Dear Hollywood, You're Doing IMAX Wrong!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Seriously, it's a problem...
In this educational video essay, we delve into the captivating world of IMAX and how Hollywood filmmakers can learn from Christopher Nolan's masterful use of the format. Join us as we explore the sheer brilliance of Nolan's IMAX cinematography, which has mesmerized audiences worldwide, and contrast it with the missed opportunities in Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning.
We'll also be doing a deep dive into different aspect ratios regardless of what theater you're seeing movies in, and how it can dramatically effect the audiences emotions and effectiveness of your storytelling.
Discover the key elements that make IMAX work and how to avoid pitfalls.
Learn valuable lessons for filmmakers to elevate their craft and storytelling.
Hit the "Subscribe" button and turn on notifications to stay updated with more insightful film analyses!
#IMAX #ChristopherNolan #FilmAnalysis #MissionImpossible #Cinema #theproblemwithimax #theimaxproblem #filmschool #missionimpossibledeadreckoningpartone #nofilmschool - Фільми й анімація
What's your favorite Aspect Ratio??? Which film uses it the best???
Best aspect ratio is 25:4, extra stretched (just like your mom lol gottem)
Depends on the movie (and franchise).
Being an avid Star Wars fan, I'll always go with 2.39:1 as the norm, and so it really kind of bugs me that Star Wars Rebels had to be 16:9 for budgetary reasons when Clone Wars got to be the same as the movies, and they've been able to continue that with Bad Batch. It makes me wonder if there's a way to crop Rebels down, but there are also just some shots that have to be 16:9 unless you could digitally add to the left and right of the image. You also kind of have that for Genndy's Clone Wars, too, being 16:9, but that was also in the 4:3 standard days, so it was as widescreen as you really should be going in 2003-2005 on television. And obviously I'm not going to bemoan Ewoks and Droids material for being 4:3, they're literally made for TV in 1984-1986, nor any online content for kids being in 16:9, but Star Wars just feels right (or at least feels more correct) when it's in 2.39:1.
And then there's 2002's Spider-Man, which looks great as a 1.85:1 movie, and yet all the sequels and every other Spider-Man movie is in 2.39:1. They wanted Spider-Man to be able to be seen as he swung through New York without being cropped in and out, or constantly moving the camera up and down, saving the expensive Spyder-Cam shots for specific moments. Why that didn't stick for the rest of Raimi's movies anyway, I don't know, because even Spider-Man 2 was shot that way, even the effects were rendered out to the edge, but everything was just cropped in to 2.39:1. My only guess is that when you crop in, it gives you a bit of wiggle room as to where to crop in, but still, just kind of odd.
Going back even further, Jurassic Park also did 1.85:1 for the Dinosaurs to be large and for them and humans to fit on screen, and I've noticed that every Jurassic Park movie has done the same except for Fallen Kingdom, so that's weird (and just another reason as to why it sucks). Coming back to the more recent years, Avengers and Ant-Man are the only similarly sized movies in a whole universe full of 2.39:1, and yet it works, particularly for Ant-Man when he shrinks, and that was specifically why they went that aspect ratio, and yet for the sequels, no. It's kind of weird that more Superhero movies aren't in a fuller format just for the action sequences. Part of why these altering aspect ratios in franchises bug me is more so because of compilations used in special features, and there's always that one or two that stand out when everything is nice and consistent. If Marvel had been more daring to be a little less consistent, it wouldn't bug me, at that point I say just crop everything accordingly so that it makes for easier viewing in the special features, but I still wouldn't wish for the actual movies to change aspect ratios if they worked.
I've also always had a bit of a soft spot for Wizard of Oz because it's my dad's favorite movie, and that's just straight up 4:3. He doesn't even know why it's his favorite movie because for years he only ever saw it in black and white, never even knew it went from sepia to color, our best guess is that he just likes Scarecrow, but it is also just a magical movie. 4:3 can work very well, even if it's just because of a limitation of the times. When it's what you have, it's what you know, it's what you use, you can get everything in frame you want and have it look good, too.
And that really extends to all movies, just make them what they need to be in order to be good, not everything has to be 2.39:1 just because that's the cinematic norm. For many years it was 4:3 (or probably even closer to 1:1 in some cases) because that was just the natural state of film and how camera's captured the image, and similarly with color versus black and white, (besides with black and white you can just tint the whole scene a different color to better portray a mood, they were actually quite clever at times back in the day, we just don't think about it). There's so many possibilities today, and I'm sure the more independent movies are daring to be more bold playing with everything imaginable, and maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't. Then there's people like Zack Snyder shooting Justice League that way, and there are times it really works, and other times it makes you wonder why it is the way it is. And I'm not going to say that this movie is great (because it's not), but More American Graffiti specifically plays with aspect ratios and other ways of dividing up the screen depending on the timeframe, setting, and character being followed. I didn't mind it, but it was apparently not liked in addition to all the other things people did not like about the movie. It was a decision, but hey, it made it clear which narrative you were following, so it made sense for what they did, and I appreciate that.
So yeah, there's my big rambly comment answering what should have been a very straightforward answer.
For the real answer though, when I take photos of things, I prefer 16:9 over a full 4:3 frame, I don't know why. And I have absolutely no clue what the aspect ratio for this would be, but when I was in a photography class, when we were working with film, I'd develop my images with a 1 inch border, so I guess like 9:6.5, it was definitely a peculiar ratio, but it was distinct and made the prints mine. I guess my thinking was that by having the adjustable bars holding down the print paper at the very edge creating that 1 inch border, my image would always be centered in the paper than be all over the place like everyone else's, and I wouldn't have to worry about trimming, which I rarely had to do. It was also similar to the 16:9 images I'd take with my digital camera, but even wider. (hashtag)art amiright? XD
16:9, except for Imax
1.85:1, Spielberg chose it for _Jurassic Park_ believing that the Dinosaurs demanded to be seen with as much screen real estate as possible (this was seven years before IMAX became a movie format with _Fantasia 2000_ (2000)).
