I'd be ecstatic just to get Dune 1.90:1 home release. They know everyone's TV is basically perfectly sized for it. It's good enough for Nolan. Denis please get your head out of your ass!
What about the Justice League Snyder Cut? I think it may have just been played in small screenings but man, what a great home theater experience for the format.
I’ve only seen 4 imax 70mm films oppenhiemer, interstellar, tenet, and dune 2. They were all some of the best movie experiences I’ve ever had. I couldn’t recommend 1.43 imax enough
You really think it's the aspect ratio that did it, and not that the size of the screen is bigger, that the sound is cranked up slightly higher than a normal theatre and you really liked the imagery and story of the movies?
@@gurratell7326when I’m talking about 1.43 Its not just about aspect ratio its when that ratio takes up the whole screen because when you see one of those movies taking up the whole screen you just become completely immersed in the movie especially if you sit closer to the screen and not in the back of the theater.
@@Blahblahblah42069 Out vision is closer to 1.77, so a screen at that ratio that would be even more immersive. So no that 1.43 craving that everyone has has more to do with marketing than anything else.
@@aleksijussilainen2638that's because when movies are played in standard screen they cover the full picture whether they are filmed with imax cameras or not but you still won't get the full picture because the screen size are smaller compared to imax screen. Also, movies filmed with non imax cameras when they are played in imax theaters they don't cover the full screen
THE FULL LIST: NOPE The Dark Knight (2008) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) The Dark Knight Rises (2012) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Interstellar (2014) Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) Appears to have been released in some sense in 1.43:1 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) Dunkirk (2017) First Man (2018) The Lion King (2019) Tenet (2020) Dune (2021) No Time to Die (2021) Eternals (2021) 1.43:1 aspect ratio (IMAX GT Laser venues only) Lightyear (2022) Oppenheimer (2023) Dune: Part Two (2024) The ant bully Happy Feet Kung Fu Panda (2008) Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
You're missing a huge thing for this video. Films like Force Awakens only employed 1:43 for one scene around ish 1 minute seemingly for marketing purposes. The rest of the film was shown in a normal aspect ratio. It's rare for a film to actually be shown in 1:43 all the way through
Well of course, there really hasn't been a film that has been 1.43:1 all the way through. But it still counts if it got a release even if that part was shorter. In our other video we mention at the end, we actually show how long each was shown.in 1.43:1
Hey that's really cool! If you don't mind me asking, what mastering software did you guys use? Was it commercial/enterprise like Davinci Resolve or Baselight or was it something in-house/proprietary? Were you an engineer or color scientist? Sorry lol just have so many questions!
@@Xplozhun85 the actual remastering software that upscales the images is proprietary but we used both Resolve and Baselight in the process actually. I was a production coordinator.
Cool list! Love that you guys are making more IMAX content lately. One more film (and interesting trivia) to note in the “shot on 1.43 but never released list” is The Prestige Nolan liked working with IMAX for Batman Begins’ DMR process (whose few minutes were upscaled to 6K and then printed onto 70mm film, rest in 4K) and wanted to try out working with an IMAX camera for TDK The Prestige turned out to be the testing grounds for it, and they shot the finger cutting scene on IMAX 65mm film, but downscaled it to 35mm just to see how it would intercut with the other filmstock. This was also the first time IMAX film was downscaled to 35mm This was said by IMAX CQO David Keighley on few interviews.
IMAX is also releasing a ton of their documentaries on the Apple Vision Pro in 1.43:1. I wonder if some of these narrative films will be remastered with the 1.43:1 sequences restored to their full AR. At the very least, these should be included as special features on the Blu-ray.
Watching First Man in IMAX 1.43:1, was amazing. The transition to the big screen, perfectly timed wenn the door opens and the you where able to see the Moon. The whole cinema was quiet, except for my little Wow. Also seeing Nope, with its transition through the window. Those where two awesome Cinema Moments.
One niggle I have is that aspect ratio isn't always inherently related to size. Scope is wider than 1.43:1 and therefore can be projected bigger, same thing with 4:3 or 1.33:1. It's taller but not necessarily bigger. I love movies shot for 1.43:1. But I also love movies shown in the intended ratio. The ratio the image was composed for. And I therefore love movies in 2.40:1, 2.76:1, 1.90:1, 1.67:1, 1.50:1... Etc etc So... I just love movies, I guess.. and I spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about their shapes.
Oh, I love movies too in any ratio. IMAX is just a fun one to cover because it seems to get people so riled up haha. I've actually considered maybe doing some aspect ratio series and making lists of films in weird formats.
Yeah this hype for IMAX is just weird, 1.43:1 might look better for some movies but definitely not all. But people often fall for he hype that IMAX is supposed to be better because the marketing says so, so therefor 1.43:1 is the only way to go apparently..
Er, not to be pedantic, but the iPad screen is 4:3 AR or 1.33 which is close to the 1.43 which is why it (appears) almost to take up the entire screen.
@@FrameVoyagerwas there any technical issue that prevent filmmaker to shot a film full in a boxy sequence for imax release-like apart from scenes shot with imax camera, could they use digital to shot in a same aspect ratio? Or does the resolution gap is too big for imax screen? I thought you can screen a boxy film like zsjl on imax theatre and get a full imax experience lol
I went to see Dune Part 1, Part 2 and Oppenheimer in 1:43.1 70MM IMAX. What an experience. Watching films in any other way basically pales in comparison. It’s one of those “You have to see it to understand it” kind of experiences
Lion king I believe was blown up to fit 1:43 1 because I saw it at the massive Lincoln center imax on release and it was pixelated as hell. It looked like one of those David attenbourogh docs where you could see where they where obviously cropping in lol
They could shoot it 1:1 if they wanted, if the director wants it framed in 2.20:1 then that is how it should be projected and showed. Bladerunner is an example of this, they opened the matte for iMax but it was framed for 16:9
Yeah, nope was a casualty of an edit mishap 🥲 it was on my list but got cut out by accident. Attack of the clones did have that dmr release. I just can't remember if I didn't put it on that list because it wasn't 1.66:1. I could be mistaken tho
Aspect ratio shouldn’t have anything to do with the size of the screen. If they want the movie to be 1.43:1 then release it in that format on all screens.
