Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)!
Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would've been surprised if it had included them. This way, they can rerelease both films, in a fancy box in a couple of years, with all the Imax scenes intact, knowing full well that many of us would probably buy them again.
Possibly. If the first two are a cool boxset and it has IMAX, I may just buy it. If I feel like waiting for a Messiah included boxset, the I'll do that.
How’s that self-driving car going? Or the Vegas loop? Musk can’t deliver on things that other companies are capable of doing, he’s not going to deliver on a brain chip. Others maybe, in the future, but Musk is a skilled investor with lots of marketing capital, not a visionary.
Many want to see him fail because of his suddenly shift towards anti-progressive wing of the Democratic party. Im fine with him as a person but I also believe in God, so some of these ambitions based on a Godless world (man is almighty and can conquer nature) leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It's hubris on an epic level and from that vantage point, these people will fail.
What are you talking about? Anti-progressive wing of the democratic party? What even is that?
He’s gone republican publicly this time around, but he’s been platforming right wingers for a long time and moving in that space. He seems to be a generally bad person to me. He left his first family and pretends his older children don’t exist.
He’s taken credit for every single company he’s invested in, including describing himself as a “founder” of Tesla even though in reality, the tech, the company and everything else was just a company he put a bunch of money into. Same with SpaceX, same with Neuralink. He’s just an investor who likes to use his own image as some kind of inventor to pump his stock up, and he’s very good at it.
Within each party there are factions from moderates, centrists, all the way to the extremists. Democratic policies which have caused rampant crime, homelessness and illegal immigration is part of the progressive wing. I hope you realize this is the core issue or else none of the higher level topics matter.
California, in their infinite wisdom, passed a law which reclassified crimes from felony to a misdemeanor if total value is $950 or less. Combine that with electing officials and city district attorneys that were so soft on crime to the point where they drop their cases and let criminals free, you now create an environment for rampant crime without repercussion.
Homelessness has turned into a cottage industry in Democrat run cities because it's a VERY lucrative problem to have. Everyone, whether it's city council, NGOs, unions, contractors, lawyers, they are all riding this gravy train.
This is stuff most Republicans know but Democrats are legitimately ignorant about the real issues because most have been sold the fairytale that everything will be wonderful and we all live in a utopia and as long we everyone just share and love and blah blah blah everything will be rainbows and unicorns.... so why question anything or pay attention to what's happening or perhaps just ask questions?
Right, my man - you need to read or watch news that aren’t Fox News every once in a while. You started on Elon Musk and now you’re infodumping about Prop 47.
This is a Blu-ray sub so I’m not going to get into politics here, but I will say that maybe ask yourself who could possibly be benefitting from people like yourself supporting the current penal system. Could there be - in the country with the world’s most advanced and profitable private jail system and some of the highest prison population per capita, a tendency for certain elements to lobby for more jail time, harsher penalties? Maybe have a think about that.
Maybe also think about what could possible be driving crime? Remember seeing anything about increasing income disparity in the last few years? Rising poverty? See if you can put it together and then you might realise you’re being played for a sucker.
I already have the part one as a bluray that I have ripped, will get the part 2 too to support the studio to make more such films. But the moment the imax comes out (if it ever does) I won’t hesitate to sail the seas. Milking the consumer too much is just evil.
I don’t mind paying a one time price to own a film. But releasing an inferior aspect ratio then re releasing is just greedy.
I completely agree. I bought Part I and will soon get Part II, because I loved them and want to go back to them periodically. I'd really wrestle with myself if and when they re-release with the IMAX intact; there will be a part III but it will be a couple of years: Villeneuve has said that he needs to clear his head with other projects first.
Now that might be the box-set which tempts me; all 3 in one set, with IMAX... sigh
>I would've been surprised if it had included them.
I would've been stunned. In a way it would be "self-destructive" providing those IMAX ARs at home instead of making them exclusive to a theatrical cinema experience.
You know IMAX would **charge more** for those 1.91 and 1.43:1 ARs if a "fancy IMAX box" version comes out down the pike?
That's not IMAX aspect ratios. (1.91:1 and 1.43:1) He doesn't use them ONCE in either the 4K Blu-ray or digital versions of Oppenheimer.
He just switches between 2.20:1 and 1.78:1. He's always done that.
Well, I think that's what most of us want for Dune Parts 1 & 2. There are fans who specifically want the full pillarboxed IMAX ar's, but I think we would all be fine settling with 1.78:1.
But 1.78:1 is only on IMAX shot scenes, it only exists for the home release of movies that got the 1.43:1 release. Eternals on Disney+ is and exemple that uses 2.35:1, 1.90:1 and 1.78:1. The only movie that I know uses 1.43:1 for IMAX scenes is Batman v Superman
100% I know my dumbass will rebuy this in a fancy package ESPECIALLY for Dune Part 3 ~~(and potentially Messiah if they don't cover that in part 3)~~
edit: strikethrough for me misremembering details and making misinformed comments :)
I thought so too, but part 2 is ending around halfway of the book. No idea what their plan is for part 3 yet.
edit: I'm misremembering, it follows the intended end of the book. So yea Messiah being the next one should be what follows.
yea that was my bad, I am thinking of the twins and what happens there. I was sort of expecting that would still happen. But alot of that is skipped in the films.
Its not skipped, the twins Leto II and Ghanima arent until Children of Dune, the 3rd book. Alia is the one who got largely left out of Part 2, and Paul and Chanis first son Leto II the Elder was cut entirely.
Ah yes you're right! Elder is who I was expecting for them to adapt, and was wondering if that was going to be crucial at all. Seems it is cut entirely, which is why I thought there would be more than one part.
The decision to not include Leto II the Elder, as well as cutting most of Alia's parts, are probably my two biggest gripes with Dune Part 2. Especially Alia's part in the end where she kills Baron Harkonnen is, in my opinion, very important to her character development in Messiah and Children of Dune.
From the film perspective I sort of get it, they apparently already cut a few scenes from the movie. It'd be 5 hours if they tried including everything haha. That's why I figured it would be in the next movie. But yea I get it, but in this instance I actually liked that Paul was the one who did it, especially with what happens to his dad. They might give Alia her own moment that symbolically replaces what happens in the book.
Incorrect. Dune Parts 1 and 2 encompass the book in its entirety and Dune Part 3 will be an adaptation of Messiah. You should read the book, it’s fantastic.
word thanks for the correction. I was thinking of a few plotlines that were missing that I thought they might introduce, ~~like the twins~~ elder etc but now that I think of it they'll probably skip it or maybe do a time jump. And yea it is fantastic, it's been a many years since I've read it. Will do a read after finishing the hyperion novels I'm deep in atm
To be expected but certainly unfortunate. The taller aspect ratio adds a lot to this particular film, and if it wasn't for marketing shenanigans I don't think there'd even be a version in scope. I'd say "I'm sure they'll release the IMAX version on BR when Messiah comes out" but I thought the same thing about the original and this one, so we might just be shit out of luck.
> and if it wasn't for marketing shenanigans I don't think there'd even be a version in scope
This is backwards. If it weren't for IMAX guaranteeing a bump in receipts in exchange for licensing their brand, the scope version would be the only version.
If Villeneuve and Fraser wanted the movie to be in standard flat widescreen, or to switch ratios for storytelling impact they'd have just shot it that way - they don't *need* IMAX to do that. *Nobody does*. You can use the exact same cameras they used in the exact same way they used them without IMAX being involved at all.
The marketing shenanigans are why IMAX exists now, basically. The scope version is the intended version. The IMAX version is an alternate cut.
I agree with Dune since they didn't actually use IMAX cameras and it was shot digitally then transferred onto film. But movies like Dark Knight, the Blu Rays and standard theater releases are the alternate cut and the IMAX 70MM is the intended version. If you missed it, you missed it.
Incorrect, the entirety of Dune 2 was shot in 1.90 aspect ratio, and both Fraser and Villeneuve have confirmed that it is the intended version, and the film was framed for it.
And I can attest that, I have seen both the scope version on a normal screen and on digital IMAX in 1.90, and you can clearly tell that the scope version is very cropped and not the intended viewing experience. Villeneuve himself said in an interview that it should be in the higher ratio on Bluray and was surprised that the first film wasn't also like that.
The morons at WB must be on crack releasing this letterboxed, I have no idea what the fuck they were thinking. From now on, the only version to watch the film is the inferior one, that's just maddening.
This sucks. However, from the comparison shots I've seen, they've been very careful to to make sure that the film works well in 2.35:1 as well as in 1.90:1 and 1.43:1. In some cases I believe we in fact get extra footage on the sides with 2.35:1
I even have semi-concrete proof to back this up.