I think wide ratios (like 2.39:1) have become overused, it’s a pet peeve of mine how almost all Scope movies these days are shot spherically (instead of anamorphically). If you want Scope, shoot Panavision.
4 by 3 I watch alot of media on my ipad pro and it fits perfect
Nolan is for sure the best IMAX filmmaker today. When I first saw the 4K Bluray of The Dark Knight, which features the IMAX scenes in all their crisp and glorious quality, I was blown away and realized that this is the only true way to watch an action film. I never want to watch the cropped version on streaming ever again.
Its wild because hbo max has the true ratio for snyder stuff but none of the Nolan films
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The Snyder films are pretty great too, but I think Batman v Superman should have cropped instead of used black bars on the side. ZSJL is great though because it's constant ratio throughout the whole film.
But 75 minutes of IMAX for biopic by Nolan isn't justifying except the bombing, imagining, terrifying, landscape, horrifying moments. All other scenes just fills the space with room, ceiling, etc...
@@Pocketkid2Snyder??? His movies are not film in IMAX plus it just just distorted as hell.
@@curryis828yes but his movies were shot in IMAX ratio
This is so interesting! Wasn’t Tom Cruise super mad bc Oppenheimer was cutting the MIP 7 IMAX run short? And it didn’t even need it?!
MIP7 can have all those LIEMAX theaters. I rather watch Oppenheimer in a real IMAX theater.
@@michaelmacias8Oppie should have all even liemax, how many other people dont have access to real imax fool
At least oppie is 1.9 and useful for laser and xenon
Mi7 is so useless on Imax
The funny thing is the Oppenheimer release date was set first, and everyone knows Nolan does IMAX. But they still decided to schedule MI7 for the week right before it. MI7 should have just pushed out and released end of August or something.
@@BrentKilboyAgreed! I don’t get why they didn’t release MIP a week or 2 earlier. There was hardly anything in IMAX before it. Maybe Dial of Destiny but that’s all I can think of
@@BrentKilboy The common concensus is August/September is dry season for action movies
Paramount execs thought it would be too expensive to move schedule
When Dead Reckoning tickets went on sale, I immediately went for IMAX cause the marketing made it seem like they had sequences shot in that format, I was a bit disappointed when there were none but it was still an absolutely incredible film.
Totally agree. Just wish o saw it in a Dolby theater instead. Better sound and projector and wouldn't have missed out on any format changes
A large factor as to why nolan is doing IMAX right is his DP for every single movie since interstellar, Hoyte. He has essentially pioneered the use of IMAX cameras with custom lenses to capture intimate close ups like the ones we see in Oppenheimer. But it’s something he’s been doing since interstellar.
His dp is amazing. Really excellent at grandiose shots while still maintaining intimacy and character
I just think it’s cool he’s from the Netherlands. 🤭
Actually hes been doing this since the dark knight, around 20 minutes of runtime for that movie is shot in 70mm imax
@@yeetbro3659 not 70, 70 was especially made for Oppenheimer, it’s a new standard.
@@Iosaiv Nope, look it up yourself, you'll find 70mm cuts of TDK and TDKR
wow..not just telling difference between normal and IMAX ratio..also explaining the impact on story telling..explained in the easiest way. very underrated channel.
thanks for the great effort to make the video❤
Something you don’t mention, the reasoning behind the creation of the 1.78:1 (16x9) ratio was that it gives the exact same amount of screen real estate to 1.33:1 (4x3) and 2.35:1 (Scope).
You mean that it can be cropped to that?
@@Iosaiv No, I mean that if you played a video of either image size on a 16x9 TV, they would each fill the exact same amount of screen space.
@@SomeHarbourBastard ok, thx!
That's why some people opt for 2:1 screens in their home cinema as it is more balanced between 16:9 and 2.35:1.
There is still the misconception going around that Zack Snyder's Justice League is an IMAX film because of the aspect ratio. This is not true. No IMAX cameras or film was used. They used traditional 35mm film camera, but with a more traditional aspect ratio of 1.33:1 on the negative with no anamorphic lenses. Therefore, the image you see on the 4K Bluray is the original 1.33:1 image on the camera negatives, without any stretching or cropping of any kind. It is not the same as 1.43:1 IMAX film (the aspect ratio is slightly different and the actual quality is vastly different).
It is however a very clean looking film for 35mm. I think the DP overexposed the film to create a cleaner grain structure more reminiscent of IMAX.
I feel like you should have really mentioned James Gunn as an important figure here. The 3 guardians of the Galaxy movies use aspect ratio perfectly. To the point where even volume 3 uses 1.9 throughout for the IMAX version and the scope version is actually switching between the two with each shot clearly being framed for whatever aspect ratio is used.
Edit: the use of switching aspect ratios actually started with James Gunn's original guardians of the Galaxy film and it took 2 years for the next mcu imax film to be made with civil war.
You talking about mcu though
@@boboboy8189 yes I am! But I think the fact that he brought this onto this popular franchise aswell as doing something quite revolutionary with it AGAIN on his last MCU outing really deserves a mention.
There’s some big details missing here. Firstly 4:3 started as the academy ratio, and was the standard for old Hollywood up until the fifties so it’s not just a tv ratio, and generally when movies use 4:3 it’s harkening back to the earliest eras of filming (silent films being around 1:1 until sound.