1.33 used to be the dominant format before the wider screen formats of 1.66, 1.85 , 2.35 - 2.40 . To be true the aspect ratio should fit the subject matter of the film. The stupid trend of constant width wall to wall screens have destroyed the magic of the wide screen where the wide screen ratio makes the screen smaller destroying the reason for the wide screen format in the first place. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the size of the screen. And shouldn't be what we are talking about. As a large number of theaters have these constant width wall to wall screens , the most sensible aspect ratio to present is the 1.85. A couple of big movies used the 2.1 to split the difference and IIRC Oppenheimer provided theaters with dual aspect ratios and instructed to play the version that make the most sense for their auditoriums.
Hey! I don't mean this as a mean comment or anything, but there's some weird digital noise in this video, around 15.9kHz. Sounds like it might be in the voice-over audio. Just wanted to let you know!
Hmmm... That's odd. Are you listening with headphones? Might be the TV's in the background. I usually have a filter that I use that kills that but might have missed it on this one. Thanks for the heads up!
100%. They needed to use existing gauges so labs could process it. No reason to get Kodak to make a new format that would have been much harder to get processed and handled. This way they could use any lab that can do 65mm and 70mm and many of the same tools used to 70mm. No need for new platters, splicing stations and reels. Although in the end they did come up with their own splicing method to increase durability.
@@VariTimo, labs can easily develop both widths. So, I guess it was and is about cutting the camera negative. Recently one Nolan got Kodak to splice b&w to 65mm for just one film, so it’s not impossible…
@@MikeTaffet ?? I have two 3D 15/70 theatres in my area, they have two IMAX 70mm projectors next to each other in the booth. In fact one of those theatres is where I saw Oppenheimer, and most recently Tenet/Dune2
Pretty wack to crop regular footage to 1.43:1 to make an illustration. It really messes up the intention of the composition. Also IMDb tech specs are not a reliable source.
You did skip the most obscure 1.43 release: Ghostbusters (2016). It had, I believe, 1 scene near the end that expanded all the way to 1.43 and 3D frame breaks throughout the rest of the movie.
Huh, in all my research into that, this movie never came up. Could be because it's only listed as having the 3d effect fille the 1.43:1 area. Do you know what scene at the end had that 1.43:1 expansion?
@@FrameVoyager It was the sequence inside the portal, where Erin jumps in to grab Abby. However, while I know for sure that sequence expanded to 1.85:1 in a regular 3D showing, I only vaguely recall the 1.43:1 thing from an interview the director gave, and only ‘cuz he was so giddy about it. But I can’t find that interview anymore for the life of me. And a random Reddit post now says that sequence only went to 1.78:1 and Wikipedia says 1.90:1… so… I guess I partially stand corrected and only the 3D effects went full size? 😅
@@thijmendevalk I think that's what happened 😅 honestly, there are so many productions that like get excited about using IMAX cameras or ratios and then you never hear about it when they release the film.
@@FrameVoyager I saw it in IMAX 1:43 showing of the movie in France. There was actually 1 sequence with the format, but it was not shot that way. There were just effects coming out of the frame, giving you a funny effect in 3D with lasers and ghosts. IMDB is pretty accurate when it comes to aspect ratio and it confirms it was in 1:43 for "frame break".
I know saw The Lion King and Treasure Planet in IMAX as a teenager but I couldn't recall anything particular about either experience for the life of me.
@@VariTimo for sure, loved the sequence. But just listening to the talk about using IMAX for this film, it sounds like they were forced to use it haha. Which actually makes sense because of the deal Disney had with IMAX.
Some notes: Prometheus apparently got a cropped 1.66:1 version made for IMAX 70mm prints, so that could be another entry in the "almost" category. Wonder Woman 1984's IMAX scenes were 1.90:1, not 1.78:1. Godzilla x Kong is going to be 1.90:1, and not 1.43:1, based on information from IMAX themselves. We also don't really know for sure yet whether Joker 2 is getting a 1.43:1 IMAX release. It's possible it might just get regular 70mm prints (2.20:1 ratio).
Love learning about things like this. I’ve never had the chance to see TRUE imax but sure hope to some day. I was about to ask if Zack Snyder’s justice league was shot in that aspect ratio but then learned it was actually 1.33:1 😅
Yep! Zach Snyder went farther than IMAX for that one lol. It's truly a crazy experience when you see a film that was designed for it like Dune Part 2 or Oppenheimer
Is there any chance of a followup video explaining more about non-IMAX movies that are shown in "IMAX" and whether it's worth the ticket price to see these upscaled versions? I have an IMAX screen nearby and I do see films on that screen occasionally but I reserve my purchases for films I know were natively shot in that format. Are these conversion jobs just faking it and blowing up the image to look bigger?
Wait but if it wasn’t shot in that format, the gate wouldn’t be that open to that aspect ratio. There still might be some top and bottom info there but it would be cropped in because of digital sensor being wide? If that being said they might be losing info on the sides in that tall aspect ratio.
They generally aren't. The ALEXA LF, which was used for Dune part 2, filmed at open gate (basically using the whole sensor) which is already at 3:2 at 4448 x 3096 resolution. Generally most productions actually crop in the top and bottom of the image.
Yeah. No aspect ratio is better and we should use the one that fits the best for each film. Square is not old but square is not better as IMAX riders say now. You don't see more with more squared ratios. Of course, if you shoot it square and then you crop it to wide you are losing image, but if you shoot it wide and then crop it to square you are losing too. People don't usually get that.
Please let go of the term liemax. Your precious 1:43.1 is only available like 40 places on this planet. Only 30 of them show commercial movies. "Liemax" (digital, xenon, 2k) is available in 1500+ location. You really think the 1:43.1 generate more revenue than xenon? Yes, IMAX is at fault for not marketing the term properly but with dual laser it's time to let "liemax" as a term go
Fun little video of a question we asked ourselves after watcing Dune Part 2 in IMAX. Just how many films have actually been released in FULL IMAX? Let us know if we missed any!
