Part Two｜Behind-the-Scenes Featurette｜ Filmed For IMAX®
imax.melbourne Filmed For IMAX Instagram Post
DUNE Part 1 (2021)
Beyond Sand & Spice: The VFX of Dune｜DNEG Deep Dives
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
TIME Magazine “The Shape of Things That Were” by Jay Cocks August 30th, 1982
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
The Girl Can’t Help It (1956)
ASC Magazine’s Dec. ‘97 - Titanic Coverage
ASC Magazine July ‘23 - “Aspect Ratios for Home Exhibition”
Titanic (1997)
Christopher Nolan on his career, including Oppenheimer and the Batman trilogy｜BFI in conversation
The Dark Knight (2008)
IMAX.com “Experience”
DUNE｜DP Greig Fraser ACS, ASC｜ShotDeck: Shot Talk
Dune (2021) - DNEG Demo Reel ⧸ IMAX
What Is IMAX?
Oppenheimer (2023)
T2 Ground Glass - cinematography.com “super-35”
Oppenheimer｜Shooting For IMAX
Titanic Crew Documentary
The Cinematography of Oppenheimer, with DP Hoyte Van Hoytema｜The DolbyInstitute Podcast
//MUSIC
Actually, Like by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Artist: www.twinmusicom.org/
Blue Danube by Strauss
Also Sprach Zarathustra ("Thus Spoke Zarathustra") by Strauss
Sun Awakening by Futuremono
Icelandic Arpeggios by DivKid
#imax #filmmaking #dune
Everyone gives Nolan credit for IMAX's success, they forget Cameron's contributions.
I didn’t even KNOW Cameron’s contributions until I saw this video! Very cool bit of history.
Cuz super 35 is not IMAX. Nolan's contributions also apply to how they shot with massive, noisy IMAX cameras. The industry has caught up to the desire to shoot in this format, whereas Nolan had shoot on dinosaurs built in the 80s
@@samwroblewski748 You're still ignoring how much Cameron promoted IMAX in the late 90s and in the 2000s. Those contributions have nothing to do with the format he shot in.
I got to see Avatar 1 in 3D on IMAX at the London IMAX theater which was projected from first run copy film negative. It was interesting because I could see bits of fluff and sust every now and then pass between the projectors bulb and film to then get blown away in the next few frames. It was quite distracting even though the image was otherwise pristine.
I personally feel like full IMAX 1.43:1 should still be available at home. There are other filmmakers who use the ratio for its full effect that don’t feel like “negative space”; primarily denis villenueve, who utilizes that frame to draw your eye from top to bottom or corner to corner. Dune part 1 & 2’s framing is entirely different in 1.43:1 and doesn’t feel like its simply a centered image. Great video!
Thanks for the comment! It is Greig Fraser - the DP for DUNE 1 & 2 - discussing in the video about being careful what he frames in the far top and bottom of screen noting, “It’s not an eye flick, it’s a head turn.” I certainly don’t disagree that it’s not “negative space” in an IMAX venue, that’s why I made sure to note that’s a bit of a misnomer in the video. For me, the issue becomes when those compositions are adjusted for different screens. I just question how one would include the widescreen scenes within that canvas? You are absolutely right that those 1.43 scenes are stunning; however what do you get when the frame shrinks down? There’s essentially two options (if you want to maintain the 1.43) - window boxing (what I show in the Oppenheimer scene) or letting those scenes play letterboxed (which messes up relative size in relation to the expanded scenes). I think there’s a reason we’ve seen neither of these for Nolan or Villeneuve’s physical releases.
@@fromtheframe I definitely get that perspective, but what I think could be done to accommodate both camps is giving the user the option to choose which version to watch i.e. like in old dvd's when they asked for the widescreen of fullscreen versions (which was another weird pan and scan type thing but this would be different). 4K disks and blu-rays have so much information capacity and they're only getting better. To me it doesn't bother me because I genuinely just view it as I most fondly remember them: on that giant 60 x 80ft glorious screen! Primarily I want that to happen for the sake of film preservation as well, who knows if those versions become forever inaccessible to the public in the future. I also believe with modern technology that IMAX TV's could be a thing eventually, or as a more current example: using VR to replicate the screen's massive size to scale with your perceived surroundings. There's an app on apple vision that does this from IMAX themselves and its only a matter of time til these cuts of full IMAX films join that library. Now, I'm not saying to buy an apple vision pro cuz I definitely won't lolll, but the technology is there and can be made more accessible as time goes on. Seriously great video and can't wait to see what's next!
Oh you brought up a really interesting aspect I forgot to consider - VR headsets. I think there is certainly potential for some of these films to get a full ratio release on that platform. Whether that actually becomes a reality - only time will tell.
@@fromtheframeWe can only hope🤞
I agree. It should be available at home or at least for people who have high quality projectors to use it with.
When the client needs a vertical cut for social 🤦♂️
The real aspect ratio crisis not enough people are talking about!
Can you say no?
@@helenastenvislavskovicif you don’t wanna get hired back
Why they don't just turn the phone? Believe it or not explaining that simple concept allowed me to shoot a commercial the normal way. Now its on youtube and tv, something that wasnt in the original plans and wouldn't look okay if they had forced me to shoot vertically, and it was a racing video!!! There is nothing more horizontal than car racing!!! 60% of the time producers dont know what they ask.
@@hiaircould you share an example of this concept in play? I definitely believe that solution but I would like to see how it looks when the company posts it.
I legit thought this video was from a really large KZhead channel. Really great production value. You’re definitely gonna be up there in no time.
Appreciate it!
Me too until I read this comment lol
@@pawelparadyszSame wtf.
Brilliant video. Really well done.
Many thanks!