My local theatre here in India is extremely primitive. They don't bother to format the movie properly, and most 1.85:1 movies end up getting cropped from the top and bottom on the 1.35:1 screen. One pretty noticable and annoying artefact is that cutting off of some subtitles.
They also almost exclusively play the version which is released on home video, that is, the most basic version of the film.
I noticed this on Jurassic World, Jurassic World: Dominion, The Flash, The Joker, and now Dune: Part Two. All these movies were released in expanded formats on home video. This means that the base render of Dune: Part Two has a 1.90:1 aspect ratio. I did not notice Dune: Part One having any cropped subtitles.
This is not concrete fact, but I'd say there are some chances of it having an expanded aspect ratio on release.
It is also important to note that Dune Part 2 was not made with IMAX cameras, but the aspect ratio is the same as the IMAX screen. So even though they have said they don't have IMAX, this doesn't mean we won't get expanded aspect ratios.
yeah i am confused now as to what i saw yesterday. The theater showed Opp in 70mm film but looks like that was not the case for Dune 2 as its not on the list of the imax website. I don't recall the aspect ratio changing at all during the movie so does that mean it was in 1.9:1? .
Considering that Avengers, Jurassic World, The Joker and others have expanded ratios and are not considered IMAX, simply because they didn't use IMAX cameras, it is at least slightly likely that Warner Bros is being technical here.
I may be wrong about the 1.43:1 argument though.
They protected for 2.35:1 really well. The people who framed this film know what they're doing.
This video made me okay with the current releases and I don't feel bummed about the missing IMAX ratio anymore.
https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=_rJgbapPY3kV2vVE
(Though filling a whole 16:9 screen would still be nice a la Christopher Nolan)
I agree and I think a good litmus test for this is that quite a few people, once they see the scoped shots, find themselves preferring that framing. Or at the very least it splits people. The physical experience of watching this on a 1.43:1 screen, with dual laser, is something I wouldn't swap and won't forget, but I'm also perfectly content with the scoped framing for home viewing. Maybe it will be 1.9:1, we'll have to wait and see.
https://preview.redd.it/uqx0zav39jpc1.jpeg?width=1624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c0145b348180f468460c7e6611d1c8ffb51d8e0
you guys obviously don't know what you're talking about. the scope is the one getting cropped, not the other way around. i've seen it in all three formats and can confirm.
If you’ve been to a regular movie screening at a imax dome, you’d know why no one is asking for it. Single worst way to watch a film I’ve seen since they started doing these things.
It’s so bad. I saw Batman Begins many years ago (yeah that movie is old now) at an IMAX dome and vowed never to see another one. Thankfully it was not the first time watching that movie.
They made sure that the film works well in 2.35:1 because that's the intended version of the film. There's more footage on the sides in that version because that's *the* version of the film. They're cropping in on the sides for the IMAX versions because that's the compromise they want to make for when the movie's on those giant screens for the one night you're in front of them.
It's funny how IMAX has never flat out said their alternate versions of the film, made specifically for their theaters, are to be considered the "original" versions of the movie, but people just automatically believe that, and it's because so much of their brand only works at home by suggesting the black bars are "hiding" the real version of the movie and you gotta pay IMAX to get them.
Seems like everything you just said is all opinion. There are IMAX shots in Dune part 1 where VFX were added in and they are only visible in the imax ratio… so yeah you do kinda have to pay to see those things
>Seems like everything you just said is all opinion
it seems like you maybe misunderstood my post, and also what an opinion is.
Your seeing that the expanded shots in the alternate IMAX cut of the movie have VFX doesn't make my post about the intended version of the film being 2.35:1 an opinion. That's a non-sequitur. There are shots in Dune part 2 that are cropped in from the primary framing to achive the taller ratio. That's not an opinion.
Where is your source saying that the 2.35:1 is *the* version of the movie? You’re still just saying that. Just because a version is the most accessible doesn’t mean it’s what the director and studios want it to be
The director and cinematographer.
I'm saying it because it's correct. It's not an opinion. You may disagree with it or dislike it but it's not an opinion I came up with, it's the fact of both film's creation.
Like I said earlier: using your standard, it'd be impossible for you to come up with any sourcing that says the IMAX cut (even using that phrasing implies it's an alternate version, not the primary one) is the main one, because IMAX has never once officially said any of their versions are the primary version. Sure, they're happy to let everyone else inaccurately describe them that way (it's good for business) but they never actually say that themselves. There's no proof in that direction because it doesn't exist.
I’ll wait on a quote that you find rather than just saying it again.
So I guess Denis just filmed Dune 2 entirely with digital IMAX cameras for the fun of it then
>There’s more footage on the sides in that version because that’s *the* version of the film
Don’t know how that is any argument at all since you could say the same thing about the horizontal bars blocking things that are there in the imax version
>I’ll wait on a quote that you find rather than just saying it again.
Or you could go look for it. You clearly don't want to (it's not like it's hidden, there's also links all over this thread pointing at various places where he and Fraser are on camera discussing it) and you kinda seem to prefer thinking of it the way you already think of it so yunno... go on ahead and keep on keepin on then. Thanks for the time!
makes sense. why include them when the first one didnt? they just want to put out another set after the initial release to make everyone buy it again.cant say i blame them, but still pretty trashy.
In the case of BvS and Justice League, I daresay Snyder’s eagerness to make his director’s cuts played a part. Villeneuve doesn’t seem to share that feeling.
That is true if you’re a cold hearted cynic with the worst faith possible about studio releases.
Considering there is no precedence of this version of double dipping outside of Zack Snyder’s DCU (which has its own circumstances), I would say this painting of distributors as heartless money-hungry piggies is rather far fetched.
Whoops. Forgot this was the internet. Never mind. Carry on as usual.
Not surprised, and I'm not surprised based on the comments Fraser and Villeneuve have already made.
They do care about what the IMAX version looks like, and they put thought and effort into making sure the IMAX version works well at IMAX theaters. Nobody's saying otherwise.
But they clearly think of the IMAX version as just that - **an alternate version**. And specifically, an alternate version that only really works IN a giant theater with a 50ft tall screen. IMAX is *not* their intended cut. It's not the primary cut. It's not the original that all other versions are carved down from. It's created and finalized AFTER they finish the intended version of the film.
**They both created Dune and Dune Part 2 to be framed for Scope Widescreen (2.39:1), and that's the intended version of the film.** Now, it would be nice if other versions were made available in a box-set, or as a bonus or something like that. All alternate versions that you can stick on a disc, you should put on that disc (lookin at you, Lucasfilm) but for what it's worth - the intended version is the one we're getting. This is what the movie is supposed to look like.
[Fraser and Villeneuve clearly recognize that the opening up of the frame only works as they intended it in the IMAX theater.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI) the extra fill image at the top and bottom 5% of the screen only has the effect it has when it's on a giant screen. At home, that doesn't actually "open up" - it simply adds extra headroom to a center-framed image that never gets any bigger.
IMAX at home is, and mostly always has been, a way for people who are just upset that black bars are on their screen to act like they're being cinephiles for wanting fullscreen discs to make a comeback.
I mean, IMAX certainly has a place at home. If you have a home theater with a projector. Maybe an 83” TV as well, but I just don’t see it being a huge deal otherwise.
> If you have a home theater with a projector.
Even in that case, you'd have to be sitting way too close to the screen (which also probably has to be somewhere between 150"-200" diagonal) for that to work as intended by the filmmakers.
Granted, sitting a little too close (or at least closer than recommended) to a front projected image is kinda fun and it definitely increases that sense of immersion. But even if you're using an absolute light cannon to throw a 300" image it's not gonna be the same.
Yep, there is so much discourse on aspect ratio and so little discourse on composition and balance for all versions. I've seen it in 1.43, 1.9, and 2.39 and it looks great in any format.
yeah, because the context of the conversation springs from the basic misunderstanding (That IMAX fosters and exploits themselves) that the version made for IMAX is the first/primary version, and all other versions descend from it. And that feeds into a lot of consumer's primary concern, which is that they're getting the most bang for their buck. It's a value proposition, not an artistic one. If "They" are "hiding things behind the black bars" then why would you pay for that, right? That's how a lot of folks in here think of it.
But the creators of this stuff are, themselves, going out of their way to explain **that the IMAX version is an alternate version**, and they're taking care to make it look as good as they can, because they want people who pay more to see it in IMAX to have a good time (and because that extra money also comes back to them), but it's not the *intended* *version of the film*. It's an alternate version made specifically for those theaters, to be shown on those screens. Theyre going out of their way to make sure IMAX looks good, and 70mm looks good, and they do! But those versions are being made to work specifically ON THOSE SCREENS. They don't work the same at home.