I remember Star Trek into darkness filled up the entire 1.43 aspect ratio when it was at the universal city walk imax during the khan fight scene when uhura is speaking to the Klingons
Probably a huge pet peeve (and maybe not for others) is that no big movie that I know of has been released on Blu-Ray in true 24 fps. From what I understand it’s technically feasible and with modern monitors/TV screens/home digital projectors it shouldn’t be a problem. At least PAL productions get an integer frame rate.
lol so unfair to call old IMAX DMR movies Liemaxes. They still got 15/70mm prints and played in GT venues. 99% of IMAX movies are DMR -- sure they aint as good as IMAX filmed movies but they are still phenomenal on that large GT screen! Also WW84 never got a 1.78:1 aspect ratio release, it was only 1.90:1 at home release and at all IMAX venues including GT dual laser. Also, Amazing Spiderman did not have any 1.43:1 scenes in IMAX. I saw in on IMAX film back in the day.
Oh I didn't call those liemaxes 😅 but they didn't go to full 1.43:1. Liemax is also super tongue in cheek and more of just being sarcastic haha. Also, we didn't say Amazing Spiderman did release any of them, only there had been reports that there were potential scenes they never released.
Thinking about the human eye FOV so I did some quick calculations and it's about 200 horizontal and 120 vertical. This works out to exactly 1:1.66 aspect ratio. That's a common European theatrical aspect ratio.
Yes but there is something weird about perfectly even ratios like 1.66:1, 2.00:1 and square. Also IMAX isn’t about just having the human field of view, the point is to have extra stuff for the periphery.
I saw Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire in BFI IMAX 3D, but the movie is at 2.35:1 and 1.90:1. Instead of 2.35:1 and 1.43:1. Which is very weird. I thought they’re going to present some scenes in 1.43:1.
Either just a rumor that was wrong or they just cut it. The format has a weird history of people saying it "would be" and then never materializing. Joker 2 though has already announced 70mm showings
@@scott9235 Well technically it is still "true" IMAX. It's an expanded ratio they say you can only see in IMAX theaters. So you still do get more out of it, it's just not their like premiere version. Which honestly, most films rarely even release in that format.
IMAX theaters have different geometry. The point of IMAX is extra footage for the peripheral vision. All the important part of the image is the center. The framing is very different. The only thing IMAX 1.43:1 and 4:3 have in common is the screen shape. That’s why Nolan’s films are 16:9 on the Blu ray.
Since most theaters are 1.85 / 2.39 capable, these are the best formats for mass distribution. However every auditorium has a dominant format that provides the best experience. Unfortunately the constant width wall to wall cinema is better suited for the 1.85 ratio. The public became fooled by the megaplex adverts of wall to wall screens, which destroyed the visual impact of the wide screen formats in those auditoriums. Auditoriums designed to play 2.39 are the best to view the wide screen ratio. Unfortunately the constant width screens in many multiplexes damage or completely ruin the viewing experience.
I've looked into it, Zack Snyder even has an interview saying he shot 1.43:1 scenes but the process to get there sounds more like it ended up at 1.33:1 and they cropped the edges in. And while I've seen photos of this being shown in IMAX theaters, it's unclear if it's 1.43:1 or just 1.33:1 or maybe a slight zoom in. If someone can find me any technical specs that show that it was I'll be sure to add it to the pinned comments! I've just never seen anything definitive about it and most technical details or articles about the IMAX release don't say. 😅
Nope was 1:43.1 and godzilla full ratio seemed to have been reduced after checking latest wiki update but then again it's wiki so I can't really trust that
You missed Nope! That was shot in IMAX film and released only digitally to IMAX in 1.43:1. I saw it in 1.43:1 in dual laser IMAX and it was fantastic! Also Godzilla v Kong is not going to be 1.43:1 in IMAX, only 1.90:! There has been no official confirmation (from studio or creative team or from IMAX) that it will be 1.43:1. Do not use IMDb as a source for aspect ratios, its a terrrible source for aspect ratio details especially when the movie hasnt even released yet.
Yep! We have that pinned on the comments above. Just an accidental cut while we were editing. We didn't use IMDb for Godzilla x Kong, had a different source. I don't generally trust IMDb haha but yeah looking like they either sidestepped doing that or it was just a rumor. We'll add a note
@@FrameVoyager Oh I see. Great video nonetheless I loved it. Where did u hear Joker 2 will release in 1.43:1? This is news to me and I'd love to know where you heard this. If what you say is true, I am so damn excited!
@@kalyanvejalla I'll have dig up my source on that. Half the time they tease it but never release it 😅 but they're likely using the alexa65 which can do that format
@@r.c.c.10 I also just wrote that it looks like a different film because the content of the picture is larger, of course it's the same film. Take a look at comparisons of Imax to normal screens on UA-cam and you'll understand what I mean.
Wonder if AI will one day let any movie be IMAX framed with generative fill. I guess not true max if each shot wasn't framed like that by a director, but still why's stop at IMAX, generative fill every shot in a movie to full 360 VR.
We just had another 70mm film casualty :( #Cosmonova (IMAX Dome) in Stockholm at Museum of Natural History, just went digital. Saw it at their homepage after they renovated the musem. Havent been there yet. Probably a lot cheaper to run, but still a bit sad
@@FrameVoyager Of course, I can't speak for that person's experience but the film was shown at our local true IMAX theater and there's only 1.90:1 aspect ratio for the "IMAX" sequences. It's been over 10 years since the film came out, maybe that person's memory is a bit mixed up? 😆
I was obsessed with IMAX until I realized I never paid attention to the top and bottom of the screen? Ive been enjoying screenx more since it feels more immersive and watching Dune 2 was so awesome
I despise the term LieMAX. If you are going to roll with that then Oppenheimer, is LIEMAX. so is every other film shown as IMAX. Only the documentaries shot in 15/70 and Omnimax films are Real IMAX. Period. IMAX is a brand and comes in many flavors. Screen size relative to the size of teh auditorium is a factor, as is the type of projection. They are all IMAX and its just bad journalism to use a term that simple doesn't apply anymore. Hell by your own metric id a film like oppenheimer is being shown at a large 1:43 theater on 15/70 film but uses an IWERKS 15/70 projector is it IMAX? no it isn't IMAX any more. Its IWERKS? but does that matter? no it doesn't.