I really wish they at least released the IMAX 1.43:1 scenes in some way for every IMAX movie. Like how the IMAX scenes for The Dark Knight/Rises were put onto the special features of the special edition trilogy set.
I don’t disagree, but I wonder how that would work when about 40% of the film is in 1.43. They probably wouldn’t be able to make that an extra on the disc like what was done with Nolan’s Batman trilogy. It’s a tricky situation - one I think Nolan is navigating quite well - but perhaps there’s no way to appease everyone. That’s why I think, in this case, I defer to how the director intends for the film to be watched.
@@fromtheframeMay be they could just release it separately on Disk as an "IMAX Version". I know not everyone is fan of it. But for the release of the Director's Cut of Justice League on HBOmax Zack Snyder had the film relased in tne original Near IMAX ratio that he had shot it in for the IMAX screens. It was relased with Black bars on the side. I liked it that way because it gave the complete frame of what he wanted to convey in the movie.
@@fromtheframe There's a much smaller but dedicated audience with projectors at home. And given the fact you have control over the size and aspect ratio of your screen you could project that format at home. I've done it with the The Dark Knight and it's a very interesting and immersive way to watch it, but nowhere near actually seeing it in a proprietary theater. But, I completely agree with you, it doesn't take away anything from watching a scope version.
@@fromtheframe Another way that I have heard of is seamless branching. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_branching
@@fromtheframe I remember that the Criterion release for On the Waterfront was released with an extra disc so the movie could be seen in three different aspect ratios so people could decide. I also have a 4K collection of several Peanuts shorts with the option to select watching it in 4:3 or cropped to fill the entire 16:9 screen. Movies with alternate cuts also frequently use something called seamless branching (like darth4arth mentioned) so the movie could reduce having segments that are the same in both versions being copied. As a result, I am someone who would suggest having a disc in standard 2:39.1 and the option to expand some scenes to 1:78.1, and a second disc having it in full 1:43.1 (with the option to reduce the size of the 2:39.1 scenes if the user wants to keep things inside the 1:43.1 frame).
I do wish they had done Nolan’s approach for the Dune home release and allowed those large format shots to switch to 1.78:1.
This is probably the best video I've seen about film aspect ratio. Instant subscribe!
Thanks! We appreciate the support!
The 1:78 3D release is indeed still my preferred way to experience „Titanic“ - even owning the 4K Release.
Totally agree. Especially if you have movie projector wow that’s how u must see the film.
The framing method Nolan came up with for IMAX is really quite effective. It’s not just that the composition protects for the wider regular format but that so much is guided by the center and the natural field of view of being in it. There are shots over characters shoulders that partially cover the face of the person speaking. Like you were actually standing behind the main character. This really places you in the world. It makes you lean in and pay attention. And this beautifully translates to scope as well. My favorite theater has a Cinerama screen that was originally installed to show 2001 and its composition. And these IMAX movies play on that screen like they were framed for it. Like 2001 it’s about a grander, less intellectual composition that’s not didactic but lets the audience peer into the world from a natural point of view. And Greig Fraser beautifully adapted this style for the more intimate and spiritual storytelling of Dune.
Couldn’t agree more! I found it quite interesting to go back and re-read older interviews with Wally Pfister on his collaborations with Nolan. It highlights how he’s been slowly honing his process and testing it on all his prior films. Seeing how that has translated to his collaborations with van Hoytema (how it has both continued but also changed in certain ways) is quite interesting. I am absolutely astounded that somehow Hoyte van Hoytema and Nolan get all these compositions to work so well when (at least for Nolan’s most recent IMAX releases) they are relying solely on center punching the image. Interestingly, I think van Hoytema and Fraser are approaching things a little differently as far as composition, but each are using the medium to fantastic effect. Waiting for more of the technical details from Fraser to roll out with interviews in ASC magazine, etc., but somehow I feel like he wouldn’t share Hoyte van Hoytema’s sentiments at the end of the video - just a hunch though, could totally be wrong.
What theater??
@@sammybelskus1534 The Schauburg in Karlsruhe Germany. One of the last great old theaters in Germany. Great staff with the technical knowledge, second gen Cinerama screen like I said, and no shit one of the best sound systems I’ve ever heard. About on par with the BFI IMAX in London, but a little different.
I want to see the full movie, its as simple as that. If its good enough to be released in a movie theater I want access to that version for my hove viewing experience... I cant afford IMAX, there are none nearby to me and a lot for transport costs would be included where I live in Rural Northern Europe.. I have only seen Dune part 2 in a regular cinema once, thats what my budget can handle.. So I want access to the full experience..
@@gawkthimm6030This is what it comes down to for me. Stop withholding the full version and stop making it a theater ”one and done” experience that you can’t get at home. This has to change in the future because the demand is there, and so is the frustration in that demand not being met the way it easily could and should be met.
This upload/content blew me away and I was presented with info that even I didn’t know, that is to say that growing up with a family at work for 40 years in the major motion industry including myself who is now in the indie film sub-section of that industry. I thought I knew soooooo much about aspect ratio and why and how the decisions were made for said aspect ratios but this content was just perfect in every way for this specific subject! Amazingly presented, narrated so that anyone no matter what their experience level in film making or watching films is, and it was edited and created so that not a single breath or moment in this content could be considered fluff or filler at all in any way. Every second of this upload was necessary for the subject matter at hand. I am going to save this, download it and use it in my own film music and film editing studio when I do spotting sessions with new to the industry directors or indie directors that are trying to understand their own films and how an audience will NEED to see them, not “want” to see them. This is the key wording here, how the audience wants to see them VS how they actually will NEED to be immersed in the film in order for it to be as emotionally efficient and emotionally effective as possible! Loved this upload and whoever did this should get together with me sometime and we should def chat virtually and try to actually create some content together. Small flex and some name drops but yes My family worked for George Lucas and Steven Spielberg off and on on various productions and ideas for the better part of 40 years and I am opening up my second studio (post Covid) this summer myself so yeah let’s chat! I am interested in what you have to say and the content you are creating
Most undersubscribed channel on KZhead right now.