Second the reason Nolan opts to use 1:90 for home release is that the expanded information for full iMax is purposefully negative space, because the screen is so large, and you are so close to it, the top and bottom of the image will not be visible without craning your head up or down. (The idea behind this is that it fills up your peripheral vision, thud immersing you)
This means the compositions have to account for this. The DP for the dark knight, noted this, saying that in imax you can’t get a ‘true close up’ because the character must be framed toward the middle of the shot.
You can see this with the release of the synder cut, there is a ton of dead space, and negative space in the movie, because the top and bottom of the frame are meant to be expendable,
So it comes down to an artistic decision on whether the filmmakers want this stylistic choice to be in every released version or only the version that makes the most use of it.
Also 2:35 films playing on a full imax screen are still incredible, such as ‘the batman’ or rouge one (both lensed by Grieg Fraser) it all comes down to how films are shot. Some imax films, like Shang chi and the legend of the ten rings, (all of it is 1:90) can look really bland, due to not using the negative space well, and the shots feeling perpetually wide, and never ‘close enough’ because of the expanded ratio.
One of the greatest tragedies of home video has been the release of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and Dune Part One (2021) on 4K Bluray without the expanded aspect ratio for IMAX scenes.
Completely baffling decision from the people in charge. It's like they want to hurt their own sales of an already niche product.
It do be like that
@@rockyroad7247 Supposedly in the case of hunger games and mission impossible it was a choice by the director but I think that’s stupid to allow the director to make that choice.
"I recognize that the [director] has made a decision but given that its a stupid-a** decision ive elected to ignore it"
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I can't tell you how much I would like to go into the home media department of the studios and make it clear to them how we the consumers feel about their release decisions
Dune was best IMAX experience I have had. cannot wait for Part Two.
Unfortunately, the aspect ratio is not there on the Blu-ray, even in 4K.
Oppenheimer does this perfectly! It also utilizes B&W vs. color to switch the feeling of the film! 10/10 would recommend. I do wish Nolan took the sex scene out so that it could be rated PG-13 and just so more people could see the film because it really is a masterpiece.
I don't think kids and young teenagers would like film.
Actually, the B&W and color is used to switch the point of view: B&W for Strauss and color for Oppenheimer
Despite what people think, a PG13 rating actually limits your target audience dramatically.
You literally have to cater more to kids, who have a different wavelength to adults.
The kind of themes and lessons in a PG13 are not engaging for adults.
You can try to make a film that's engaging for adults but suitable for children, however this is hard and a lot of the time it's pointless, because either you have to water it down for kids or you risk kids not being interested in your film anyway.
This is statistically false
Today tik tok generation no longer can watch drama without any action, you want them to make a loud noise in theaters???
Also the movies like The Dark Knight, Dunkirk, Interstellar, Tenet etc uses 16:9 (1.78:1) for the IMAX shots and not 1.9:1. A movie that made real good utilisation of the 1.9 aspect ratio is Top Gun Maverick
Not true, the IMAX print versions are in (1.43:1), the blue rays are in 1:78:1.
@@InsightfulUndercurrents congratulations on misunderstanding my point
With Maverick, you could lop off the top and bottom with electronic masking and blanking, as I did on my front projection scope screen system, and you missed NOTHING. The last Bond film, Maverick, and MI Fallout's IMAX shots were composed for a center image extraction and protected for a scope ratio. The top and bottom of the IMAX frame were superfluous. IMAX is mostly a gimmick to raise ticket prices.
What people don’t recognize is that dead reckoning was indeed shot with imax cameras with the intention for the aspect ratio to expand. But I’m assuming that was a last minute change due to Tom cruise having his window the format reduced due to Oppenheimer.
The official statement is that the sequences werent long enough to justify cutting to them, but that just makes me wonder why they filmed only partially with those cameras. From the moment cruise gets on a dirtbike to the final shot on the train, we should be in imax or at least the imax ratio faked on other cameras
That’s wrong. They never used IMAX cameras, only Sony Venice and Z Cam for action sequence. There are IMAX cameras and aproved cameras by IMAX. Openheimer is shot with IMAX cameras hence the full screen appearance. When you don’t shot with IMAX cameras you have those black bars, at least that’s how I differentiate between what sequence is filmed with IMAX camera and what is filmed with aprovved IMAX camera (which can be other brands).
Hopefully, they re-release at some point with the IMAX ratio re added like the way they did with Iron Man 2018 IMAX re-release with 1.90:1 aspect ratio.
Fingers crossed
@@adrianstanciunot true, Dune part 1 and Eternals has some (1.43:1) shots and both were filmed using digital cameras and shown in IMAX Laser.
Nicole Kidman seeing MI7 at the start was a nice one
Nolan goes for 1:78:1 for Blu-Ray releases. 1:90:1 doesn't fill an entire home screen, but 1:78:1 does. Disney will never seem to understand this, but Nolan does. Mcquarrie also doesn't seem to get this either sadly. The only other movie that seems to take advantage of the 1:78:1 to actually fill out the entire screen besides Nolan movies, is Star Trek into Darkness.
Add Avatar, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire IMAX edition, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Big Screen Edition), First Man and Nope to your list.
@@utthapa Well avatar isn't shot in IMAX and the sequel is also not shot in true IMAX format. Wasn't aware of Transformers, but I'm delighted to hear First Man is in that full ratio. I actually watched Nope on 4K Blu-Ray but I must've been so swept up in the film that I didn't even realize it was full 1:78:1 IMAX so that's awesome!
I remember when I was a kid and we got our first DVD player and it baffled me that those black bars where there when I was so used to the VHS being full screen. Obviously I don't care anymore, but it shows how aspect ratio can change the enjoyment of a movie for some people.