Lmfao it doesnt matter. You're just stretching it up so it can be compressed with black bars on the side again. All that matters is the whole movie fit on your screen.
Currently listed on IMDb as well as a few other places. m.imdb.com/title/tt14539740/technical/ IMDb is generally about 90% accurate. But both show it has at least the ability to show in that format.
Why would you put this like tube-cam effect over the footage from these films? This whole video is about displaying films 'how the filmmakers intended' - you think that's what Malick intended with The Tree of Life?🤣
UPDATED VIDEO: ua-cam.com/video/24LrviILgrw/v-deo.html
It's very annoying that they almost never release the larger versions on 4K Blu-ray.
It really is. Though at least for some of them you get the larger picture like with Oppenheimer. But it's nothing compared to the real thing
Because they look terrible on a tiny TV, they are made for huge IMAX Screens
Yeah and you’ll never see a 1.43:1 released on blu-Ray. Maybe Snydercut because the entire thing was shot like that but otherwise not.
And snyder cut was even more square than IMAX at 1.33:1
I'd be ecstatic just to get Dune 1.90:1 home release. They know everyone's TV is basically perfectly sized for it. It's good enough for Nolan. Denis please get your head out of your ass!
VIDEO NOTE: Like an idiot I cut out the "Nope" in the edit for some reason. That was also released in 1.43:1
You've noped out of Nope
@@Bucking_Fastard 😅😅😅
What about the Justice League Snyder Cut? I think it may have just been played in small screenings but man, what a great home theater experience for the format.
@@qqqquannnn it technically was released at 1.33:1 ratio. So actually even more square than IMAX 😅
@@FrameVoyager 😮💨
We need more 4k blurays with the expanded ratio. Not 1.43:1 but 1.78:1 like Nolan does
Totally agree!
True 1.43:1 IMAX film are 16k resolution. That would be a few Terabytes. You would have to put the film on like 10 triple layer Blu-ray disks!
@@AgentJohn5646Folio is working on layered blurays that have more storage and last longer, they haven't released them yet.
I’ve only seen 4 imax 70mm films oppenhiemer, interstellar, tenet, and dune 2. They were all some of the best movie experiences I’ve ever had. I couldn’t recommend 1.43 imax enough
I almost got to see Interstellar in IMAX 70mm in NYC late last year, the showing got cancelled unfortunately.
You really think it's the aspect ratio that did it, and not that the size of the screen is bigger, that the sound is cranked up slightly higher than a normal theatre and you really liked the imagery and story of the movies?
@@gurratell7326 yes
@@gurratell7326when I’m talking about 1.43 Its not just about aspect ratio its when that ratio takes up the whole screen because when you see one of those movies taking up the whole screen you just become completely immersed in the movie especially if you sit closer to the screen and not in the back of the theater.
@@Blahblahblah42069 Out vision is closer to 1.77, so a screen at that ratio that would be even more immersive.
So no that 1.43 craving that everyone has has more to do with marketing than anything else.
Watching Dune Part 2, never seeing a SINGLE black bar scene, and it was all 1.43:1, it was insane.
I mean i didnt see it in imax and it didnt have black bars. I really confused really how you see "more" in imax when everybody says that.
@@aleksijussilainen2638 if it’s on an imax screen you get more height in the shot
@@aleksijussilainen2638that's because when movies are played in standard screen they cover the full picture whether they are filmed with imax cameras or not but you still won't get the full picture because the screen size are smaller compared to imax screen. Also, movies filmed with non imax cameras when they are played in imax theaters they don't cover the full screen
Dune Part Two has black bar scenes. Roughly 40 mins is in 1.43:1
@@ollietaro Idk, there were no letterboxing at my LieMax theater
THE FULL LIST:
NOPE
The Dark Knight (2008)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Interstellar (2014)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) Appears to have been released in some sense in 1.43:1
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Dunkirk (2017)
First Man (2018)
The Lion King (2019)
Tenet (2020)
Dune (2021)
No Time to Die (2021)
Eternals (2021) 1.43:1 aspect ratio (IMAX GT Laser venues only)
Lightyear (2022)
Oppenheimer (2023)
Dune: Part Two (2024)
The ant bully
Happy Feet
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
You're missing a huge thing for this video. Films like Force Awakens only employed 1:43 for one scene around ish 1 minute seemingly for marketing purposes. The rest of the film was shown in a normal aspect ratio. It's rare for a film to actually be shown in 1:43 all the way through
Well of course, there really hasn't been a film that has been 1.43:1 all the way through. But it still counts if it got a release even if that part was shorter. In our other video we mention at the end, we actually show how long each was shown.in 1.43:1
I used to work in the DMR department at IMAX! Nice to hear someone actually talk about it.
Hey that's really cool! If you don't mind me asking, what mastering software did you guys use? Was it commercial/enterprise like Davinci Resolve or Baselight or was it something in-house/proprietary? Were you an engineer or color scientist? Sorry lol just have so many questions!
@@Xplozhun85 the actual remastering software that upscales the images is proprietary but we used both Resolve and Baselight in the process actually. I was a production coordinator.
Cool list! Love that you guys are making more IMAX content lately. One more film (and interesting trivia) to note in the “shot on 1.43 but never released list” is The Prestige
Nolan liked working with IMAX for Batman Begins’ DMR process (whose few minutes were upscaled to 6K and then printed onto 70mm film, rest in 4K) and wanted to try out working with an IMAX camera for TDK
The Prestige turned out to be the testing grounds for it, and they shot the finger cutting scene on IMAX 65mm film, but downscaled it to 35mm just to see how it would intercut with the other filmstock. This was also the first time IMAX film was downscaled to 35mm
This was said by IMAX CQO David Keighley on few interviews.
Nice! I'll have to check that out. IMAX stuff sometimes is hard to parse through 😅
@@FrameVoyager Yup. I usually resort to Wayback Machine and Twitter search for researching for my own videos. You did an excellent job on this though!