Thanks! 😊
The video and your comment pushed me to subscribe 👍
Nah it’s just a tad bit more niche and specific than most popular movie related channels
@@paradise_valleyAgreed, “most underrated” is a huge exaggeration.
@@FactsDontCareAboutFeelings_97 uh they said most undersubscribed? I do think the channel is deserving of more subscribers, but I'm not surprised it isn't any more popular especially rn with this kind of video. Wow that's one hell of a username in this day and age buddy, not sure what that says about you as person really but haha you must argue a lot online, I don't want to unnecessarily politicise this ofc 😂
For Fuck Sake Denis.... give us Dune IMAX Scenes on Blu-Ray that fits the TV screen. Like what Nolan does. Or is it too hard? SMH
You didn't watch the clip didn't you?
@@gawkthimm6030 You didn't watch the clip either didn't you? You don't necessarily get less cropping when watching IMAX, and whatever you get on the top and bottom on IMAX is mostly dead negative space ment for you peripheral vision, so it doesn't really make sense to have the same version at home.
@@gurratell7326so you are saying that at home one can‘t have a screen large enough for peripheral vision? Just because you don’t want to there is no point in deciding for others that they should not be allowed to want it
@@ROBiNuelson I don't think I've ever seen any home tv or projector setup where people have such a big screen or sit so extremely close that things start getting into their peripheral vision. I do sometimes sit around 1-1.5 meter from my 55" OLED watching movies but not even then I've missed having that IMAX aspect ratio. But yeah sure some people might want it, but tbh I think they've just really fallen for IMAX very persistent (and annoying and slightly misleading) marketing.
@@gurratell7326 That one shot was extended digitally. If it's such an issue, keep that one shot in 2.39:1, or crop the 2.39:1 version of it into 1.78:1
Glorious find of a channel because I’ve been nerding out about film formats again lately, excited to see more!
Glad you enjoyed the video!
Thanks for demystifying all these different formats. I got kind of disappointed I couldn't score tickets at a dual laser IMAX screen to see the 1.43 shots, because I felt like I wouldn't truly be seeing it the way it was intended. I did end up seeing it at a "lesser" 1.90 IMAX screening, as well as a standard 2.39 screening, and you know what? I didn't end up caring about how much or how little I was seeing. The movie was entertaining regardless. That's all due to good filmmaking for sure, but after watching this video I realize that no matter which way I watched it, I was still getting the director's full intention with regards to composition.
Thank you. Yeah, the FOMO the Internet breeds around this topic can be quite toxic. Also, at the end of the day, the difference between 1.90 and 1.43 is very small. I think screen size might actually matter more, but what matters most is that you enjoyed the film!
The 1.43 shots in Dune: Part Two are mostly interior close ups, which is quite odd. Many of the action sequences were in 1.90, strangely enough.
@@mrebear9758The 1.43 sequences potentially weren’t perfectly planned, that’s why you might see few 1.43 scenes.
@@tirsomorales750 I suspect it's due to increased CGI costs for 1.43 scenes, not simply a matter of poor planning.
@@mrebear9758 Makes sense. But that still doesn’t change that only 40 minutes of Dune: Part Two were 1.43. Maybe the original plan of cropping the 1.90 scenes to 1.43 would’ve worked for Dune: Part Two.
The little bits like at 7:01 where you have a graphic showing what he is talking about. Really nice touch. Hope your channel does well.
Been a long time since the last one! Glad you're back. This IMAX topic is something I've immersed myself into for the past year and had a lotta discussions about everything you discussed here. I've always been on the side of the artist and their intent when it comes to any creative or technical choices they make for their films. I've had arguments over whether watching subtitled better or dubbed. I've always argued for Sub because dubbed loses a lot of cultural intent because that's not how the writer sat down to write it when they thought about the story. That's how I see the aspect ratio as well. Nolan has been known to switch between 2 ratios depending on the scale of the scene which I'm not always a fan of. I will say it worked best on Oppenheimer and Dunkirk. But I always love it when aspect ratio is a narrative device like how Wes Anderson did in The Grand Budapest Hotel or how Eggers did in The Lighthouse as opposed to using it only as a spectacle. But IMAX is working on a new camera body for the first time in decades so that's exciting. I hope we get to see films that's fully 15/70mm because the IMAX film experience is truly unmatched. Great video!
Took a bit of a break, but glad to be back uploading new videos! Also love the use of aspect ratio as a narrative device, but I do wonder if Nolan would still have the ratio switching if he had access to an IMAX camera that would allow him to record clean sound as well. I have a bit of a hunch that he would shoot the whole film in 1.43, and perhaps - with IMAX creating new cameras - we may find out…. Thanks for the comment. Always happy to get your thoughts!
I agree with you on this. You also get the original performance from the actors at the time of filming, rather than recording it in a studio. Sounds more authentic and true to life.
My opinion is that 15/70 is inferior to 35mm at 2.4:1 aspect. There is only a handful of true imax screens world wide. I have seen nothing on IMAX that can match Lord of the Rings on film or stunning beauty of Out of Africa on 35mm.