Well even just the terms they used "Full Screen" vs "Wide Screen". I was convinced that "Full Screen" meant you got the full picture and widescreen was unnaturally stretched for the longest time
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialFull screen should have been called Cropped Screen. Whoever coined it Full Screen either had no clue what they were talking about or wanted to mislead the public.
. Full Screen is not lying. The image does fill your screen. I agree that widescreen always looked deceptive, like they were cutting into the filmed space.
@@davidjames579 The description should be of the source, not the medium. In other words, full-screen is related to the television screen when it should be the actual image source. Sure the television is displaying a full screen but is the image source full or cropped?
@@frankvee Yeah but that was the selling point, the image covers the whole screen. Full Screen kept going with kids films offering both that and Widescreen editions long after most films were released in WS only. Apparently because kids were put off by the black bars or could not immerse into the fantasy, thought they were getting less image.
Wowww you mentioned Catching Fire transition ✨️
That transition was so perfect and so smart. Make you more immersed to the intensity of the scene.
Great video. Dune impressed me too with its exterior shots on Arrakis being IMAX formatted. Seen MI7 in my IMAX theatre and noticed that the aspect was constant. Very odd considering the use of it in Maverick just last year too
I was also disappointed that they didn't shoot some of the action sequences like some of the sequences from the previous film. However, I felt like the action sequences didn't necessarily land well because of the writing. Fallout had such great writing that the urgency, suspense, requirement and the danger was so well written that those action sequences made sense. They pay off was fantastic! I felt like Dead Reckoning's writing didn't do enough justice to create a sense of danger, urgency and threat to demand some of the action sequences they had. If you want to advertise IMAX we want less of those bars on the top and bottom as you mentioned in the video as well.
Hard agree. I’m a long-time fan of this series and I thought dead reckoning was a huge step back in terms of quality and writing. Not that I’m expecting a godfather level script or anything lol. But idk what this one’s trying to do at all. I was riding the line between caring about what happened next throughout most of the film until a certain plot point happens a little under midway through. Lost complete investment after that, so the train sequence did very little for me. Especially compared to the helicopter sequence from fallout. I hope things will get explained/fixed in part 2 but I don’t really know anymore
They have 4 years to wrote great script but instead we got good enough script. This remind me with the dark night rises where the movie not as good as previous movies but unlike dead reckoning, TDK Rises has an excuse such as heath ledger died and David s goyer no longer involved with the script so script got rewrote. Meanwhile dead reckoning has none of those issues
Even expert filmmakers have been fucking it up recently though. Both tenet and Dune had great moments of imax, but they also had moments where they'd use the imax aspect ratio for one shot and then go back to cinemascope.
It's due to the camera noise. IMAX film cameras sound like a helicopter when they're running and you cannot record on-set dialogue with them, so what happens is the movie will cut to a scene where no actors are talking, then back to a one where they are (recorded with quitter 65mm or 35mm cameras). Nolan and his DP Hoyte van Hoytema are trying to develop quiet IMAX film cameras for their next film but who knows if it'll ever work out. For now they have the soundproof blimps, which Nolan and Hoytema also developed, that fit over the cameras but they can only use them on large sets and where the camera is mounted - it cannot be used handheld etc
There’s a difference between Film for IMAX and Filmed in IMAX.
True IMAX is 15perf 70mm. IMAX is more than just aspect ratio. But the true IMAX aspect ratio is 1.43 : 1.
Regarding the mission impossible movies. The last two movies in this franchise. Fallout and Dead Reckoning P1 we’re not shot in IMAX. Having said that Fallout was shot with better cameras than DR was. Therefore Fallout has a better resolution. The only Mission Impossible film that was shot with true IMAX cameras was Ghost Protocol.
Real IMAX cameras are noisy so filming a talking scene can be challenging. So a film like The Dark Knight will have a change in aspect ratio because it wasn’t a shot with IMAX. So there’s a reason for the aspect ratio change. But a movie like let’s say Antman Quantumania was partially shot with “digital imax” but they could’ve easily shot it all with digital imax. There’s no reason for a movie like that to have a change of aspect ratios.
Cameras don't actually determine the aspect ratio. Some movies like The Tree of Life, Lucy, and The Last Jedi had scenes that were shot on IMAX 70mm but were never presented in 1.43:1.
Also, I wouldn't say that Dead Reckoning used inferior cameras compared to Fallout, it was shot with the same camera (Sony Venice) that was used to shoot Top Gun: Maverick, which had a lot of amazing 1.90:1 IMAX sequences. Having a different director and cinematographer, it's gonna look very different from Maverick despite both being big budget Cruise action flicks.
And the 'square' IMAX aspect ratio only really works when the SCREEN is also proper IMAX SIZE, and fills your entire field of view! The trouble is most 'Imax' screens are just regular cinemas that have been converted to move the seats closer to the screen, so it doesn't actually fill your view, and just ends up looking like a large 4:3 TV set...
So I prefer 2.35:1 unless the screen is actually big enough so that the effective aspect ratio doesn't matter because you can't see the edges anyway! ;)
I’m saying the cliff stunt would look better if they left the ramp in and said it was some leftover film or test set in the plot rather than cgi it
I think 4:3 aspect ratio should come back. It's the closest to that of human vision and is so much more immersive; it's why 70mm IMAX is so immersive. It puts everything you need to see right in sight and makes subtle details harder to miss. But that fell out of style because some people feel it's out of date because of old analog television, which conversely appeals to me "because nostalgia" and that's all I had until I was 16 years old. When they release Oppenheimer (which I had the privilege of seeing in true IMAX 70mm film) on Blu-ray and streaming, I hope they include the option of watching it in open matte. I'd rather have the black bars on the side and see the picture as it was intended instead of having it cropped for fullscreen.