Yeah I find around early 2000's era stuff is all over the place. So much of this was all new and that in turn made some information slightly suspect.
IMAX is also releasing a ton of their documentaries on the Apple Vision Pro in 1.43:1. I wonder if some of these narrative films will be remastered with the 1.43:1 sequences restored to their full AR. At the very least, these should be included as special features on the Blu-ray.
Oh that's cool! Waiting for my android version of Apple Vision Pro to come out haha
Watching First Man in IMAX 1.43:1, was amazing. The transition to the big screen, perfectly timed wenn the door opens and the you where able to see the Moon. The whole cinema was quiet, except for my little Wow.
Also seeing Nope, with its transition through the window.
Those where two awesome Cinema Moments.
First Man's use case was so good for that aspect ratio too. Really hold it off until the climax of the film
Truly an incredible sequence in a remarkable movie💯
Fantastic movie. So well made, with so much beauty and sensibility.
One niggle I have is that aspect ratio isn't always inherently related to size. Scope is wider than 1.43:1 and therefore can be projected bigger, same thing with 4:3 or 1.33:1. It's taller but not necessarily bigger.
I love movies shot for 1.43:1. But I also love movies shown in the intended ratio. The ratio the image was composed for. And I therefore love movies in 2.40:1, 2.76:1, 1.90:1, 1.67:1, 1.50:1... Etc etc
So... I just love movies, I guess.. and I spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about their shapes.
Oh, I love movies too in any ratio. IMAX is just a fun one to cover because it seems to get people so riled up haha. I've actually considered maybe doing some aspect ratio series and making lists of films in weird formats.
@@FrameVoyagerPlease do. My favourite is 1.50:1 but I bet there is only a handful of movies with that aspect ratio.
Yeah this hype for IMAX is just weird, 1.43:1 might look better for some movies but definitely not all. But people often fall for he hype that IMAX is supposed to be better because the marketing says so, so therefor 1.43:1 is the only way to go apparently..
I am saving this video to watch later in a VR chat world that has a giant 1.43:1 aspect ratio screen.
hahahaha send me a photo of it on twitter on Instagram 😅
@@FrameVoyager I will absolutely be @ing you on Twitter with a few pictures.
which vrchat world?
@@fizzipop It is a world called a VFI Cinema
Respect for opening this video and immediately seeing the video player was 1.43:1 lmao
🫡🫡🫡 it's the HOLY FORMAT
Damn, never realized it’s iPad screen ratio too. I’m happy now.
😅😅😅 Exactly how our lord and savior Christopher Nolan intended you to see it. On the iPad!
@@FrameVoyagerThanks for letting us know.
@@DurgaPrasad-ks9em Just spreading the word!
@@FrameVoyagerexactly how lisan al gaib would watch a film
Er, not to be pedantic, but the iPad screen is 4:3 AR or 1.33 which is close to the 1.43 which is why it (appears) almost to take up the entire screen.
When they enter the arena in 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire' and the aspect ratio expands to the full frame = chef's kiss
This is such a niche but well done video, with great detail and concise information. Subbed! ❤
I agree with the idea of including the IMAX version on Blu-ray, but I think it's even more important to screen the IMAX version on a regular basis.
The ONLY film actually released in 1.43:1 is Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021).
Zack Snyder's film was released in 1.33:1
@@FrameVoyagerwas there any technical issue that prevent filmmaker to shot a film full in a boxy sequence for imax release-like apart from scenes shot with imax camera, could they use digital to shot in a same aspect ratio? Or does the resolution gap is too big for imax screen? I thought you can screen a boxy film like zsjl on imax theatre and get a full imax experience lol
Lmao you were so sure of yourself
I went to see Dune Part 1, Part 2 and Oppenheimer in 1:43.1 70MM IMAX. What an experience. Watching films in any other way basically pales in comparison. It’s one of those “You have to see it to understand it” kind of experiences
Imax seems like a stupid way to add more cost to the movie going experience just for a few minutes in a particular ratio
It's a little bit more than just the ratio. Larger screen and a 12 channel audio system. Only Dolby has better audio imo.
Lion king I believe was blown up to fit 1:43 1 because I saw it at the massive Lincoln center imax on release and it was pixelated as hell. It looked like one of those David attenbourogh docs where you could see where they where obviously cropping in lol
It was close! But everything I've found says it was 1.66:1 so really close but not all the way there
The question remains, why is it so hard to include one more BD, or use BD100, to include the film in IMAX aspect ratio as a bonus.
Can confirm I saw The Force Awakens in 1.43 IMAX (Christmas 2015 in Toronto)
This vid could not be more my jam, I love us aspect ratio nerds
They could shoot it 1:1 if they wanted, if the director wants it framed in 2.20:1 then that is how it should be projected and showed. Bladerunner is an example of this, they opened the matte for iMax but it was framed for 16:9
You missed Nope for films in 1.43:1 and Attack of the Clones was one of the early IMAX DMR releases but otherwise great video!
Yeah, nope was a casualty of an edit mishap 🥲 it was on my list but got cut out by accident.
Attack of the clones did have that dmr release. I just can't remember if I didn't put it on that list because it wasn't 1.66:1. I could be mistaken tho
@@FrameVoyagerI think you also missed The Hateful Eight
@@checcmac8693 the hateful right is in panavision 70mm, which is a widescreen format.
wasnt Beau is afraid shot for IMAX release?, a24 IMAX movie
Sony Rialto but was distributed at 1.85:1 which probably fit within the other IMAX standard of 1.90:1.
Aspect ratio shouldn’t have anything to do with the size of the screen. If they want the movie to be 1.43:1 then release it in that format on all screens.
1.33 used to be the dominant format before the wider screen formats of 1.66, 1.85 , 2.35 - 2.40 .
To be true the aspect ratio should fit the subject matter of the film.
The stupid trend of constant width wall to wall screens have destroyed the magic of the wide screen where the wide screen ratio makes the screen smaller destroying the reason for the wide screen format in the first place.
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the size of the screen. And shouldn't be what we are talking about.
As a large number of theaters have these constant width wall to wall screens , the most sensible aspect ratio to present is the 1.85.