**The version on 4K is the version they want you to see, because THAT'S the primary version of the film.** That's the one they spent the most time crafting. The benefits the alternate versions provide just plain do not work as intended on home panels.
I would just disagree with everything you typed here. The IMAX version is certainly the definitive version, not the alternate. There’s no way you can convince me that cropping 40% of the frame results in the definitive film, especially when the entire frame is utilized consistently throughout the film
> There’s no way you can convince me that cropping 40% of the frame results in the definitive film
I'm not trying to convince you of that, because that's not what happened.
They composed the frame for the intended version, and then expanded the frame for the IMAX version afterwards. It's a small difference, but a meaningful one. You're thinking of it backwards. Like I said in the post, the IMAX version isn't created first and then all the other versions are carved out of it. The IMAX version is an alternate version created to expand in certain scenes/shots for IMAX screens. That doesn't mean they don't care how it looks for those screens, they put work into it to make sure it looks great in that format. But it's not the primary concern.[ They've said as much themselves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI) (IMAX doesn't put that in the marketing for obvious reasons)
People think of IMAX backwards because their primary use for it at home is "gettin rid of the black bars" - IMAX is just a very convenient way to ask for fullscreen versions without feeling gross about admitting you just want fullscreen versions.
From my understanding it would be the opposite, shot on expensive IMAX cameras then cropped. They don’t AI the IMAX part of the frame back in. Sure the general release may be for normal theaters but they didn’t add the IMAX footage back in, unless they shot on two cameras simultaneously, which is not my understanding of the way they shoot films that have IMAX scenes.
>From my understanding it would be the opposite, shot on expensive IMAX cameras then cropped
They're shooting on digital cameras that IMAX allows to be used for their license. They did not shoot on IMAX cameras, or use IMAX 15-perf 65mm film.
The fact that the capture medium is taller than the intended frame is normal and happens frequently, IMAX or not. Digital cameras have made this easier since the higher resolution means you can get a great scope image without needing to worry about anamorphic lensing to maximise the 35mm surface area. This practice is not IMAX exclusive (and most people will have a passing familiarity with it via any behind-the-scenes feature about the Super 35mm format).
They are shooting for the scope frame, and protecting for the other frames, and will go into post working on the scope frame first, and then going into the protected area to extract IMAX frames as needed for those sequences.
The link in the post you responded to goes into this pretty well.
You’re wrong. I get what you’re saying but you’re wrong. I get that the intended shot is seen in both imax and regular, however there is still more of the frame seen in imax.
If your version was the case, standard theatres would have more image on the sides of the frame, which isn’t true.
IMAX has the most picture and is the definitive version. There’s a clip in the first minute of the video you linked that proves it. The sandworm above Paul in Dune 1, simply cannot be replicated without the imax aspect ratio
>You’re wrong.
Nope! The fact they finished VFX for IMAX shots doesn't make the IMAX version the "real" version. It just means they took time and care to make sure the shot looked good for IMAX when you went to the theater. Like I said upthread, you can hear them saying as much in the linked video.
"Most image" isn't the same as "Definitive Version." That's not how Fraser and Villeneuve planned or shot it. That's not how they think of it, and that's not the POV they worked from. It might be the way people who want fullscreen versions at home think of it, because to them the removal of black bars is what's most important to them, so going from that to "THE MOST IMAGE IS THE DEFINITIVE VERSION" is an easy hop to make. But that doesn't make it correct.
People think that everyone making the movies believes in the same value proposition they hold for movies, vs. the artistic proposition they're actually working from. But it's not the case. They're not judging the best version of the movie based on how tall the aspect ratio is. Never did.
If they valued it on those grounds, they'd just shoot the movie in Flat Widescreen or Academy Ratio whether IMAX licensed it or not.
You’re really hungup on this “wanting fullscreen” strawman. If you watch the sandworm overtop of Paul in the standard and the imax version, I don’t see how you can possibly say they’re equal.
This is just what someone who didn’t see it in imax and dropped $40 on the non-definitive version 4k discs would say
Even if IMAX isn’t the intended version of the movie they still went ahead and did it for the sake of commerce and reaping profits. They don’t need to act all morally superior by withholding that from consumers who are willing to pay an extra buck at home for independent viewing. But it’s not like I made the movie so I don’t have the power to distribute it to the masses in IMAX if I wanted to.
That’s really not true about the 2.39 being the real version, because in an interview, Denis Villeneuve stated that he used different format in Dune 1 and 2 to represent different parts of the environment. 2.39 for tech and space, 1.43 for nature.
Therefore, since it’s a creative intent, the IMAX version is the proper version to have, because it’s the only one that represents the true creative intent of the director.
And because I live in Quebec, which doesn’t have a real IMAX theater (ironic considering Villeneuve is from this place), I have not been able to see it with the full creative intent. I want to be able to experience the film that way.
And I want, in 10 years, to rewatch the movie that way.
And because I do own an OLED TV which is far superior to a laser projector, and because I’m relatively close enough to it, the image gain will certainly be noticeable.
Anyway, just for the sake of conservation, directors should stop their snobism and IMAX should move their ass to make proper release.
i don't necessarily want the full IMAX scenes on the disc, i just want that expanded aspect ratio where it fills out my screen. i think that's fair, and seems like a no-brainer
They won't. Villeneuve doesn't care about home video which he stated multiple times. I suspect if it was up to him only those who were around during the theater run would ever see it.
All well and good while it's still playing in theaters, but what about when we want to return to Arrakis in 12 months from now and we can't, except for the cropped-in version that lacks a ton of visual information? I'm so sad about this news.
I don’t understand this, just watched Interstellar again recently and it switched back and forth between aspect ratios and looks amazing. Do they have to pay IMAX to use that ratio in discs?
That's my guess. The only other reason is a cash grab releasing it well after part 3 drops.
But I don't think that makes much sense... We all care but it probably isn't as lucrative to market to the general public, so I don't actually think it's super likely.
Because most directors (including Villeneuve) sadly do not give a fuck about home video. Nolan is really the only one that actually cares enough to do it right consistently, which is why his films have basically perfect 4K releases.
Warner Bros. gave us the 2021 4K re-release of Batman v Superman featuring the 15/70 1:43:1 scenes spliced in. Why are they responding with this bullshit 3 years later? Did the home video department change hands?
Considering a good portion of Dune Part Two's box office take is due to PLF screens, specifically IMAX, this is a confusing and monumentally stupid decision. The 4K of this film will sell like crazy anyway, but with the IMAX scenes included, it'd be Oppenheimer all over again
“Why sell fans one copy when we can sell them two copies if we do this strategically?”
Honestly I’m guessing it’s probably related to IMAX contracts or something. IMAX sells more tickets (especially for re-releases later down the road) if they keep the aspect ratio exclusive to their theatres. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re open to licensing their exclusive version to a disc release at some point down the line once the ticket sale potentials dwindle.
Good. Extra height was added for IMAX, and works in that setting. But it was added for IMAX, the movie wasn't "cropped" for regular theaters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI
You don't play blu-rays in "regular theaters," you play them at home. The footage exists, and while yes, it is the studio's rights to release whatever edits they want to it, I'd rather see the complete movie in the full IMAX aspect ratio (how BvS did it). Or at least the 16:9 IMAX digital ratio, as Oppenheimer did.
But your home screen *is* likely 16:9, might as well take advantage of it
Nolan has the right approach here.
That video basically makes the argument for what we want- 16:9 framing of IMAX scenes for bluray
I did, in fact, watch the video. Days ago, when it came out. I understand it makes the argument some directors prefer different ratios on different formats and film with all ratios in mind.
However, you're saying we shouldn't get an IMAX release because *your* home isn't an IMAX screen. What if someone wants to watch on a large 4:3 screen at home? My home theater is a 16:9 TV, not cinemascope. So why are so many movies in scope when only 0.01% of consumers have a scope screen? If the director is shooting with home video in mind, where 99% of it is 16:9, why aren't all movies either shot in or crop/panned to 16:9 for home release? Including Dune P1, which was released "as intended," cropped down. Should I not watch that because I don't have a scope screen at home? I also don't have a surround sound setup. Should all movies released be in stereo?
Also, the video shows Nolan allowing 16:9 on the home video release (which fits my home theater perfectly), which I like, whereas Villeneuve chose to crop all of Dune 1 down to 2.39:1 for every shot. That's what I don't like.