Very well explained, something I hadn't given much thought to in the past.
One use of aspect ratio that I thought was really clever and appropriate was in Oz the Great and Powerful, where they started out in 4:3 with sepia tone B&W, and then when they wind up "over the rainbow" the film goes to color but also widescreen. It's a great homage to the same color transition in the original film, but also updating the ratio to welcome us to a "wider" world.
Ooh great example. And if I remember correctly we even see objects start to fly out of and in front of the black bars. Its a really cool meta level of storytelling
This was phenomenal and incredibly interesting to watch and listen to. Thank you for this. I’m clueless when it comes to this stuff, so I’m curious to hear what The Batman was shot in? That seemed like a very immersive experience to me.
A) Thank you so much! This more informative style video is new to me so it's really encouraging to know it connected with people. And kind words like this never fail to make my day :)
B) It was shot in 2.39:1 from what I've read (black bars throughout the whole film) but I totally agree it's incredibly immersive. Aspect ratio is only one part of the filmmaking vocabulary, and in the case of The Batman, the cinematography, color palette, Score, editing, and overall VIIIIIIIBES really play a part in making it feel like it does. It's kind of like a reverse Wes Anderson movie in terms of tone, but the same level of capturing a specific creative vision and creating a world for the audience to get, as you said, IMMERSED in.
C) Thanks again for being so kind!
Scope in modern cinemas is 2.39:1 and Flat in cinemas is 1.85:1 rather than 16x9 (1.78:1)
Just a small difference but worth mentioning
The MI7 criticism only makes sense when the content is being viewed in an actual IMAX auditorium with expanded height. Most cinema screens are 2.35:1 widescreen, so a taller 1.9:1 aspect ratio would actually result in content being "pillarboxed" on the left and right, or worse, "windowboxed" (pilarboxed and letterboxed simultaneously, resulting in a far smaller image) during 2.35 widescreen scenes if the content isn't 1.9:1 throughout. Every once in a while an odd duck slips through the cracks - like Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 - that alternates aspect ratios in non-IMAX theatres, but for the most part the aspect ratio of the film should conform to 2.35 format for scope theatres and 1.9:1 for IMAX or home release.
I personally love the nearly 1:1 ratio, when used to a very immersive effect - in “Ida” , “First Reformed”, “Mid 90’s” , “Vox Lux” or “A Ghost Story”.
And i think some directors can very skilfully play with changing the aspect ratio during the movie, as a narrative tool, most notably in Xavier Dolans’ “Mommy” and Trey Edward Shultz’ “Waves”. On the other hand, it can look laughably bad and silly, like in “Lucy In The Sky”.
They shot action scenes for IMAX. Then IMAX took their screens away - said they’d only have them for one week. So they ditched the IMAX version. Paramount should’ve scheduled MI a month earlier to give it the screens it needed to showcase two really cool action scenes.
Same with 3D. Brazilian poster says in 3D and then they pulled that option without any mention. Fallout was in 3D so it seemed strange to have that omission.
IMAX didn't take their screens away. Oppenheimer had set their release date well in advance. It was Paramount who screwed up by scheduling MI7 for when it did. IMAX, in fact, tried to get Paramount to move MI7 to after Oppenheimer, as they foresaw this scenario happening. Paramount refused.
@@BlueRagtop After all the time Paramount has had to release MI7 and its many cancelled dates, this is some cack handedness by them. And they overruled Cruise, after the guy delivered them their highest grossing movie of last year! Heads will roll at the studio.
YES! Thank You! I had the SAME feeling when I left IMAX. I told my wife immediately - great movie but I feel sad about no IMAX aspect ratio scenes 😥
This happens a lot in my country for other movies, not only Dead Reckoning. So yeah because of that, I rarely go to the IMAX theater nowadays
Saw 💀 reckoning in Dolby and it was good. Despite some audio hiccups the picture quality was great and the seats vibrated
Dead Reckoning, as it stands, does not need the IMAX ratio. No action sequence is long enough to justify one. The only big stunt in that movie is a motorcycle cliff jump. That’s not nearly as long as the HALO skydive or the helicopter chase in Fallout. I also want to point out that Oppenheimer also didn’t really need it either. There’s too many aspect ratio changes that are completely unnecessary. The bomb is the only spectacle, and honestly, if your theater is loud enough you don’t need the extra ratio.
Loud and what i heard are two different things, our imax theater must have a messed up audio setup because the amount of ear piercing highs when it wasn’t warranted was insane. They play it so loud that the sound equipment rattles and it takes away from the audio
Nice video but I can’t believe you didn’t squeeze a reference to Galaxy Quest in there which used Aspect Ratio the best.
Looks like you dont know IMAX. MI7 was originally planned to be "filmed for IMAX" and have expanded aspect ratio. All the earlier marketing had the "filmed for IMAX" branding. However, after a few months, they decided to scrap any expanded aspect ratio and even the trailers and any promotional material came after this decision replaced the "filmed for IMAX" branding with "Experience it in IMAX" branding which usually does not entail any expanded aspect ratio. Hence, the audience was not deceived and complaining that the movie was not great in IMAX despite being filmed "for IMAX" just does not make any sense
The Expanse was left out of this... but it's a great example of using mixed aspect ratios. Using 2:1 for anything in space... and 2.35:1 on planets.
I found an interesting use simillar to what was described in the show The Expanse which used wider ratio (IDK which exactly) for planetside scenes and a more screen-filling one (I think it was 16:9) for in-space shots
I was anticipating that bike stunt scene in Dead Reckoning and when the aspect ratio did not change all way, I was Livid!