A couple of big movies used the 2.1 to split the difference and IIRC Oppenheimer provided theaters with dual aspect ratios and instructed to play the version that make the most sense for their auditoriums.
@@Drknnja if they want the movie in 1.43, close the curtains on the sides of the 1.85 screen and show it in 1.43
Bro the fact that spiral and jigsaw uses dmr blow up is insane
Hey! I don't mean this as a mean comment or anything, but there's some weird digital noise in this video, around 15.9kHz. Sounds like it might be in the voice-over audio. Just wanted to let you know!
Hmmm... That's odd. Are you listening with headphones? Might be the TV's in the background. I usually have a filter that I use that kills that but might have missed it on this one. Thanks for the heads up!
Why camera uses 65mm, but the print is 70mm without any soundtracks?
Just because those film stocks were already available?
100%. They needed to use existing gauges so labs could process it. No reason to get Kodak to make a new format that would have been much harder to get processed and handled. This way they could use any lab that can do 65mm and 70mm and many of the same tools used to 70mm. No need for new platters, splicing stations and reels. Although in the end they did come up with their own splicing method to increase durability.
@@VariTimo, labs can easily develop both widths.
So, I guess it was and is about cutting the camera negative.
Recently one Nolan got Kodak to splice b&w to 65mm for just one film, so it’s not impossible…
I’ll never forget seeing Star Trek: Into Darkness on IMAX 70mm film in 3D
I’m pretty sure 3D and 70mm film are mutually exclusive for IMAX
@@MikeTaffet ?? I have two 3D 15/70 theatres in my area, they have two IMAX 70mm projectors next to each other in the booth. In fact one of those theatres is where I saw Oppenheimer, and most recently Tenet/Dune2
Can you please make one more video on iMax movies. The ones that are available to watch in 19:9 ratio. Home viewing realeases in particular
Pretty wack to crop regular footage to 1.43:1 to make an illustration. It really messes up the intention of the composition. Also IMDb tech specs are not a reliable source.
Yeah IMDb is not where I get my sources from. I'll look at it but I don't rely on it solely for information.
I’ve seen force awakens in 70MM at the IMAX headquarters. I know it’s popular to hate on that movie now but I can’t lie. It was pretty sick.
You did skip the most obscure 1.43 release: Ghostbusters (2016). It had, I believe, 1 scene near the end that expanded all the way to 1.43 and 3D frame breaks throughout the rest of the movie.
Huh, in all my research into that, this movie never came up. Could be because it's only listed as having the 3d effect fille the 1.43:1 area. Do you know what scene at the end had that 1.43:1 expansion?
@@FrameVoyager It was the sequence inside the portal, where Erin jumps in to grab Abby. However, while I know for sure that sequence expanded to 1.85:1 in a regular 3D showing, I only vaguely recall the 1.43:1 thing from an interview the director gave, and only ‘cuz he was so giddy about it. But I can’t find that interview anymore for the life of me. And a random Reddit post now says that sequence only went to 1.78:1 and Wikipedia says 1.90:1… so… I guess I partially stand corrected and only the 3D effects went full size? 😅
@@thijmendevalk I think that's what happened 😅 honestly, there are so many productions that like get excited about using IMAX cameras or ratios and then you never hear about it when they release the film.
@@FrameVoyager I saw it in IMAX 1:43 showing of the movie in France. There was actually 1 sequence with the format, but it was not shot that way. There were just effects coming out of the frame, giving you a funny effect in 3D with lasers and ghosts. IMDB is pretty accurate when it comes to aspect ratio and it confirms it was in 1:43 for "frame break".
I know saw The Lion King and Treasure Planet in IMAX as a teenager but I couldn't recall anything particular about either experience for the life of me.
😅😅😅 sounds similar to my experience with it.
@@andersenpeters 🥲
The force awakens running towards the falcon til entering space over jakku was in 1.43 ratio
Yep! It was mostly a marketing gimmick of we're being honest but we still include it 😅
@@FrameVoyagerWasn’t just a marketing gimmick. It was a neat full IMAX sequence.
@@VariTimo for sure, loved the sequence. But just listening to the talk about using IMAX for this film, it sounds like they were forced to use it haha. Which actually makes sense because of the deal Disney had with IMAX.
Where did you get the information about Joker 2 and Mufasa in 1.43?
Some notes:
Prometheus apparently got a cropped 1.66:1 version made for IMAX 70mm prints, so that could be another entry in the "almost" category.
Wonder Woman 1984's IMAX scenes were 1.90:1, not 1.78:1.
Godzilla x Kong is going to be 1.90:1, and not 1.43:1, based on information from IMAX themselves.
We also don't really know for sure yet whether Joker 2 is getting a 1.43:1 IMAX release. It's possible it might just get regular 70mm prints (2.20:1 ratio).
Love learning about things like this. I’ve never had the chance to see TRUE imax but sure hope to some day. I was about to ask if Zack Snyder’s justice league was shot in that aspect ratio but then learned it was actually 1.33:1 😅
Yep! Zach Snyder went farther than IMAX for that one lol. It's truly a crazy experience when you see a film that was designed for it like Dune Part 2 or Oppenheimer
Is there any chance of a followup video explaining more about non-IMAX movies that are shown in "IMAX" and whether it's worth the ticket price to see these upscaled versions? I have an IMAX screen nearby and I do see films on that screen occasionally but I reserve my purchases for films I know were natively shot in that format. Are these conversion jobs just faking it and blowing up the image to look bigger?
what would you consider zsjl?
Wait but if it wasn’t shot in that format, the gate wouldn’t be that open to that aspect ratio. There still might be some top and bottom info there but it would be cropped in because of digital sensor being wide? If that being said they might be losing info on the sides in that tall aspect ratio.
They generally aren't. The ALEXA LF, which was used for Dune part 2, filmed at open gate (basically using the whole sensor) which is already at 3:2 at 4448 x 3096 resolution. Generally most productions actually crop in the top and bottom of the image.
It’s kind of funny how we’re going back to almost Citizen Kane aspect ratio (1.37:1)
Yeah. No aspect ratio is better and we should use the one that fits the best for each film. Square is not old but square is not better as IMAX riders say now. You don't see more with more squared ratios. Of course, if you shoot it square and then you crop it to wide you are losing image, but if you shoot it wide and then crop it to square you are losing too. People don't usually get that.