I was going to say this is the best video on the subject. I only wished you had shown Cameron's guide and cropped he used for Terminator 2...then BAM...YOU DID! SO happy. Although his crop and pan of the negative was very detailed and precise if you look a the documentary he did of T2. I am amazed at what he did to this day, and more so that he and others pay attention. Inlike the matted films of Tim Burton Batman and Pee-Wee. Where as in PEE-WEE the Bike Chain gag is ruined once the matte is taken off, cause it shows the chain being fed into his bike compartment from the bottom. This is the best video on this subject. Thank you so much! Being a fan of widescreen and laser disc I would rather have the correct aspect ratio, image the director intended us to see rather then the resolution on the TV at that time. I had to convince many as to things we were actually missing, instead of them thinking the image was being cut off on the top and bottom. Many things were missed in Die Hard, and Temple of Doom that we did not see for years. And a lot of old movies look fantastic and new again once we get to see the full image. I use to make posters for this in local video stores and would request a Widescreen section. See what you have been missing. - Toronto, Ontario.
I always thought it was a meta joke in Pee-Wee that we saw the chain being fed in! Only ever saw it on broadcast TV
@@LiamLagan No joke. When I watched the VHS back in the day i was like you can see the chain. Then when I saw it on laser disc, I learned the truth about matted theatrical releases. Of this film and Batman 1989 I believe. And Both were Burton films too.
Amazing video! The editing, animations, sound design and information is incredible and only 240 likes?!?!?! You gained a new subscriber for this and I hope you post more content like this! Also I would like to add that Dune in particular adds a lot in the 1.43:1, while the 2.39:1 works, it doesn't feel like other movies where there's just extra image top and bottom, but the 1.43:1 version gets you into the sensation of massive scale because machines and characters look smaller when they're not filling the frame but surrounded by bigger machines, worms or desert. I hope they release a Bluray edition that has those scenes in 1.78:1 like Nolan's films.
Couldn’t agree more. IMAX is a very special way to see these films, and the filmmaker’s have put so much work into that version. We are by no means suggesting that these films shouldn’t be seen in the 1.43 ratio - that is absolutely an experience people should try and seek out if possible. It just becomes frustrating how sometimes it seems like aspect ratio becomes the only discussion about these films - how it seemingly overshadows every other aspect that went into making the movie.
Great video! you're pace on story telling is impeccable, very entertaining and informative. Bravo!
Thank you! 😃
This is a great video! Kudos! Keep making more of them 🙌
This showed a really deep understanding of the medium, most of the decisions made with the camera in this day and age are based on how the film will be viewed. Excellent breakdown!
Thanks! We’re happy you found it helpful!
Great video! We do this every day when shooting for normal commercial/corporate content. A modern video campaign needs to be shot for 16:9, 1:1 and 9:16. And because these aspect ratios are so different, the final shots results in A LOT of central framing.
I have never understood the problem today... all TVs are basically 16:9 in 4K. The IMAX format can either live with black borders on the side or crop at 16:9 and work with most IMAX shots. Why the studios are cropping these IMAX movies to 2,35:1 is beyond stupid when the released format is perfectly functioning in 16:9. The HBO version of Dune part 1 has the 2,35:1 borders bellow and above, but why? We know there's an image there in the IMAX footage... why can't that be shown? What's the reason for cropping like that on a 16:9 TV? It makes no sense. We have 16:9 in 4K, on TVs that can be the size of 75 inches for reasonable prices. People can basically, if they want to, have a cinema experience at home today with 4K HDR films and not utilizing the entire image and resolution for that is insane.
I agree
Yeah, the release ratio for DUNE Part 1 is…interesting. However, this is how Villeneuve released Blade Runner 2049 (his prior IMAX film - 1.9 in theaters), so maybe it was his preference? I know Deakins has shared his thoughts on what he prefers. Greig Fraser (the DP for DUNE 1 & 2) has indicated on Instagram that he would like to have the IMAX scenes in DUNE Part 1 play in the 16:9 ratio, and perhaps they will do some sort of special release when Part 2 comes out. I am by no means a black bar hater, but DUNE Part 2 has quite a few different ratios it’s currently playing in, so it should be interesting to see what version they settle on for the home release.
Because some “””cinema lovers””” used to think that 2,35:1 is “””cinematic””” and the “”only way”” everyone must watch movies. Well, millions of people think starwarz is a great movie! People are stupid.
@@kayzee3595 I think The Lighthouse is more cinematic than anyone slapping on a 2,35:1 onto everything. I think it's pretty easy to understand but greatly misunderstood that compositional need supersede an arbitrary choice of aspect ratio. If you have a large ensamble in lots of wide group shots, then go with 2,35:1, if you have a need for taller compositions or singles, go with 16:9 or even more box. Anyone who uses 2,35:1 to film a single person with dead space on each side does not understand composition. Look at "Killers of the Flower Moon", it's a masterclass in 2,35:1 compositions, then look at The Lighthouse, a masterclass in square composition for faces. The problem is that young filmmakers today, especially the ones filling up tutorials and shit on youtube, doesn't know anything about composition, or have any voice or identity in their supposed art. As you say, they think something is cinematic and try to replicate it. Instead of MAKING cinema, they try ti SIMULATE it because they lack what's actually important underneath. Best tip for young directors today. Stop looking at film, take a still camera and go out and find shots that mean something. Find the emotion, the composition that tell stories of the subjects within the frame. And do it for thousands of shots until your brain automatically thinks in terms of composition. THEN you can start planning shots and aspect ratio choices. There are no hacks or shortcuts. Do the grunt work of foundational knowledge.
Buy a 120 inch 2.35:1 screen and your problems goes away.
Finally, some clarity on aspect ratios! I've always been annoyed at how filmmakers that frame for IMAX say that the vertical height helps with selling the scale of characters or spaces, and it just made me wonder, why not just frame it natively for 1:85? Most theatre screens nowadays are natively 1.85:1. Why do filmmakers have to resort to IMAX specifically for the additional height? Aspect ratios taller than 2.39:1 aren't possibly with only IMAX cameras. Any cinema camera can shoot a taller aspect ratio if the filmmaker wants
I love the behind the scenes stuff for movies and this was fascinating. Very well done!