Apparently they intentionally cropped it because it was kicked out of it's IMAX run. Tom had it done out of spite.
Are you serious?
@@joonamato the original trailers said "Shot for IMAX" they were redone to say "Experience it in IMAX" shortly before release when they were all fighting over the IMAX screens.
doubt it was Tom’s decision to straight up ditch IMAX
IMAX camera is a film camera. And Mission Impossible DR1 was, reportedly, shot with digital cameras. Hence this production never used IMAX at all. Their used digital cameras are certified by IMAX for being able to replicate the aspect ratio (and maybe somewhat close to IMAX resolution? 8k?)
Imax also has Digital Cameras. Avengers Infinity War and Endgame were both shot entirely with digital Imax Cameras. But true imax is 70mm film.
@@VincentStevenStudio what is the opposite of true then?
Not gonna lie, I thought the IMAX ratio was for subtitles. English isn't my first language so I really like it when the subtitles are written on the black screen below, not on the picture.
Dude thats so true. I gate that more dont do that
Yeah Chris Nolan and Tom Cruise/Chris Maguire are few filmmakers who utilize the IMAX ratio properly. Unfortunately Tom Cruise threw a fit at IMAX because they were only going to give his movie 1 week in IMAX so he decided not to give IMAX the IMAX version of his movie after all. Thats what i've heard. But yes Dead Reckoning part one was shot with IMAX digital cameras so it was suppose to have a taller aspect ratio for some action sequences. The footage still exists somewhere. Hopefully a Blu-ray release will come with IMAX sequences.
It's ironic to read so many critics today extolling the virtues of the "exhilirating" IMAX 1.43 aspect ratio.
In truth, this aspect ratio is very similar to that of early silent pictures and old TV sets - the boxy frame we have spent the whole modern picture era moving away from to get WIDER!
While it's true the taller image is suited to exploit the great height of the IMAX theater architecture, it is still a bit funny to read so many people describing the old boxy image format itself as something we should aspire to.
Well, 1.43 in 18K isn’t exactly the same as a 1.33 DVD in 480p!
Especially when you considere things like field of view, lenses, and the quality of the cameras themselves
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Exactly! And TRUE IMAX screens will completely fill your field of view, so you're not really aware of what aspect ratio it's framed at anyway since you can't see the edges of the screen. ;)
I know this isn't the first movie to do this, but it's the first one I noticed, and that was Tron Legacy, I was always confused as to why the movie kept changing aspect ratios, and I never saw the movie on Imax
at 4:19, what would be the point of shooting IMAX in the first place if you are going to crop to fit in with 16x9 on mass delivery? Just for the theater experience but on a TV it basically looks the same as your 35mm shots?
Nolan crops down to 1.78, not 1.9. It fills the entire 16:9 screen
yup. Dunkirk IMAX at home is full screen, zero black bars
This is what I crave
4:12 prolly just a miss speak but Nolan crops IMAX scenes in his home releases to 1.78 (16:9) not 1.90
I think 16:9 is the best universal format. The screen fills up and imax sequences are still beautiful. Of course seeing a real imax on a imax screen tops it but come on nobody has that at home 😂
Do we get digital with 70mm IMAX file? So that atleast we can see the full box .. am I the only person who sees feels looking at box view in a 16:9 ?
Thats my mistake. Wrong words. Correct aspect ratio shown in video.
@@SiddhanthRoyalThe Dark Knight and Rises include the full 1.43:1 sequences as separate bonus features in the Blu-Ray releases.
I was just about to mention that haha😅
You know the funny thing with aspect ratios is, I noticed it immediately when I got the chance to see the re-release of The Dark Knight in theatres. However the thing was that the my IMAX cinema here in Sweden is a digital IMAX (Liemax) and was therefore shown in the 1:90 and the Blu-ray is showing in 1:78.
I truly felt the Liemax experience 😅
I missed a discussion of field-of-view in this. What makes IMAX special is not just that it's 4:3, but that it is taller than regular cinema screen with extra info on the top/bottom. Meanwhile 4:3 on TV is smaller than cinema and has info on the left/right cut off. That's why IMAX on a TV ends up looking a little weird, the TV is simply too small to display it properly. Meanwhile if you'd try watching an old TV shows on a IMAX screen they would look uncomfortably zoomed in, as it was never intended for such a big screen. Something like the SnyderCut works really well in virtual reality, as there it can take full advantage of the additional information on the top and bottom and fill a much bigger field-of-view than a normal movie.
And the effective Aspect Ratio of IMAX doesn't even really MATTER, since a REAL IMAX screen is meant to fill your ENTIRE FIELD OF VIEW. So the aspect ratio can be 'square' because you can't see the edges of the screen anyway.
2.35:1 should ONLY be used if something is shot on 35mm with ANAMORPHIC lenses. Otherwise it's just matted to make the image 'look wider', but I'd prefer they just open up the matte instead...
I don't agree with you video what so ever.
Dead Reckoning was filmed with anamorphic lenses which is a de-squeeze from 6:5 on the Sony Venice: so what did you want them to do, crop it? There is no more image to open up unlike a spherical film. Perhaps that scene was filmed spherically, but most the movie gives no indication of of that. You can tell by the oval bokeh and generous amounts of blue lens flares from the Panavision set of lenses Cruise and Co love to use.
16:9 is also extremely close to the cinema aspect ratio of 1.85:1 which was the standard spherical aspect ratio for films that couldn't afford anamorphic lenses and the extra lighting that is needed for it, or didn't call for the scale of it. The advent of 3 perf super 35mm allowed films to be cropped to cinemascope, late 80s-early 90s.