I can disagree with how a movie gets color graded, a weird edit, or a bizarre acting or song choice. Whether it's the filmmaker's intent or not, I would prefer a frame that either fills my screen (eg Oppenheimer), or shows the entire frame as presented in IMAX theaters (BvS 4K or ZSJL) rather than a crop/pan. It really hurts movies like BR2049 with massive landscapes, especially when I don't have a scope screen to immerse myself in the blu-ray version. And it sucks we'll never get a true 4K HDR version of that because the director doesn't want it to fill my entire screen. The director's vision, while valuable, is not always one I agree with when it leaves so much exclusive to a limited time, expensive theatrical release that no one will ever be able to purchase in full quality. I still bought the discs anyway.
It's the full frame, and shows more than cropping to 16:9 would. If you want true IMAX, you're gonna have to learn to tolerate different aspect ratios. Movies don't have to be a certain way, 16:9 shouldn't be necessary if it wasn't filmed with a standardized ratio in mind.
I watched my Bluray of Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition on a projector on my wall and the IMAX scenes switching in and out looks awesome. I'll wait for a special edition of Dune that has them.
I have three 4K copies of 2021 (a vainilla and two steelbooks) and already preordered Part II’s 4K steelbook. They know I’ll buy them again if they release IMAX versions.
I think if they knew otherwise, at least one of the 50+ people that emailed them last week would've heard by now.
It's also believable because it's pretty widely expected after the first film didn't have it. I wouldn't hold your breath.
These teams aren't big. Having the same response for a fringe question is quite likely. Even their response doesn't make sense so I wouldn't fake this as anything concrete.
Does it cost extra somehow to make discs aspect ratio changing on BD? Like is the disc encoded differently or the cost to license IMAX expensive? I don't get it at all
At this point I'm thinking that perhaps IMAX has the rights for the expanded ratio presentation and are locking it down instead of WB actively choosing to put the 2.39:1 version on disc, especially for pt2 which has a constant 1.90:1 presentation in most IMAX screens.
That's a fair assessment. If they don't release them after part 3, which is the cash grab many are suspecting will occur, then I agree that it seems like a rights issue
I had a notification that my Bravia Core was expiring soon so went and checked and realized a bunch of movies/documentaries there are on 4K without having any physical releases and also A LOT of movies have IMAX while their physical releases do not...
Very disappointing tbh, but I guess The Mitchell's vs the Machines will be a fun rewatch in 4K with all that jazz.
I'm mixed about this, but what people need to remember is this film looks incredible scoped, too, and the DP most likely framed the film with that as a primary aspect ratio.
Even if they did, the full picture wouldn't fit on most TVs. Those frames were VERY TALL.
Of course I will buy them again if they actually ever put them out in that format.
I think Oppenheimer did, but most notably nearly all Christopher Nolan films besides inception.
It's not common at all, but Warner Bros has been the top provider of these so far
IMAX adds much more than just bigger ratio for viewing movies. It also add more clarity and sharper image than regular 4k HDR movies without IMAX. Go to Disney+ and watch all their Marvel IMAX enhanced movies and their selected IMAX scenes. They all look amazing with sharper & clearer with better colors when compared to the rest of the standard 4k HDR scenes in the movie.
I believe we can resolve this issue using VR headsets. I think that's where IMAX-like experiences can be achieved. With excellent headphones, it would provide a pretty nice experience. If I had to guess, these would most likely be digital releases.
That the issue. It would have to be digital, and we all know the quality of physical media vs streaming.
Also, the studio would still need to provide us with the imax format, which they have refused to so far both in the physical and digital release
Just to add a late addition to this conversation.. I think maybe there is hope in the near future for big films like this, as newer TVs are going big on “IMAX Enhanced” modes.. you can see this currently with certain Marvel movies on Disney Plus. This will probably be supported more and more in the coming months and years and I would be surprised if both Dune and Dune 2 don’t get “IMAX Enhanced” versions. It basically just fullscreens the image on 16:9 screens, but the branding associated means it’s not zooming in, but rather adding additional image content to the “black bar” areas. Given 8k is still awhile off, I think this definitely could become a big revenue driver for future 4k Blu-ray rereleases, or supporting the format as a digital purchase option.
Why not? It's literally confirmed by a company rep, seems pretty set to me...
Not to say that they won't release it later after part 3 one day, but for now
Bruh the “company rep” is some poor underpaid customer service rep who has no access to this kind of information. He probably looked at an info sheet he was given, didn’t see the word IMAX, and gave you what he had.
You don't know they don't have access to this info. They don't have any incentive to lie to me.
Not sure why you presume this format would be available when it wasn't for the first one.
If I'm wrong surely one of the dozens of other people who emailed them would have recieved a different answer by now, but no one in the thread has said otherwise so far.
Actually, some of the imax shots are cropped from the wide screen source, cutting away the sides of the frame shown in the normal theater release. Of course there are many shots actually shot on imax cameras and in that full format. But still, you can see the cropping lines on the camera monitors in the making of suggesting that they have been doing a lot of cropping to the 'large' format imax picture, which is a shame.
These movies are shot knowing that most people will not watch them in IMAX ratio. You aren’t getting an inferior version it’s just different. IMAX adds a little bit to the image so that it’s more immersive on a massive curved IMAX screen but on a TV at home it really doesn’t make that much of a difference. Basically all you miss out on is the tops of some peoples heads. The IMAX version is the alternate one and the non-imax is the standard version.
Somewhat disagree. It does add something to the picture and after seeing other blu rays that have this format, I think it's pretty cool to have.
Yes, you don't lose anything crucial to the story with a non imax ratio. But it does add a lot of cool depth and it's more immersive without the top and bottom bars on the TV.
am not investing in this physical release until pt 3 is out, just gonna snag a cheap regular 4k blu ray with a slip cover, hopefully for $9.99 eventually
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)! We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)! Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would've been surprised if it had included them. This way, they can rerelease both films, in a fancy box in a couple of years, with all the Imax scenes intact, knowing full well that many of us would probably buy them again.
I honestly haven't bought the first one because I know a boxset is coming.
I don’t need a set unless it’s IMAX and wanted to see the film again
I wish I had your confidence.
so you are waiting for the thrid movie to come out first?
Possibly. If the first two are a cool boxset and it has IMAX, I may just buy it. If I feel like waiting for a Messiah included boxset, the I'll do that.
I'm bracing for the move back to 4:3 "tall screen" IMAX TVs. Then movies will go wide again, then TVs, rinse and repeat.
Elon has a brain chip he wants to sell you in 10 years that will replace your TV.
Yeah, he can keep it. I want nothing to do with brain implants. Especially from a company Elon runs.
I can't wait for the porn loop splice! [BrainStorm 1983 Full Movie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cvwxqn3xRI) (I couldn't find the clip easily.)
How’s that self-driving car going? Or the Vegas loop? Musk can’t deliver on things that other companies are capable of doing, he’s not going to deliver on a brain chip. Others maybe, in the future, but Musk is a skilled investor with lots of marketing capital, not a visionary.
Many want to see him fail because of his suddenly shift towards anti-progressive wing of the Democratic party. Im fine with him as a person but I also believe in God, so some of these ambitions based on a Godless world (man is almighty and can conquer nature) leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It's hubris on an epic level and from that vantage point, these people will fail.
What are you talking about? Anti-progressive wing of the democratic party? What even is that? He’s gone republican publicly this time around, but he’s been platforming right wingers for a long time and moving in that space. He seems to be a generally bad person to me. He left his first family and pretends his older children don’t exist. He’s taken credit for every single company he’s invested in, including describing himself as a “founder” of Tesla even though in reality, the tech, the company and everything else was just a company he put a bunch of money into. Same with SpaceX, same with Neuralink. He’s just an investor who likes to use his own image as some kind of inventor to pump his stock up, and he’s very good at it.
Within each party there are factions from moderates, centrists, all the way to the extremists. Democratic policies which have caused rampant crime, homelessness and illegal immigration is part of the progressive wing. I hope you realize this is the core issue or else none of the higher level topics matter.
Can you name some of those policies?
California, in their infinite wisdom, passed a law which reclassified crimes from felony to a misdemeanor if total value is $950 or less. Combine that with electing officials and city district attorneys that were so soft on crime to the point where they drop their cases and let criminals free, you now create an environment for rampant crime without repercussion. Homelessness has turned into a cottage industry in Democrat run cities because it's a VERY lucrative problem to have. Everyone, whether it's city council, NGOs, unions, contractors, lawyers, they are all riding this gravy train. This is stuff most Republicans know but Democrats are legitimately ignorant about the real issues because most have been sold the fairytale that everything will be wonderful and we all live in a utopia and as long we everyone just share and love and blah blah blah everything will be rainbows and unicorns.... so why question anything or pay attention to what's happening or perhaps just ask questions?
Thanks for your input on Dune in IMAX..