So fun watching this stuff! Even though I already know a lot about this, it's presented in a way that is really engaging!
Thanks! It was a little tricky figuring out how to condense some of this information into a 14 minute video but we’re glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent video! This was very well presented and I’m keen to check out more of your videos ❤
Thank you so much!
This is an incredible video. I'd consider myself very well versed on the nuances of 70mm IMAX, aspect ratios, and the differing theatrical/home release versions of the more recent films from Nolan, Denis, Snyder, etc. But this video filled in a lot of the information I was missing. Especially the films and compromises from the 60s and 90s. Great stuff.
Thank you for the kind comment! We appreciate it!
This is the best video I have ever seen on cropping and aspect ratios. Definitely subscribing!
Spider-Man and Jurassic Park were shot in open matte (1.33:1) 35 mm and then cropped for 1.85:1 academy standard for theatrical release. JP being shot with PanaFlex cameras and spherical lenses. The open matte process allows for lots of top and bottom acreage in the picture almost akin to 4:3. if you've had a chance to see either one in open matte 35mm, it's a strangely unique experience, because there are times when you can see the boom mics over the heads of the actors in frame. It's a method that has fallen out of favor with the use of newer cameras, lenses and the use of digital photography.
Releasing Dune in physical media at CinemaScope was a crime. At the very least it should have been released in 16:9 aspect ratio!
I hear it's because it was shot in 1.43 and 1.9. I did not see it at IMAX so do not know if this is true. It would cause the postage stamp box effect on 4K TV's during the 1.9 scenes. All they had to do was zoom it for those parts. Open up for 16 by 9 for the 1.43 parts and zoom for the 1.9 parts. Sounds like it's just lazy encoding and the iPad generation.
@@MopantsuIt's the opposite of the old Pan and Scan problem. The digital frame is 1.43:1 and there's framing built in for cropping to 1.9:1 for the LieMAX screens that are half the size and to the normal 2.40:1 theater screens. On IMAX Digital which Dune was filmed in (and other Digital movies these days), they just chop in closer for different aspect ratios and keep the same fidelity. Dune 1 and 2 could easily be shown in 16x9 for Home Theater and lose only the very top and bottom of the whole IMAX frame instead of the 2.40:1 that it's released in.
Saw this video linked on reddit. Brilliant watch!
Great video - I caught Dune II in IMAX and standard screenings, and the different framings really caught my attention. Close-up shots felt much more intimate, but also claustrophobic in scope vs. IMAX.
So, there is an example of where the IMAX version of a film was clearly the intent of the filmmaker and the decisions made by either the director or studio in post meant that the film's general cinema release was clearly poorer than the IMAX release. The film is Marvel's ETERNALS directed by Chloé Zhao. The "expanded ratio" version of the film is only available on Disney+, and it's perhaps one of the most illuminating and frustrating films to watch knowing it was shot on IMAX and cropped, as there are scene shot of 2.39:1, for 1.90:1 and IMAX 1.43:1 seemingly cropped and chopped at random shot to shot. I actually find something in the film a lot of people don't and think the expanded aspect ratio adds so much feeling to the film when it's not changing shot to shot for no reason. However, after buying the 4K Blu-ray of the film, only to find it's the 2.39:1 version of the film, I was genuinely upset and enjoyed the film much less because of it.
I can’t say that I’ve seen the IMAX version of Eternals, but if the 4K blu-ray doesn't match what Zhao intended, I’m not surprised. Disney seems pretty abysmal as far as prioritizing their physical media releases - case in point Sony is now having to take over for them. As far as preferring the IMAX version, I believe that’s totally valid. There’s a tendency to forget that there’s a lot of nuance and subjectivity to these things - there’s not a definitive “this version is better than that.” That’s kind of the idea I was trying to capture in the video.
@@fromtheframe The feeling you get from the of the IMAX Eternals is so different. The wider aspect ratio makes it feel compressed and like every moment has a specific, narrative purpose, and that's why it has a passing issue. The IMAX version makes you realize some moments are to breathe, are for the characters and not the narrative, making the pacing much more even.
Really great video. I'd have loved a mention to that one episode of The Mandalorian, where they slowly change from one aspect ratio to another like in the examples here, but it had a storytelling purpose there.
So interesting and educational, this video ! Really makes me appreciate the 1.78:1 versions on my Blu Rays a lot more !
Phenomenal essay and explanation of the these beautiful formats! I can’t believe movies are just over a center old. We have so much more to do and learn about film!
Yes! Excited to see where it goes. Thanks for the comment!
Seeing Dune in 4k dual laser IMAX was jaw-dropping. The worm scene with Paul in 1.43:1 made you feel like you were there and illustrated the sheer scale of the Shai-Hulud. Will be going back to see in 1570 film
1570 film lmao
Great video, my complaint is we don't even get the 1:78 ratio for dune for the home release and are stuck with the widescreen theatrical version and IT MAKES ME SAD.
All I care about is that we can get the full ratio version on Blu-Ray. Only ever being available in theaters all but guarantees that the full version is lost forever.
Great video. This is just the kind of content I love. Subbed.
Awesome, thank you!
Wait, this was incredible. I was just looking into what all these aspect ratio talk was about when Dune 2 came out, I am a complete novice on this subject. You explained it all so well, instant subscribe.
Wow, awesome editing on this!
its actually pretty interesting that it took film makers so long to realize this....mastering engineers in sound and music have been having to do this for quite some time to make music sound relatively the same from the speakers in your car, to studio monitors, to surround sound in your living room to the speakers on your phone. so many sound devices that dont have the same frequency response force this procedure, surprised the same didnt happen for film earlier.... Great video, very informative, thanks.