1.85:1 was our standard closest to the European standard of 1.66:1 (Kubrick's favorite ratio, think painting like framing of Barry Lyndon) which in turn is the closest to the golden ratio, which IMO composites a photograph better than 1.33:1 including close ups of actors. However that's irrelevant due to my next point.
Framing. Nolan can shoot IMAX all day but his DP puts the center punch crop 2.20:1 first and foremost, and he has said this himself. The extra room tends to be useless information that in my opinion makes the frame look looser. Ironically his promotional IMAX stills with frame lines tend to show the most common theater ratio to be the best composed.
Roger Deakins has also expressed that his intended version of Blade Runner 2049 is the 2.39:1 framing, he considers the 1.9:1 open matte a gimmick that he didn't frame for.
However Nolan is a master and can do as he pleases, I significantly prefer watching his films at one aspect ratio, I find the switching distracting. If you don't the more power to you. Also on home media releases Nolan opens the image to 16:9, not 1.9:1.
IMAX is a gimmick. It's meant for short usually MOS documentaries and is being used 'off label'. A lot of newer films are using hi-rez digital cameras, the exact same ones they would normally use but certified for IMAX, for whatever reason. Very few films pull off aspect ratio changes well, and there's nothing more or less grand about a movie staying at 2.39:1 the whole time, especially if it was framed for that. Outside of Nolan's passion for the medium, it is exactly that, a marketing gimmick.
Marvel tends to be directed by committee, so I don't think there's any real artistic reason behind their use of IMAX apart from selling more expensive tickets. I don't mean to be rude, but your video had a tremendous amount of basic craft errors and I think it might benefit you to learn more about format, lenses, and film history. I hate saying this to a fellow Dylan.
Go ahead and enlighten us with your own UA-cam video on aspect ratio. Not even covering aspect ratio. Isn't imax like up to 18K resolution? When a standard movie screen is only like 2 or 4K resolution that in itself is note worthy. But you act like it's a pure marketing gimmick When the general public could care less. What aspect, ratio or resolution it's in And on top of that, there's not even enough imax theaters to warrant to be in a Marketing gimmick, you have to drive hours just to find one for alot of people.
@@MidwestBoom Film negative has no resolution, it's analog. The fine detail stored in the negative can be covered by a scan that ranges from about 3K from 35mm negative to about 6-8K for 65mm negative.
But the thing is you never actually see that on an all analog print of a film that was also cut from the negative. The way Nolan has his films edited and processed for the final print, the images are copied losing fine detail or 'resolution' in multiple stages.
The detail that can be seen then drops to 2K for 35mm and 4K for 65mm, so actually digital theaters do a good job of covering this. The jump from 2K to 4K is also a pretty small one for the vast majority of people.
I don't know why you seem agitated at my reply everything I said is true. I am not a youtuber i work in film, it's not my job to make youtbe videos. But I'm also not going to pretend like this video got anything right.
I suggest you go to Roger Deakins' forum and learn more about cinematography
You are correct, sir!
I dont know where you watched the movie from, but in the IMAX theatre I went there was a portion that used the 1.9 aspect ratio. About 10-12 secs of the cliff jump. Which is actually weirder than not using that aspect ratio at all. I mean just about 10 secs of full screen content!!!??
This is quite surprising...why was Mi7 not filmed in actual IMAX while the previous version was? The movie was amazing, but I agree, it was not as immersive as it was being advertised. Hope Mi8 fixes some of the mistakes....
They ALSO abandoned 3D after using it in the previous movie, and the combination of IMAX & 3D made the Halo Jump and Helicopter chases in Fallout look just INCREDIBLE!
@@StreetPreacherr I think Covid pushed the budget up and they got rid of IMAX and 3D scenes...so the movie was good, but over hyped.
Which aspect ratio is ideal for human vision having two horizontally fixed eyes? I enjoy true IMAX in an actual IMAX theater because it feels almost borderless taking up my entire field of view. But on my 55 inch TV at home being a much smaller screen I prefer the wider frame because it allows more screen that is smaller. I suppose if I had a 75 inch TV I'd prefer the IMAX ratio if it was close enough to fill my vision.
Excellent video - informative and interesting!
Thank you so much!
1.85:1 isn't quite 16:9. You can subtly see this if you watch a movie shot in the 1.85:1 format, there is a small amount of black bars top and bottom
Most times you wouldn't notice because most TVs have "overscan" enabled by default so a 16:9 is cropped in slightly while the 1.85 has no letterboxing.
If you disable that option, then you would see the letterbox on 1.85:1 and 16:9 as the entire screen.
And can anyone explain why all of these 'premium streaming' TV SHOWS are all being produced at 2.35:1? The content is only ever going to be viewed on a 16:9 home TV set, so why do they insist on trying to make everything look like it was originally an anamorphic 2.35:1 cinemascope Feature Film? Aspect Ratio is ARBITRARY, so why can't they just frame these TV SHOWS so they FILL my TV SCREEN?!?!
I mean, I'm happy seeing black bars on old widescreen MOVIES, but it's just a waste of screen space when they use 2.35:1 for NEW TV SHOWS...
Actually, CinemaScope is 2.55:1. 2.39:1 is referred to as 'Scope or Anamorphic widescreen
thing is most movies nowadays that advertise IMAX aspect ratio is only for the price of tickets to recover their budget.
but there is an exception of very few filmmakers !!!
When I saw "Mission Impossible Dead Reckonking" in IMAX, I thought that the projectionist hadn't framed the movie correctly and the image wasn't properly expanding, especially during the motorcycle jump. Watching this, I now know it was an issue with the film and not the theatre.