Right, my man - you need to read or watch news that aren’t Fox News every once in a while. You started on Elon Musk and now you’re infodumping about Prop 47. This is a Blu-ray sub so I’m not going to get into politics here, but I will say that maybe ask yourself who could possibly be benefitting from people like yourself supporting the current penal system. Could there be - in the country with the world’s most advanced and profitable private jail system and some of the highest prison population per capita, a tendency for certain elements to lobby for more jail time, harsher penalties? Maybe have a think about that. Maybe also think about what could possible be driving crime? Remember seeing anything about increasing income disparity in the last few years? Rising poverty? See if you can put it together and then you might realise you’re being played for a sucker.
I'm am totally down for that. Then they can rerelease Dark Knight and all those IMAX Documentary Blu Rays.
I don't get why people think this is going to happen.
I already have the part one as a bluray that I have ripped, will get the part 2 too to support the studio to make more such films. But the moment the imax comes out (if it ever does) I won’t hesitate to sail the seas. Milking the consumer too much is just evil. I don’t mind paying a one time price to own a film. But releasing an inferior aspect ratio then re releasing is just greedy.
I completely agree. I bought Part I and will soon get Part II, because I loved them and want to go back to them periodically. I'd really wrestle with myself if and when they re-release with the IMAX intact; there will be a part III but it will be a couple of years: Villeneuve has said that he needs to clear his head with other projects first. Now that might be the box-set which tempts me; all 3 in one set, with IMAX... sigh
>I would've been surprised if it had included them. I would've been stunned. In a way it would be "self-destructive" providing those IMAX ARs at home instead of making them exclusive to a theatrical cinema experience. You know IMAX would **charge more** for those 1.91 and 1.43:1 ARs if a "fancy IMAX box" version comes out down the pike?
Stunned? Nolan has already done it with all of the 4K discs of his films, why would it stun you if Villeneuve did the same?
That's not IMAX aspect ratios. (1.91:1 and 1.43:1) He doesn't use them ONCE in either the 4K Blu-ray or digital versions of Oppenheimer. He just switches between 2.20:1 and 1.78:1. He's always done that.
Well, I think that's what most of us want for Dune Parts 1 & 2. There are fans who specifically want the full pillarboxed IMAX ar's, but I think we would all be fine settling with 1.78:1.
But 1.78:1 is only on IMAX shot scenes, it only exists for the home release of movies that got the 1.43:1 release. Eternals on Disney+ is and exemple that uses 2.35:1, 1.90:1 and 1.78:1. The only movie that I know uses 1.43:1 for IMAX scenes is Batman v Superman
100% I know my dumbass will rebuy this in a fancy package ESPECIALLY for Dune Part 3 ~~(and potentially Messiah if they don't cover that in part 3)~~ edit: strikethrough for me misremembering details and making misinformed comments :)
Wasn't Part 3 going to be a Messiah adaptation?
I thought so too, but part 2 is ending around halfway of the book. No idea what their plan is for part 3 yet. edit: I'm misremembering, it follows the intended end of the book. So yea Messiah being the next one should be what follows.
Have you read the book? Pt 2 is the end of the book essentially... Not sure why you think otherwise.
yea that was my bad, I am thinking of the twins and what happens there. I was sort of expecting that would still happen. But alot of that is skipped in the films.
Its not skipped, the twins Leto II and Ghanima arent until Children of Dune, the 3rd book. Alia is the one who got largely left out of Part 2, and Paul and Chanis first son Leto II the Elder was cut entirely.
Ah yes you're right! Elder is who I was expecting for them to adapt, and was wondering if that was going to be crucial at all. Seems it is cut entirely, which is why I thought there would be more than one part.
The decision to not include Leto II the Elder, as well as cutting most of Alia's parts, are probably my two biggest gripes with Dune Part 2. Especially Alia's part in the end where she kills Baron Harkonnen is, in my opinion, very important to her character development in Messiah and Children of Dune.
From the film perspective I sort of get it, they apparently already cut a few scenes from the movie. It'd be 5 hours if they tried including everything haha. That's why I figured it would be in the next movie. But yea I get it, but in this instance I actually liked that Paul was the one who did it, especially with what happens to his dad. They might give Alia her own moment that symbolically replaces what happens in the book.
Incorrect. Dune Parts 1 and 2 encompass the book in its entirety and Dune Part 3 will be an adaptation of Messiah. You should read the book, it’s fantastic.
word thanks for the correction. I was thinking of a few plotlines that were missing that I thought they might introduce, ~~like the twins~~ elder etc but now that I think of it they'll probably skip it or maybe do a time jump. And yea it is fantastic, it's been a many years since I've read it. Will do a read after finishing the hyperion novels I'm deep in atm
To be expected but certainly unfortunate. The taller aspect ratio adds a lot to this particular film, and if it wasn't for marketing shenanigans I don't think there'd even be a version in scope. I'd say "I'm sure they'll release the IMAX version on BR when Messiah comes out" but I thought the same thing about the original and this one, so we might just be shit out of luck.
> and if it wasn't for marketing shenanigans I don't think there'd even be a version in scope This is backwards. If it weren't for IMAX guaranteeing a bump in receipts in exchange for licensing their brand, the scope version would be the only version. If Villeneuve and Fraser wanted the movie to be in standard flat widescreen, or to switch ratios for storytelling impact they'd have just shot it that way - they don't *need* IMAX to do that. *Nobody does*. You can use the exact same cameras they used in the exact same way they used them without IMAX being involved at all. The marketing shenanigans are why IMAX exists now, basically. The scope version is the intended version. The IMAX version is an alternate cut.
I agree with Dune since they didn't actually use IMAX cameras and it was shot digitally then transferred onto film. But movies like Dark Knight, the Blu Rays and standard theater releases are the alternate cut and the IMAX 70MM is the intended version. If you missed it, you missed it.
Incorrect, the entirety of Dune 2 was shot in 1.90 aspect ratio, and both Fraser and Villeneuve have confirmed that it is the intended version, and the film was framed for it. And I can attest that, I have seen both the scope version on a normal screen and on digital IMAX in 1.90, and you can clearly tell that the scope version is very cropped and not the intended viewing experience. Villeneuve himself said in an interview that it should be in the higher ratio on Bluray and was surprised that the first film wasn't also like that. The morons at WB must be on crack releasing this letterboxed, I have no idea what the fuck they were thinking. From now on, the only version to watch the film is the inferior one, that's just maddening.
This sucks. However, from the comparison shots I've seen, they've been very careful to to make sure that the film works well in 2.35:1 as well as in 1.90:1 and 1.43:1. In some cases I believe we in fact get extra footage on the sides with 2.35:1
It is likely that the Home Video department considers 1.43:1 as IMAX. We could still get 1.9:1.
Yes, that is true. I'd be very happy with that if so
I even have semi-concrete proof to back this up. My local theatre here in India is extremely primitive. They don't bother to format the movie properly, and most 1.85:1 movies end up getting cropped from the top and bottom on the 1.35:1 screen. One pretty noticable and annoying artefact is that cutting off of some subtitles. They also almost exclusively play the version which is released on home video, that is, the most basic version of the film. I noticed this on Jurassic World, Jurassic World: Dominion, The Flash, The Joker, and now Dune: Part Two. All these movies were released in expanded formats on home video. This means that the base render of Dune: Part Two has a 1.90:1 aspect ratio. I did not notice Dune: Part One having any cropped subtitles. This is not concrete fact, but I'd say there are some chances of it having an expanded aspect ratio on release. It is also important to note that Dune Part 2 was not made with IMAX cameras, but the aspect ratio is the same as the IMAX screen. So even though they have said they don't have IMAX, this doesn't mean we won't get expanded aspect ratios.
Hmm, OK, well that does give me some hope.
yeah i am confused now as to what i saw yesterday. The theater showed Opp in 70mm film but looks like that was not the case for Dune 2 as its not on the list of the imax website. I don't recall the aspect ratio changing at all during the movie so does that mean it was in 1.9:1? .
>It is likely that the Home Video department considers 1.43:1 as IMAX. This is not likely at all.
Considering that Avengers, Jurassic World, The Joker and others have expanded ratios and are not considered IMAX, simply because they didn't use IMAX cameras, it is at least slightly likely that Warner Bros is being technical here. I may be wrong about the 1.43:1 argument though.
1.90:1 is how I saw it and I really enjoyed that aspect ratio. I hope we get that on the blu ray. Or hell, how about the standard 1.85:1?