I really liked the depth you went into with your research. Explaining the problems Super35 was solving, the director's viewfinders protecting against the different crops, etc I liked all the comparisons too! Also, I never heard Nolan's justification for the switch between the 15 perf IMAX and the 5 perf 65mm, I guess I've seen a lot more complaints about the changes in other formats, whereas when considering IMAX's goal of "filling your peripheral vision", how you need to frame scenes and subject, and thus why you're able to cut to widescreen makes a ton of sense. Glad you include those bits!
5/65 would a superior platform to that of 15/70. Ultra 70 wipes the floor with 15/70 for movie making.
Really great video! I first watched Oppenheimer in a non-imax theater (in europe we have fewer), so kind of got IMAX partially. Now i understand it, from when i bought the blu-ray copy and noticed for the first time the difference between the 70mm IMAX Film and the Kodak's 65mm scenes
Fantastic video! I'm shocked by how few subscribers you have!
Thank you!
If you film with the intent of your movie being shown in IMAX, RELEASE IT IN THAT ASPECT RATIO. By cropping the image like this, you lose out on that immersion. I don’t feel like I’m in the world. I feel like I’m looking at it through a window.
I personally want no black bars on my screen. All TVs are 16:9 now and I'd like movies to shape to them. Even in the theaters. I've never cared about it at the movies but at home I do.
Great video essay, will be looking more content from this channel for sure, I really hope more movies are made avariable in multiple framings, when I went to rewatch Dune 1 before going to see the new one I hated that there was not a bigger frame version avariable, I like when big movies use most of my TV, I belive this is why Jurassic Park to me still looks better than the new movies, you get more movie to see this big creatures, thats why I love that when The Matrix Trilogy where reedited to show in IMAX theaters they also did a release with a bigger frame just like Nolan did for Oppenheimer, it sucks its limited to some tv brodcastings where they make these sort of efforts to fill the screen, if they already put the efford in editting the movie like that also do a home release of that version please.
Great video, explains a lot of my questions.
I recently watched Guardians of the galaxy vol.3 on Disney+ in IMAX enhanced and was very suprised how good the experience was, even at home. and then I watched dune part 1 on Netflix and was pretty let down that they don't offer something like IMAX enhanced. It surely makes a differenz.
This was a topic that had been dangling in my mind since the day I discovered all these different aspect ratios movies are shot in. You were EXCELLENT in this video!!
You got every single nuance on this topic down in an easily understandable manner. I get the impression that a lot of people have bought too much into marketing hype at the expense of artistic intent. Amazing video!
I appreciate that!
Bravo! A tough nuanced topic which subconsciously effects our viewing as well as the production questions - which is grand in scope. Thank you!
Yes, it was a bit hard to convey in a 14 minute video that will inevitably be viewed on phones/laptops/TV screens, but we’re glad you enjoyed it!
@@fromtheframe- And 2k and 4k P3 Color desktops - I don't want to be left out there. Just saying.
Well done video! Learned something today thank you.
This was a good explanation. I grew up in the 80s and didn't even understand that movies were being panned and scanned until I saw the widescreen VHS of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. It had a feature with director Leonard Nimoy explaining why the black bars were there and showing comparisons showing what you would be missing with the pan and scan version. I remember with Ghostbusters, the version that aired on TV and the version sold on VHS were panned-and-scanned differently. For example, in the scene where the original three guys are in the hotel elevator, one version would just crop out one of the Ghostbusters for the entire scene, and the other would pan back and forth to see their reactions.
This is comfortably the clearest 'discussion' on aspect ratio I have ever seen, thank you. Such an intelligently presented and narrated video. Aspect ratio has been a real passion since I started purchasing all new copies of all my favourite films on 'widescreen' VHS in the early 90's (then again on laserdisc of course!) Reading about matting super 35 in all the 80's/90's 'making of' books and Cinefex (RIP) used to make me think Mr Cameron only cared about TV presentation, but I quickly learned the real reasons. Thank goodness we have true film makers like Christopher and Denis (along with their DPs) who continue to think carefully about such things.
Wait this is a really great informative video, didn’t know that was allowed for free. May be the best since Every Frame a Painting
I work in film distribution, and must say this is very well put together! Great Job!
Fantastic video! Really well explained! I do wish that you could have used The Snyder Cut as a visual example in this video too as that movie according to Zack Snyder has been released in its full IMAX ratio. And adding that movie into this conversation would have been interesting.
You jump from Kubrick straight to Cameron, but I think it's important to note that at some point (maybe right after A Space Odyssey, though I'm not certain, but certainly by time of The Shining) Kubrick began protecting the full 4:3 area for home release, too. There are images online from the Kubrick archives that show a note he gave on a shot of The Shining, in which he urges protection of the 4:3 area but states to compose for the 1.85:1 ratio.
Indeed, it was The Shining that he first did this with. He had "other issues" on Barry Lyndon to worry about (no lights).
I HATE cropped-in Pan & Scanned 4:3. Because it's abundantly clear we're not getting the whole image. But if the 4:3 *_is_* the whole image and is used for a specific purpose, I love it. For example, _Zack Snyder's Justice League._ I thought that movie's use of the open gate 4:3 worked phenomenally well. It gave it this bizarre yet bold sense of scale and as put by Freddie Wong in *Corridor Crew's* VFX Artists React video on _ZSJL,_ it really emphasized these superheroes as these larger-than-life god-like figures (which is fitting, due to DC being about gods living among men trying to identify as human).
Even the later Kubrick movies were shot in 4:3 (I have a DVD of eyes wide shut where you see the whole frame, remarkable for the mansion scenes in particular)
Great video. I personally get distracted by constant aspect ratio switching. I'd be happy with a consistent 1.90:1 / 16:9 for the whole movie on home release. Am hoping we get this for DUNE PART 2 at least.