Please let go of the term liemax. Your precious 1:43.1 is only available like 40 places on this planet. Only 30 of them show commercial movies. "Liemax" (digital, xenon, 2k) is available in 1500+ location. You really think the 1:43.1 generate more revenue than xenon? Yes, IMAX is at fault for not marketing the term properly but with dual laser it's time to let "liemax" as a term go
It's literally just a joke 😅
Fun little video of a question we asked ourselves after watcing Dune Part 2 in IMAX. Just how many films have actually been released in FULL IMAX? Let us know if we missed any!
I remember Star Trek into darkness filled up the entire 1.43 aspect ratio when it was at the universal city walk imax during the khan fight scene when uhura is speaking to the Klingons
I've heard that but I just couldn't find any materials to show that it was actually 1.43.
@@FrameVoyager watching that scene fill up the whole screen like imax shot Nolan films was glorious.
Its so sad how few people got to see the extra 40 percent or so of Dune 2
Probably a huge pet peeve (and maybe not for others) is that no big movie that I know of has been released on Blu-Ray in true 24 fps.
From what I understand it’s technically feasible and with modern monitors/TV screens/home digital projectors it shouldn’t be a problem.
At least PAL productions get an integer frame rate.
why theres so less number of films in actual imax ??🤔
It's not an easy format to commit to. But they have 2 formats and most people will go for the 1.90:1 ratio instead
Wait, what about the Avengers films?
I now know too much of IMAX because of this channel.
The ol' IMAX content well is a spring that just keeps on giving. 🙃
lol so unfair to call old IMAX DMR movies Liemaxes. They still got 15/70mm prints and played in GT venues. 99% of IMAX movies are DMR -- sure they aint as good as IMAX filmed movies but they are still phenomenal on that large GT screen!
Also WW84 never got a 1.78:1 aspect ratio release, it was only 1.90:1 at home release and at all IMAX venues including GT dual laser.
Also, Amazing Spiderman did not have any 1.43:1 scenes in IMAX. I saw in on IMAX film back in the day.
Oh I didn't call those liemaxes 😅 but they didn't go to full 1.43:1. Liemax is also super tongue in cheek and more of just being sarcastic haha.
Also, we didn't say Amazing Spiderman did release any of them, only there had been reports that there were potential scenes they never released.
tornado alley movie: sad noises
I watched this video in an IMAX Dual Laser theater
The Snyder Cut should've gotten an honorable mention
Blade Runner 2049 was amazing in full iMax and missing this list
0:18what film?
Narrative based not documentary based
The Creator (2023)
did you get confirmation on godzilla x kong the new empire for 1.43? Melbourne Australia claims 1.90
Yeah, might need to revise that. They had some materials that said that, but it seems like they are cutting it down.
Thinking about the human eye FOV so I did some quick calculations and it's about 200 horizontal and 120 vertical. This works out to exactly 1:1.66 aspect ratio. That's a common European theatrical aspect ratio.
Interesting!
Yes but there is something weird about perfectly even ratios like 1.66:1, 2.00:1 and square. Also IMAX isn’t about just having the human field of view, the point is to have extra stuff for the periphery.
You forgot Nope also has an 1.43 release
Got accidentally cut out during the edit. My bad!
I saw Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire in BFI IMAX 3D, but the movie is at 2.35:1 and 1.90:1. Instead of 2.35:1 and 1.43:1. Which is very weird. I thought they’re going to present some scenes in 1.43:1.
Either just a rumor that was wrong or they just cut it. The format has a weird history of people saying it "would be" and then never materializing. Joker 2 though has already announced 70mm showings
i'm cryyyyyyying the same theater that played my oppenheimer 15/70mm 1.43:1 showing showed dune 2 on 1.90:1
oooooofs,
Hoping to make it in Hollywood as Cinema Director. Love to make something with IMAX 70MM film
I can't even imagine trying to use that behemoth of a camera
Thats why Hoytema is there to help you@@FrameVoyager
Did you miss NOPE?
You know what, I think I accidentally cut it out while editing. Whoops haha. Added a video note in the comments. Thanks for catching that!
We in India don't really have the 1.43:1 IMAX screens. Hence, we have to settle for LieMAX.😢
Godzilla x Kong will only be for 45 minutes in 1.90
I thought Fantasia was 1.43?
Fantasia was 1.37:1 😅
Thumbnail is a bit misleading btw
GxK is runtime 1hr 55mins and Gojira minus one was runtime 2hrs 5mins in IMAX AMC
You forgot planet of the apes is also being shown in imax this year
But not in 1.43:1 ratio. It's only been reported at IMAX:s secondary 1.90:1 ratio
@@FrameVoyager ohhhh ok that's funny how they advertise it is gonna be imax but not true imax 😂
@@scott9235 Well technically it is still "true" IMAX. It's an expanded ratio they say you can only see in IMAX theaters. So you still do get more out of it, it's just not their like premiere version. Which honestly, most films rarely even release in that format.
@@FrameVoyager oh wow ok thanks for the info that's good to know
So basically its just TV 4:3 format on steroids overhype???
IMAX theaters have different geometry. The point of IMAX is extra footage for the peripheral vision. All the important part of the image is the center. The framing is very different. The only thing IMAX 1.43:1 and 4:3 have in common is the screen shape. That’s why Nolan’s films are 16:9 on the Blu ray.
This aspect ratio sucks😢 It just buggs me, because we are regressing
Since most theaters are 1.85 / 2.39 capable, these are the best formats for mass distribution. However every auditorium has a dominant format that provides the best experience.
Unfortunately the constant width wall to wall cinema is better suited for the 1.85 ratio. The public became fooled by the megaplex adverts of wall to wall screens, which destroyed the visual impact of the wide screen formats in those auditoriums.
Auditoriums designed to play 2.39 are the best to view the wide screen ratio. Unfortunately the constant width screens in many multiplexes damage or completely ruin the viewing experience.