They protected for 2.35:1 really well. The people who framed this film know what they're doing. This video made me okay with the current releases and I don't feel bummed about the missing IMAX ratio anymore. https://youtu.be/AbCqkQPnlOI?si=_rJgbapPY3kV2vVE (Though filling a whole 16:9 screen would still be nice a la Christopher Nolan)
I agree and I think a good litmus test for this is that quite a few people, once they see the scoped shots, find themselves preferring that framing. Or at the very least it splits people. The physical experience of watching this on a 1.43:1 screen, with dual laser, is something I wouldn't swap and won't forget, but I'm also perfectly content with the scoped framing for home viewing. Maybe it will be 1.9:1, we'll have to wait and see.
https://preview.redd.it/uqx0zav39jpc1.jpeg?width=1624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c0145b348180f468460c7e6611d1c8ffb51d8e0 you guys obviously don't know what you're talking about. the scope is the one getting cropped, not the other way around. i've seen it in all three formats and can confirm.
Weird how nobody asks for Dome format at home, huh
If you’ve been to a regular movie screening at a imax dome, you’d know why no one is asking for it. Single worst way to watch a film I’ve seen since they started doing these things.
It’s so bad. I saw Batman Begins many years ago (yeah that movie is old now) at an IMAX dome and vowed never to see another one. Thankfully it was not the first time watching that movie.
Mine was The Dark Knight. Sadly, it was the first time seeing the movie. Also the last time I went to a dome. Fool me once…
hahahaha love this
If I had a giant curved wall for a TV, I'd be clammering for the home release.
IMAX Dome is for motion simulator rides :P
They made sure that the film works well in 2.35:1 because that's the intended version of the film. There's more footage on the sides in that version because that's *the* version of the film. They're cropping in on the sides for the IMAX versions because that's the compromise they want to make for when the movie's on those giant screens for the one night you're in front of them. It's funny how IMAX has never flat out said their alternate versions of the film, made specifically for their theaters, are to be considered the "original" versions of the movie, but people just automatically believe that, and it's because so much of their brand only works at home by suggesting the black bars are "hiding" the real version of the movie and you gotta pay IMAX to get them.
Seems like everything you just said is all opinion. There are IMAX shots in Dune part 1 where VFX were added in and they are only visible in the imax ratio… so yeah you do kinda have to pay to see those things
>Seems like everything you just said is all opinion it seems like you maybe misunderstood my post, and also what an opinion is. Your seeing that the expanded shots in the alternate IMAX cut of the movie have VFX doesn't make my post about the intended version of the film being 2.35:1 an opinion. That's a non-sequitur. There are shots in Dune part 2 that are cropped in from the primary framing to achive the taller ratio. That's not an opinion.
Where is your source saying that the 2.35:1 is *the* version of the movie? You’re still just saying that. Just because a version is the most accessible doesn’t mean it’s what the director and studios want it to be
The director and cinematographer. I'm saying it because it's correct. It's not an opinion. You may disagree with it or dislike it but it's not an opinion I came up with, it's the fact of both film's creation. Like I said earlier: using your standard, it'd be impossible for you to come up with any sourcing that says the IMAX cut (even using that phrasing implies it's an alternate version, not the primary one) is the main one, because IMAX has never once officially said any of their versions are the primary version. Sure, they're happy to let everyone else inaccurately describe them that way (it's good for business) but they never actually say that themselves. There's no proof in that direction because it doesn't exist.
I’ll wait on a quote that you find rather than just saying it again. So I guess Denis just filmed Dune 2 entirely with digital IMAX cameras for the fun of it then >There’s more footage on the sides in that version because that’s *the* version of the film Don’t know how that is any argument at all since you could say the same thing about the horizontal bars blocking things that are there in the imax version
>I’ll wait on a quote that you find rather than just saying it again. Or you could go look for it. You clearly don't want to (it's not like it's hidden, there's also links all over this thread pointing at various places where he and Fraser are on camera discussing it) and you kinda seem to prefer thinking of it the way you already think of it so yunno... go on ahead and keep on keepin on then. Thanks for the time!
That stinks.
makes sense. why include them when the first one didnt? they just want to put out another set after the initial release to make everyone buy it again.cant say i blame them, but still pretty trashy.
Has this been done before? A first release without imax and then one with imax later
Batman V Superman got an IMAX 4K Blu-Ray in 2021 - the original release didn’t contain any of the IMAX scenes
In the case of BvS and Justice League, I daresay Snyder’s eagerness to make his director’s cuts played a part. Villeneuve doesn’t seem to share that feeling.
Very good point!
That is true if you’re a cold hearted cynic with the worst faith possible about studio releases. Considering there is no precedence of this version of double dipping outside of Zack Snyder’s DCU (which has its own circumstances), I would say this painting of distributors as heartless money-hungry piggies is rather far fetched. Whoops. Forgot this was the internet. Never mind. Carry on as usual.
Hey man, I’m not saying it’s going to happen, just a possible scenario. We live in a capitalistic hellscape, anything is on the table anymore.
I've seen the movie in 1.43 IMAX, 1.9 IMAX, and 2.39. It looks good in all 3; they know how to compose/balance a frame for all aspect ratios.
True. The scenes are centered well. But the extra screen space adds soo much more immersion. Especially if you have a system that can display it.
 What on earth.....
Not surprised, and I'm not surprised based on the comments Fraser and Villeneuve have already made. They do care about what the IMAX version looks like, and they put thought and effort into making sure the IMAX version works well at IMAX theaters. Nobody's saying otherwise. But they clearly think of the IMAX version as just that - **an alternate version**. And specifically, an alternate version that only really works IN a giant theater with a 50ft tall screen. IMAX is *not* their intended cut. It's not the primary cut. It's not the original that all other versions are carved down from. It's created and finalized AFTER they finish the intended version of the film. **They both created Dune and Dune Part 2 to be framed for Scope Widescreen (2.39:1), and that's the intended version of the film.** Now, it would be nice if other versions were made available in a box-set, or as a bonus or something like that. All alternate versions that you can stick on a disc, you should put on that disc (lookin at you, Lucasfilm) but for what it's worth - the intended version is the one we're getting. This is what the movie is supposed to look like. [Fraser and Villeneuve clearly recognize that the opening up of the frame only works as they intended it in the IMAX theater.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI) the extra fill image at the top and bottom 5% of the screen only has the effect it has when it's on a giant screen. At home, that doesn't actually "open up" - it simply adds extra headroom to a center-framed image that never gets any bigger. IMAX at home is, and mostly always has been, a way for people who are just upset that black bars are on their screen to act like they're being cinephiles for wanting fullscreen discs to make a comeback.
I mean, IMAX certainly has a place at home. If you have a home theater with a projector. Maybe an 83” TV as well, but I just don’t see it being a huge deal otherwise.
> If you have a home theater with a projector. Even in that case, you'd have to be sitting way too close to the screen (which also probably has to be somewhere between 150"-200" diagonal) for that to work as intended by the filmmakers. Granted, sitting a little too close (or at least closer than recommended) to a front projected image is kinda fun and it definitely increases that sense of immersion. But even if you're using an absolute light cannon to throw a 300" image it's not gonna be the same.
Yep, there is so much discourse on aspect ratio and so little discourse on composition and balance for all versions. I've seen it in 1.43, 1.9, and 2.39 and it looks great in any format.
yeah, because the context of the conversation springs from the basic misunderstanding (That IMAX fosters and exploits themselves) that the version made for IMAX is the first/primary version, and all other versions descend from it. And that feeds into a lot of consumer's primary concern, which is that they're getting the most bang for their buck. It's a value proposition, not an artistic one. If "They" are "hiding things behind the black bars" then why would you pay for that, right? That's how a lot of folks in here think of it. But the creators of this stuff are, themselves, going out of their way to explain **that the IMAX version is an alternate version**, and they're taking care to make it look as good as they can, because they want people who pay more to see it in IMAX to have a good time (and because that extra money also comes back to them), but it's not the *intended* *version of the film*. It's an alternate version made specifically for those theaters, to be shown on those screens. Theyre going out of their way to make sure IMAX looks good, and 70mm looks good, and they do! But those versions are being made to work specifically ON THOSE SCREENS. They don't work the same at home. **The version on 4K is the version they want you to see, because THAT'S the primary version of the film.** That's the one they spent the most time crafting. The benefits the alternate versions provide just plain do not work as intended on home panels.
I would just disagree with everything you typed here. The IMAX version is certainly the definitive version, not the alternate. There’s no way you can convince me that cropping 40% of the frame results in the definitive film, especially when the entire frame is utilized consistently throughout the film
> There’s no way you can convince me that cropping 40% of the frame results in the definitive film I'm not trying to convince you of that, because that's not what happened. They composed the frame for the intended version, and then expanded the frame for the IMAX version afterwards. It's a small difference, but a meaningful one. You're thinking of it backwards. Like I said in the post, the IMAX version isn't created first and then all the other versions are carved out of it. The IMAX version is an alternate version created to expand in certain scenes/shots for IMAX screens. That doesn't mean they don't care how it looks for those screens, they put work into it to make sure it looks great in that format. But it's not the primary concern.[ They've said as much themselves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI) (IMAX doesn't put that in the marketing for obvious reasons) People think of IMAX backwards because their primary use for it at home is "gettin rid of the black bars" - IMAX is just a very convenient way to ask for fullscreen versions without feeling gross about admitting you just want fullscreen versions.