Sadly both Dune 1 and 2 are cropped to 2.39 and I don't really know why when it could easily have been uncropped to 16.9
Excellent video! Well researched, elegantly presented.
I'm genuinely grateful for your video. I've been wanting to only experience what these directors (Nolan, Villeneuve, Cameron) "intended." Your great explanation helps me calm down a bit.
Seeing these films in IMAX is truly amazing, but it’s nice to know that filmmakers are composing these movies with multiple deliverables in mind. For many reasons, not everyone will be able to see these movies in 1.43 - and that’s ok!
custom frame guides on the camera viewer is sick !!!
Incredible video. Thanks for making this
Thanks for watching!
prestine insights and thoughtful presentation! subbed!
This was fascinating video. Great work
Great video, though one thing could also have been touched on: Nolan's changing ratio during the film (sometimes full, sometimes cropped on the top). A good example of this is Dunkirk, where, iirc, all the shots from and of the planes are in full ratio, but others were cropped for 2.35:1. Almost like the silent masters did it 100 years ago!
Amazing video! I agree with the points you made! But I also still am salty about Blade Runer 2049 not having any enhanced aspect ratio shots on the home release haha
Great video and can't believe you don't have more subscribers. Only problem is that the sound cuts out a bit, but really high quality otherwise!
🤔...…We didn’t experience this on our end. Would you mind letting us know where it was happening? Thanks for the comment!
@@fromtheframe eh, maybe try it out on different audio setups, but both my headphones and my speakers had some problems where the sound cut out and became muffled…
Talk about crash courses and steep learning curves..Thank you so much for this video and keep them coming! Going to watch them all :D
Thank you for presenting a balanced, thoughtful, and informative video on this topic. I'm old enough to have looked through some Panaflex / Arriflex etc. viewfinders during the "TV-safe" days and always get a bit steamy when people present 1.43:1 as some kind of best savior ratio for theatrical, then go on to demand it for their home theater, etc. IMAX was never intended for narrative film, but it's fun that a small group of people in the top echelon are making it a reality in 20-30 theaters and using the few huge houses worldwide that can show it. Will it ever be available at home? No, unless via VR or with black pixels on the sides of your TV. Will it make a resurgence in movie theaters? No, no one is going to start building 5-story 1.43 screens. Explaining how these cinematographers frame for the three big ratios (broadly speaking) is extremely helpful in the same way that people showing a picture of a worm in 1.43 and then cropping the still to widescreen is, well, not helpful at all and a massive oversimplification.
THIS. COMMENT. RIGHT. HERE. You echo many of the points I was trying to highlight in the video that I’m not sure everyone got. I actually do believe we are actively seeing a surge in IMAX’s popularity, but 100% agree they will NOT be building new 5-story 1.43 screens (I don’t think this would be financially feasible for many theater chains). One solution we’re seeing is retrofitting older theaters so they can be labeled “IMAX,” but this invariably waters down exactly what the IMAX experience is. Some of the screens at these retrofitted theaters are only marginally bigger than those at standard theater chains, so you lose the immersion so essential to this “experience” in the first place. As you pointed out, there’s a lot of nuance to this topic, which is hard to capture in a short video or comment; however, you reiterate a lot of the sentiments that inspired this video.
Great video, Id never though about how they have to adapt for each viewing experience
That's a really positive way of looking at the aspect ratio argument; what matters is what is meant to be seen in frame. That being said, I still want a 16:9 Blu-Ray release of Dune Part 2.
My new favorite channel! Thank you!
Wow, thanks!
Great video, thank you. It must have taken quite some time to make it.
Fantastic video! This changed my mind on how I think about different aspect ratios. More pixels doesnt mean it's better, the screen matters!
This first time I see Stanley Kubuick's masterpiece boardcast on TV the title card showed "01:A Space Odyss". ugh.
😆 Wow! When I used to watch pan & scanned movies on TV in the 80s (as that was basically the only option at home), they would usually just squeeze the entire widescreen image into the 4:3 frame for the credits to avoid this issue, then once the credits ended it would switch back to pan & scan.
As someone who obsesses over aspect ratios for probably unhealthy amounts... This video is remarkably free of fluff I usually see, and even brings up the super35 methods of Cameron that so often goes missing. But what I feel Cameron does differently that Nolan and Villeneuve kind of misses is that with the Cameron method. The full negative frame is not the intended framing for either release. They are both crops. And cropped with the intent to maximize the experience of the resulting formats. With Nolan and Villeneuve, you get the feeling that you are missing out. And by keeping the IMAX framing so centered. You lose a lot of potential peripheral motion information. Also, in my own experience, the better IMAX films and documentaries have most of its action in the lower 2 thirds. That way, the head is in a more comfortable angle and the screen towers magnificently above your vision. Also. With today's UHD screens and 4K theatres, we already have more pixels on screen than we can discern from a comfortable distance. So I would say that we unshackle the adamantium bond between shape and size and let both be as wide and as tall as they need to be within the distribution medium. That way we pillarbox the IMAX shots to show the height and letterbox the Scope shots. And windowbox the between shapes if there are any.
super interesting stuff, great job!
Great presentation. Sometimes I watch movies on my iPad. The 11 inch iPad is (supposedly) the same aspect ration as the IMAX image. As the nearest IMAX theatre is about 1200km from me I welcome the new releases from Disney and Oppenheimer for the format !
So I might have missed it, but looking at the framing guide in 12:34, is there a reason why the top and bottom has to be cropped at all for physical media and streaming? I always appreciate open matte versions of movies and series because it fills up the whole screen on my OLED and it’s just beautiful. Wish we got more of that. Super well made video btw. I hope many more get to see it as it is a very interesting topic for sure!