Any chance someone shoots in 1:1 in future? :D
Probably at this point haha. I know the lighthouse was really close at 1.19:1
Pretty sure Force Awakens was full IMAX from its release date
Are there any movies that used 1.43:1 for the entire film? Most just use it for certain shots.
avengers endgame and infinity war although i have the open matte version of endgame
I think Zack Snyder’s Justice League had a limited release in Imax Theaters with it’s 1.43:1 ratio.
I've looked into it, Zack Snyder even has an interview saying he shot 1.43:1 scenes but the process to get there sounds more like it ended up at 1.33:1 and they cropped the edges in. And while I've seen photos of this being shown in IMAX theaters, it's unclear if it's 1.43:1 or just 1.33:1 or maybe a slight zoom in. If someone can find me any technical specs that show that it was I'll be sure to add it to the pinned comments!
I've just never seen anything definitive about it and most technical details or articles about the IMAX release don't say. 😅
@@FrameVoyager ohhh, maybe because they shoot it in open matte Super 35mm not in IMAX camera that's why it's 1.33:1.
@@jerichojeriel4983 haha probably! The Justice League one has always been so confusing 😅
Here before everyone else
Yeah... you really gotta get here before all the bandwagon viewers do 👀
Nope was 1:43.1 and godzilla full ratio seemed to have been reduced after checking latest wiki update but then again it's wiki so I can't really trust that
Yeah nopes exclusion was an editing hiccup. Was in there but accidentally cut it out lol
But yeah, information on this is all pretty suspect anyways 😅
If is shot by IMAX cameras what diference it makes the format really dont understand. This big formats are as powerful as every big one,
You missed Nope! That was shot in IMAX film and released only digitally to IMAX in 1.43:1. I saw it in 1.43:1 in dual laser IMAX and it was fantastic!
Also Godzilla v Kong is not going to be 1.43:1 in IMAX, only 1.90:! There has been no official confirmation (from studio or creative team or from IMAX) that it will be 1.43:1. Do not use IMDb as a source for aspect ratios, its a terrrible source for aspect ratio details especially when the movie hasnt even released yet.
Yep! We have that pinned on the comments above. Just an accidental cut while we were editing.
We didn't use IMDb for Godzilla x Kong, had a different source. I don't generally trust IMDb haha
but yeah looking like they either sidestepped doing that or it was just a rumor. We'll add a note
@@FrameVoyager Oh I see. Great video nonetheless I loved it. Where did u hear Joker 2 will release in 1.43:1? This is news to me and I'd love to know where you heard this. If what you say is true, I am so damn excited!
@@kalyanvejalla I'll have dig up my source on that. Half the time they tease it but never release it 😅 but they're likely using the alexa65 which can do that format
I watched Dune in Imax and iSense, in Imax it looks like another movie.
I did watch it too and it was exactly the same movie.
@@r.c.c.10 I also just wrote that it looks like a different film because the content of the picture is larger, of course it's the same film. Take a look at comparisons of Imax to normal screens on UA-cam and you'll understand what I mean.
ABANDONED: Pixels
😅😅😅 For real sometimes though
Think you forgot zack Snyder's justice league
1.33:1 release
You forgot nope (2022)
IMAx is cool and all but there's one problem, there's no reclining seats!!!
Wonder if AI will one day let any movie be IMAX framed with generative fill. I guess not true max if each shot wasn't framed like that by a director, but still why's stop at IMAX, generative fill every shot in a movie to full 360 VR.
Honestly, probably a thing that will happen at some point. AI is going to change a lot of stuff good and bad
It is crazy.. When we had 4:3 CRT TVs people wanted widescreen..
Now we have widescreen TV, people want 4:3 or Imax.. WTF
What countries have a cinemas with 1.43:1 screen ?
I know mine doesn’t
We just had another 70mm film casualty :( #Cosmonova (IMAX Dome) in Stockholm at Museum of Natural History, just went digital. Saw it at their homepage after they renovated the musem. Havent been there yet. Probably a lot cheaper to run, but still a bit sad
I saw OBLIVION at a 70mm IMAX theater and the expanded footage was shown at 1.90:1, no 1.43:1.
That's what I thought. I had someone in the comments say they saw the 1.43:1 showing but it's hard to tell if any of that is accurate.
@@FrameVoyager Of course, I can't speak for that person's experience but the film was shown at our local true IMAX theater and there's only 1.90:1 aspect ratio for the "IMAX" sequences. It's been over 10 years since the film came out, maybe that person's memory is a bit mixed up? 😆
I saw it too. But it’s hard to remember, it did look incredible though since it was capture at 4K with an 8K diagonal bayer sensor , yay Sony
I was obsessed with IMAX until I realized I never paid attention to the top and bottom of the screen? Ive been enjoying screenx more since it feels more immersive and watching Dune 2 was so awesome
I would say it's a different kind of immersion. ScreenX is pretty cool though, just not as prevalent
I thought justice league is one of em
I despise the term LieMAX. If you are going to roll with that then Oppenheimer, is LIEMAX. so is every other film shown as IMAX. Only the documentaries shot in 15/70 and Omnimax films are Real IMAX. Period. IMAX is a brand and comes in many flavors. Screen size relative to the size of teh auditorium is a factor, as is the type of projection. They are all IMAX and its just bad journalism to use a term that simple doesn't apply anymore. Hell by your own metric id a film like oppenheimer is being shown at a large 1:43 theater on 15/70 film but uses an IWERKS 15/70 projector is it IMAX? no it isn't IMAX any more. Its IWERKS? but does that matter? no it doesn't.
The Liemax line was a joke 😂
Lmfao it doesnt matter. You're just stretching it up so it can be compressed with black bars on the side again.
All that matters is the whole movie fit on your screen.
Godzilla is not confirmed for 1.43. Probably 1.9.
Joker is also not confirmed for 1.43
Currently listed on IMDb as well as a few other places. m.imdb.com/title/tt14539740/technical/
IMDb is generally about 90% accurate. But both show it has at least the ability to show in that format.
Why would you put this like tube-cam effect over the footage from these films? This whole video is about displaying films 'how the filmmakers intended' - you think that's what Malick intended with The Tree of Life?🤣