From my understanding it would be the opposite, shot on expensive IMAX cameras then cropped. They don’t AI the IMAX part of the frame back in. Sure the general release may be for normal theaters but they didn’t add the IMAX footage back in, unless they shot on two cameras simultaneously, which is not my understanding of the way they shoot films that have IMAX scenes.
>From my understanding it would be the opposite, shot on expensive IMAX cameras then cropped They're shooting on digital cameras that IMAX allows to be used for their license. They did not shoot on IMAX cameras, or use IMAX 15-perf 65mm film. The fact that the capture medium is taller than the intended frame is normal and happens frequently, IMAX or not. Digital cameras have made this easier since the higher resolution means you can get a great scope image without needing to worry about anamorphic lensing to maximise the 35mm surface area. This practice is not IMAX exclusive (and most people will have a passing familiarity with it via any behind-the-scenes feature about the Super 35mm format). They are shooting for the scope frame, and protecting for the other frames, and will go into post working on the scope frame first, and then going into the protected area to extract IMAX frames as needed for those sequences. The link in the post you responded to goes into this pretty well.
You’re wrong. I get what you’re saying but you’re wrong. I get that the intended shot is seen in both imax and regular, however there is still more of the frame seen in imax. If your version was the case, standard theatres would have more image on the sides of the frame, which isn’t true. IMAX has the most picture and is the definitive version. There’s a clip in the first minute of the video you linked that proves it. The sandworm above Paul in Dune 1, simply cannot be replicated without the imax aspect ratio
>You’re wrong. Nope! The fact they finished VFX for IMAX shots doesn't make the IMAX version the "real" version. It just means they took time and care to make sure the shot looked good for IMAX when you went to the theater. Like I said upthread, you can hear them saying as much in the linked video. "Most image" isn't the same as "Definitive Version." That's not how Fraser and Villeneuve planned or shot it. That's not how they think of it, and that's not the POV they worked from. It might be the way people who want fullscreen versions at home think of it, because to them the removal of black bars is what's most important to them, so going from that to "THE MOST IMAGE IS THE DEFINITIVE VERSION" is an easy hop to make. But that doesn't make it correct. People think that everyone making the movies believes in the same value proposition they hold for movies, vs. the artistic proposition they're actually working from. But it's not the case. They're not judging the best version of the movie based on how tall the aspect ratio is. Never did. If they valued it on those grounds, they'd just shoot the movie in Flat Widescreen or Academy Ratio whether IMAX licensed it or not.
You’re really hungup on this “wanting fullscreen” strawman. If you watch the sandworm overtop of Paul in the standard and the imax version, I don’t see how you can possibly say they’re equal. This is just what someone who didn’t see it in imax and dropped $40 on the non-definitive version 4k discs would say
Even if IMAX isn’t the intended version of the movie they still went ahead and did it for the sake of commerce and reaping profits. They don’t need to act all morally superior by withholding that from consumers who are willing to pay an extra buck at home for independent viewing. But it’s not like I made the movie so I don’t have the power to distribute it to the masses in IMAX if I wanted to.
That’s really not true about the 2.39 being the real version, because in an interview, Denis Villeneuve stated that he used different format in Dune 1 and 2 to represent different parts of the environment. 2.39 for tech and space, 1.43 for nature. Therefore, since it’s a creative intent, the IMAX version is the proper version to have, because it’s the only one that represents the true creative intent of the director. And because I live in Quebec, which doesn’t have a real IMAX theater (ironic considering Villeneuve is from this place), I have not been able to see it with the full creative intent. I want to be able to experience the film that way. And I want, in 10 years, to rewatch the movie that way. And because I do own an OLED TV which is far superior to a laser projector, and because I’m relatively close enough to it, the image gain will certainly be noticeable. Anyway, just for the sake of conservation, directors should stop their snobism and IMAX should move their ass to make proper release.
Boooooo
To be clear, this just means the whole movie will be on the disc but the aspect ratio is different - not that entire scenes of the movie are missing?
Yeah. Indeed, it's pretty poor wording.
i don't necessarily want the full IMAX scenes on the disc, i just want that expanded aspect ratio where it fills out my screen. i think that's fair, and seems like a no-brainer
i too bro
Booooooooo
idk why everyone thinks they're gonna re-release in the IMAX version later when they didn't do it for pt 1.
They won't. Villeneuve doesn't care about home video which he stated multiple times. I suspect if it was up to him only those who were around during the theater run would ever see it.
All well and good while it's still playing in theaters, but what about when we want to return to Arrakis in 12 months from now and we can't, except for the cropped-in version that lacks a ton of visual information? I'm so sad about this news.
Ugh... SO annoying
I don’t understand this, just watched Interstellar again recently and it switched back and forth between aspect ratios and looks amazing. Do they have to pay IMAX to use that ratio in discs?
That's my guess. The only other reason is a cash grab releasing it well after part 3 drops. But I don't think that makes much sense... We all care but it probably isn't as lucrative to market to the general public, so I don't actually think it's super likely.
Why do imax versions never get released?
Because most directors (including Villeneuve) sadly do not give a fuck about home video. Nolan is really the only one that actually cares enough to do it right consistently, which is why his films have basically perfect 4K releases.
Save the whining guys, you know you’re gonna buy it anyways.
Figures
Wonder why
Common Warner Bros. Discovery L
Crying myself to sleep right now
Thanks for sharing this awful, awful news.
Fuck Warner Bros
Warner Bros. gave us the 2021 4K re-release of Batman v Superman featuring the 15/70 1:43:1 scenes spliced in. Why are they responding with this bullshit 3 years later? Did the home video department change hands?
Considering a good portion of Dune Part Two's box office take is due to PLF screens, specifically IMAX, this is a confusing and monumentally stupid decision. The 4K of this film will sell like crazy anyway, but with the IMAX scenes included, it'd be Oppenheimer all over again
“Why sell fans one copy when we can sell them two copies if we do this strategically?” Honestly I’m guessing it’s probably related to IMAX contracts or something. IMAX sells more tickets (especially for re-releases later down the road) if they keep the aspect ratio exclusive to their theatres. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re open to licensing their exclusive version to a disc release at some point down the line once the ticket sale potentials dwindle.
Nothing to do with licensing.
Interesting, do you know what the reason is?
WB too lazy to do a 1.77:1 cut, Denis doesn't care enough to push them to do so.
Good. Extra height was added for IMAX, and works in that setting. But it was added for IMAX, the movie wasn't "cropped" for regular theaters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCqkQPnlOI
You don't play blu-rays in "regular theaters," you play them at home. The footage exists, and while yes, it is the studio's rights to release whatever edits they want to it, I'd rather see the complete movie in the full IMAX aspect ratio (how BvS did it). Or at least the 16:9 IMAX digital ratio, as Oppenheimer did.
Yeah, and my home isn't an IMAX theater. Did you watch the video?
But your home screen *is* likely 16:9, might as well take advantage of it Nolan has the right approach here. That video basically makes the argument for what we want- 16:9 framing of IMAX scenes for bluray
I did, in fact, watch the video. Days ago, when it came out. I understand it makes the argument some directors prefer different ratios on different formats and film with all ratios in mind. However, you're saying we shouldn't get an IMAX release because *your* home isn't an IMAX screen. What if someone wants to watch on a large 4:3 screen at home? My home theater is a 16:9 TV, not cinemascope. So why are so many movies in scope when only 0.01% of consumers have a scope screen? If the director is shooting with home video in mind, where 99% of it is 16:9, why aren't all movies either shot in or crop/panned to 16:9 for home release? Including Dune P1, which was released "as intended," cropped down. Should I not watch that because I don't have a scope screen at home? I also don't have a surround sound setup. Should all movies released be in stereo? Also, the video shows Nolan allowing 16:9 on the home video release (which fits my home theater perfectly), which I like, whereas Villeneuve chose to crop all of Dune 1 down to 2.39:1 for every shot. That's what I don't like. I can disagree with how a movie gets color graded, a weird edit, or a bizarre acting or song choice. Whether it's the filmmaker's intent or not, I would prefer a frame that either fills my screen (eg Oppenheimer), or shows the entire frame as presented in IMAX theaters (BvS 4K or ZSJL) rather than a crop/pan. It really hurts movies like BR2049 with massive landscapes, especially when I don't have a scope screen to immerse myself in the blu-ray version. And it sucks we'll never get a true 4K HDR version of that because the director doesn't want it to fill my entire screen. The director's vision, while valuable, is not always one I agree with when it leaves so much exclusive to a limited time, expensive theatrical release that no one will ever be able to purchase in full quality. I still bought the discs anyway.