Sorry for the book, but I want to try my best to kind of answer your question… So TV screens are 16x9 or 1.78:1 (they both mean the same thing), but what you get is a rectangle. In IMAX, the aspect ratio of DUNE Part 2 switches between 1.43:1 (this is the tall boxy ratio) and 1.9:1 (a bit less boxy and slightly less tall), which are both “technically” IMAX ratios. HOWEVER, when it comes to fit those on your TV screen at home we have a problem - that screen is not square, it’s a rectangle. You can fit the big square (1.43) in the middle of the screen, so you can see all the imagery at the top and bottom, but you will have black bars along the sides (imagine sticking a square in a rectangle). Now what about the 1.9 scenes? Well, you have two options. ONE is to have it play just as it did on the IMAX screen - Constant Width. The 1.9 scenes play within the square within the rectangle. That’s a bit confusing, but it’s the point I’m trying to make in the video when I refer to the film as a postage stamp in the middle of the screen - not ideal. HOWEVER - and this is something that’s a bit hard to explain - you have maintained RELATIVE SIZE. On a theoretical 1.43:1 sized theater screen, the 1.43 scenes take up 100% of the screen and the 1.9 scenes are shorter, but still maintain the same width. To get that on a TV screen, you now have a square (1.9) within a square (1.43) within a rectangle (16x9 TV screen), but this comes with a whole lot of black bars that weren’t there in theaters. So option TWO is to not maintain relative size. Let the 1.43 scenes play as a square in the middle of the screen, and let the 1.9 fill the screen as best they can (1.9 on a 16x9 screen will give you tiny black bars on the top and bottom). Okay no cropping, but the 1.9 scenes seem “bigger” and actually take up more of the screen than the 1.43 scenes. Now those expanded scenes in the theater don’t seem expanded at all, they seem small in comparison. To be clear, exactly one film has been released this way - Zack Snyder’s Batman V. Superman (it switches between 1.43 and 2.39). This whole conversation isn’t as simple as the, “give me all the picture, all the time” argument that frequently comes up. I think Nolan is navigating the whole “cropping” conundrum quite elegantly. His IMAX frames fill the 16x9 screen at the expense of losing a bit of the top and bottom. We get the sensation of the film filling the frame, but in a way that’s better suited to the 16x9 screen. When the frame shrinks down - to 2.20 in Oppenheimer’s case - we get the same IMAX sensation while maintaining relative size. Hopefully this long winded explanation makes a bit of sense. I know all this talk of shapes and ratios can be quite confusing. Thanks for the comment!
@@fromtheframe just zoom those parts that don't fit.
Amazing video, loved it 🙌❤️
its amazing to see how much the industry has to grow! I remember as a kid my dad would wait out a DVD release for a movie that we really wanted to see just for the widescreen version so i had a bit of an expirence with pan and scan. recently i saw Dune part 2 and while i enjoyed the IMAX version a whole lot i dont think i'd hate the "regular" version
If it's shot for IMAX then we should at least get the 1.90 crop to fill the 16:9 TV screen, and when it comes to the first dune it wasn't negative space, it was important information, ships and buildings and mountains and textures that were completely missing from the home release. I don't know why they didn't do what Nolan usually does.
Nolans movies shift between different aspect ratios during single scenes. That takes me so out of the story. Cameron have a better approach.
@@ghostviggen The Dark Knight Rises is a circus, the difference in bokeh even within the same scene is ridiculous.
My main issue with IMAX is how US centric it is. I have lived in 4 countries and found it damn near impossible to see anything in IMAX. When I was in the UK. London had 1 IMAX screen for a city of 10 million people. Australia there was no IMAX at all while I was in Sydney. Vancouver had a single LieMax on the out skirts of the city but frankly the screening I saw of Tenet wasn't noticeably different to a regular theatre screen. And now I am in a smaller country with no IMAX screens at all.
I've watched Dune 2 in both IMAX format and scope format and the difference is immense. Yes you are still immersed in scope, but IMAX version makes you feel like you're there with Paul in Arrakis. You feel the sense of scale 2x more in IMAX version especially the scene in Giedi Prime. This version should be available in streaming services.
Genuinely learnt a lot from this video. Thank you.
Widescreen and IMAX aspect ratios work in the theater but for the love of god make streaming releases 16:9. Black bars on a TV are so stupid
I hope a physical release of the entire DUNE 2 in imax ratio happens.
Subbed for the Shot Deck clip
Hate how they crop imax content. Its like ordering a 12in and they take 3 slices out befor delivery.
really interesting doc - thanks for making. I wonder why we don't get the IMAX 1.33:1 ratio option on blu-ray releases
I hate the fact that IMAX lock an aspect ratio only to itself, aspect ratio should never be locked by a format. Aspect ratio is it's own thing, it is to the customer to decide how he wants to experience it. I can pan and scan with a button on my remote control (but will never do that since I want the filmmaker intent on my screen) but it's like IMAX force me to press it on for me.
I'm just annoyed that Dune Part One's blu-ray stays in the 2.39 aspect ratio the whole time, when there's nothing stopping it from opening up to 1.78
What an informative and great video. Thank you for making this! I really hope Dune 2 doesnt get a 4k release in 2.35. When I was watching it in the imax theatre I was actually thinking to myself how bad the shots would look if they cut the top and bottom of them out, in most cases, peoples heads were going to get cut off.
I hope so too! Only time will tell 🤞
Unless you have an imax set up at home it would be pointless for 99.99% of people to be presented with anything other than 2.35 to 1. If they want to release some imax special edition dvd for that .01% of the world population they can do so.
@Art-is-craft The point is you see the image as it was intended by the director to be seen. My projector screen at home is set to 16:9, just like a TV screen is in everyone's home btw.
@@AGILISFPV A 120 inch wide screen would produce a very limited imax screen.
I was watching it in a regular theatre and every shot looked stunning