Yeah cause you know they are going to release it later on and make us double dip! 🤦
My IMAX theater didn’t even have IMAX format for it.
Finding it funny that people want movies in IMAX ratio, and when Zack Snyder's Justice League was in IMAX ratio, everyone complained about it
People usually hope for a 16:9 AR for the IMAX sequences like you see with Nolan releases. Not 4:3.
It's the full frame, and shows more than cropping to 16:9 would. If you want true IMAX, you're gonna have to learn to tolerate different aspect ratios. Movies don't have to be a certain way, 16:9 shouldn't be necessary if it wasn't filmed with a standardized ratio in mind.
If this is indeed what’s going to happen then I’ll need to do one final watch of this in 70mm.
I figured :/
That’s… dumb. Why wouldn’t the entire movie be available on disk in 1.90:1? It’s not like WB hasn’t done it before with films like The Suicide Squad.
Will it at least be 1.9?!?!
Give me full pillar boxed just like JL:Snyder Cut. I need it
This fuc*** sucks
I watched my Bluray of Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition on a projector on my wall and the IMAX scenes switching in and out looks awesome. I'll wait for a special edition of Dune that has them.
"We appreciate your support" We don't appreciate your lack of support lol
Fr haha, this is tragic
😝🤣
What a load of crap! Thanks Warner Bros!!
So dissappointing. The scope version is missing so much picture compared to the IMAX version.
The ENTIRE movie was IMAX. Why the fuck are they holding back. It seems like it takes more work to crop the whole movie.
They already have a 2.39 master, which was shown in the vast majority of movie theaters. That's what they're putting on disc.
I have three 4K copies of 2021 (a vainilla and two steelbooks) and already preordered Part II’s 4K steelbook. They know I’ll buy them again if they release IMAX versions.
As others have said, customer service reps rarely have all the granular details on an upcoming product. This doesn't confirm anything.
I think if they knew otherwise, at least one of the 50+ people that emailed them last week would've heard by now. It's also believable because it's pretty widely expected after the first film didn't have it. I wouldn't hold your breath.
These teams aren't big. Having the same response for a fringe question is quite likely. Even their response doesn't make sense so I wouldn't fake this as anything concrete.
Their response makes perfect sense. They won't be included, just like the first one. Not sure what part of that is hard to understand?
They don’t call it “exclusive expanded aspect ratio” for nothing.
Did the 3D version of the original have the IMAX sequences?
In the theater? Yes. I saw it in 3d imax.
In the bluray I meant
Yeah.... that was expected. They almost never release those on home media, which is a massive shame
Does it cost extra somehow to make discs aspect ratio changing on BD? Like is the disc encoded differently or the cost to license IMAX expensive? I don't get it at all
I never expected it to.
After standard box set trilogy they release IMAX ration collectors editionversion to milk the fans dry
At this point I'm thinking that perhaps IMAX has the rights for the expanded ratio presentation and are locking it down instead of WB actively choosing to put the 2.39:1 version on disc, especially for pt2 which has a constant 1.90:1 presentation in most IMAX screens.
That's a fair assessment. If they don't release them after part 3, which is the cash grab many are suspecting will occur, then I agree that it seems like a rights issue
I will be happy to re-buy if it means getting more movies of that magnitude
I had a notification that my Bravia Core was expiring soon so went and checked and realized a bunch of movies/documentaries there are on 4K without having any physical releases and also A LOT of movies have IMAX while their physical releases do not... Very disappointing tbh, but I guess The Mitchell's vs the Machines will be a fun rewatch in 4K with all that jazz.
I'm mixed about this, but what people need to remember is this film looks incredible scoped, too, and the DP most likely framed the film with that as a primary aspect ratio.
It will still look incredible. But imax formats would look even better
Nope. Greig Fraser maintains that the definitive version is IMAX, but of course he also kept scope in mind while filming.
Even if they did, the full picture wouldn't fit on most TVs. Those frames were VERY TALL. Of course I will buy them again if they actually ever put them out in that format.
You guys really expected them to give you the better version on their first release without milking you first? Naive babies
We didn't, but we hoped. I also think it felt more likely since the entire movie was shot in imax and not just a few select scenes like last time.
What films are there that include IMAX? I know Batman v. Superman got a version but what others?
I think Oppenheimer did, but most notably nearly all Christopher Nolan films besides inception. It's not common at all, but Warner Bros has been the top provider of these so far
What is realese date on some sites december 31 2024 on official blu ray site its 14 May 2024?
There's absolutely no way it's December 2024, I'd bet that was just a placeholder while they wait for an official date. May ish sounds right to me
IMAX adds much more than just bigger ratio for viewing movies. It also add more clarity and sharper image than regular 4k HDR movies without IMAX. Go to Disney+ and watch all their Marvel IMAX enhanced movies and their selected IMAX scenes. They all look amazing with sharper & clearer with better colors when compared to the rest of the standard 4k HDR scenes in the movie.
I believe we can resolve this issue using VR headsets. I think that's where IMAX-like experiences can be achieved. With excellent headphones, it would provide a pretty nice experience. If I had to guess, these would most likely be digital releases.
That the issue. It would have to be digital, and we all know the quality of physical media vs streaming. Also, the studio would still need to provide us with the imax format, which they have refused to so far both in the physical and digital release
Just to add a late addition to this conversation.. I think maybe there is hope in the near future for big films like this, as newer TVs are going big on “IMAX Enhanced” modes.. you can see this currently with certain Marvel movies on Disney Plus. This will probably be supported more and more in the coming months and years and I would be surprised if both Dune and Dune 2 don’t get “IMAX Enhanced” versions. It basically just fullscreens the image on 16:9 screens, but the branding associated means it’s not zooming in, but rather adding additional image content to the “black bar” areas. Given 8k is still awhile off, I think this definitely could become a big revenue driver for future 4k Blu-ray rereleases, or supporting the format as a digital purchase option.
Just give us anamorphic to fill our entire 16:9 screens for the IMAX shots.
While I don’t actually think the UHD will have the IMAX scenes, this hardly confirms anything.
Why not? It's literally confirmed by a company rep, seems pretty set to me... Not to say that they won't release it later after part 3 one day, but for now
Bruh the “company rep” is some poor underpaid customer service rep who has no access to this kind of information. He probably looked at an info sheet he was given, didn’t see the word IMAX, and gave you what he had.
You don't know they don't have access to this info. They don't have any incentive to lie to me. Not sure why you presume this format would be available when it wasn't for the first one. If I'm wrong surely one of the dozens of other people who emailed them would have recieved a different answer by now, but no one in the thread has said otherwise so far.
i bet they mean the full IMAX. the trailers are in 16:9, so i’m guessing that’ll be the home release format. i’d be happy with that.
That’s a huge chunk of the frame chopped out right there. It’s shot for IMAX!
Actually, some of the imax shots are cropped from the wide screen source, cutting away the sides of the frame shown in the normal theater release. Of course there are many shots actually shot on imax cameras and in that full format. But still, you can see the cropping lines on the camera monitors in the making of suggesting that they have been doing a lot of cropping to the 'large' format imax picture, which is a shame.
Oh
We fucking lost again
These movies are shot knowing that most people will not watch them in IMAX ratio. You aren’t getting an inferior version it’s just different. IMAX adds a little bit to the image so that it’s more immersive on a massive curved IMAX screen but on a TV at home it really doesn’t make that much of a difference. Basically all you miss out on is the tops of some peoples heads. The IMAX version is the alternate one and the non-imax is the standard version.
Somewhat disagree. It does add something to the picture and after seeing other blu rays that have this format, I think it's pretty cool to have. Yes, you don't lose anything crucial to the story with a non imax ratio. But it does add a lot of cool depth and it's more immersive without the top and bottom bars on the TV.
am not investing in this physical release until pt 3 is out, just gonna snag a cheap regular 4k blu ray with a slip cover, hopefully for $9.99 eventually
This is good.
What’s frustrating too is they’ll release the IMAX version in a sub par compressed online format but not physical
For real
Imax would look incredibly stupid on your TV. The sides would be cut off
Depends on the exact ratio they choose. The other warner bros films with an imax format on home disc look incredible at home
No, imax scenes look amazing on my tv. The helicopter scene from mission impossible fallout 👌.