I saw Oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX as Nolan intended and it had the most jarring aspect ratio switches I’ve ever seen, often in the middle of a scene. There didn’t seem to be a purpose because it’s randomly utilized through the entire running time, which took me out of the movie.
Yes! I hate that. Pick a ratio and stick with it throughout the runtime.
@@dan_hitchman007this but I also think when it’s necessary, “masking” the change by not making the cut so clear and making you gradually realise the screen’s bigger would be ideal
@@paradise_valley The theatrical version of Galaxy Quest did aspect ratio changes the best, though it was always scope throughout. 1.33:1(the GQ TV show) and 1.85:1 (for the beginning scenes) and 2.39:1 (when the expanse of space is first revealed) all within a 2.39:1 frame, and it changed based on the content and never back and forth, which is distracting.
If you look at the framing for most IMAX sequences in a Hollywood movie, they are protected for a center scope ratio extraction. The top and bottom of the frame is mostly dead space composition wise.
No wonder they stopped pretending in the latest MI movie and stuck to the scope ratio.
Nolan crops to 1.78:1 for the Blu-ray releases, not 1.90:1.
Love this video, learned a lot in under 10 minutes I just had to subscribe. Would you kindly delve more into comparisons between Nolan and Snyder's use of aspect ratio (or perhaps other tools they both like to use in their films) ? They're close friends in the industry and fans of both surely would've noticed similarities between their styles of storytelling. Is that a video your channel is willing to explore? 🥺👉🏾👈🏾
I wish all movies shot in IMAX would retain the original aspect ratio. On my M1 iPad Pro, the 11 inch version specifically, the size of the screen is coincidentally the exact same aspect ratio as full frame imax. But none of the movies I've bought from the iTunes store show the proper aspect ratio.
Behind the scenes footage shows IMAX cameras on scene for the big sequences though Tom Cruise was mad that the IMAX window was only for one week so it was removed it will probably be restored for Paramount plus
love the pun at the end
Thanks!
I'm not worried about this. As a series MI is very good. IMAX being used for action or for a sense of scale, it doesn't matter. Right now we have a bigger problem with Hollywood, it's making movies with shit writting, shit CGI, remakes and the worst of it all the woke culture has turned it into gangrene. If it keeps on going we will have far fewer projects like Openheimer or even MI. Something needs to happen
Blame the execs. They have a largely adversarial relationship to the people that actually make the art they're producing good. It's easy to blame writers for bad writing (and on an individual level this can be the cause) but as a trend overall in Hollywood, the issue is absolutely at the top level. I'm brainstorming a video about the Live Action Disney remakes and how they make unnecessary changes (not talking about race or anything but rather random narrative changes) proving that the people in charge don't understand WHY people loved the originals in the first place. Like, maybe don't remake the Lion King (A film renowned for its vibrantly gorgeous art) in hyper-realistic "Live Action" since Lions are LITERALLY designed to not stand out visually in their environment.
Wasn't Ant Man shot in 4k digital fake IMAX anyway? Why did they change the aspect ratio at all?
Nolan's films change aspect ratio because it's part of the physical qualities of the film format he's using.
A frame of 15/70 IMAX is taller than a frame of standard 70mm..
But in digital, you can literally do whatever you want. And Marvel use digital.
It's fake IMAX or "Lie-max"
What bothers me is that NOW it seems that ALL 'PREIMUM STREAMING' content is being produced at 2.35:1, even though the content is INTENDED to be viewed EXCLUSIVELY on a 1.85:1 (16:9) home TV SET!
Do studios think that viewers now consider 'letterboxed' video to be 'more cinematic? It just seems like a waste to not to format the content to FIT the DISPLAYS that it's ALWAYS going to be viewed on?
I remember when studios INVENTED a process called 'Pan & Scan' because consumers wouldn't accept seeing' black bars' on their TVs when watching home videos, but now they're INTENTIONALLY 'adding' black bars when they could just shoot at the taller aspect ratio that actually fits the TV and doesn't waste a THIRD of the display area!
I was wondering whether there was something wrong with the theatre i was in when Dead Reckoning didn't switch to IMAX ratio especially for that bike sequence.
Same i almost got up to talk to the amc staff. Thankfully I just waited and looked it up while credits were rolling and realized the theater wasn't at fault
I saw oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX and let me tell you… fucking incredible
Indeed
I saw Dunkirk in true 70mm 15 perf, and you could EASILY notice the difference in 'clarity' in some of the aerial shots where he wasn't able to use full size IMAX film cameras!
I watched dead reckoning in that screen X 270 degrees it was brilliant and so immersive
brilliant video
Thank you so much!
Mission Impossible did shoot in IMAX. It's the movie theatres were mandated to screen Oppenheimer for all IMAX shows for atleast 3 weeks. This pissed off the MI crew and Tom Cruise and they decided to ditch IMAX for this movie
Thats currently an unsubstantiated rumor
0:10 what's a movie?
I can't wait to see Oppenheimer in IMAX so I can see more of that conference room ceiling and table.
Lol. But in all seriousness the imax shots of new Mexico alone are worth it
I'm just waiting for them to introduce a string of liquorice format 100 x 1 ft. The main problem with IMAX is that they keep using it as an alternative to a plot in many films. (Avatar runs out of story an hour in, for example, and no amount of IMAX can correct for that.)
MI7 was filmed in 1.9:1 Didn't you hear? Tom was upset that Oppenheimer pushed MI7 from IMAX screens and they refused to share screens. So Tom pulled all IMAX scenes from release. So we only got black bars, even in IMAX. My guess we will never see the IMAX footage. just like we havent got Ghost Protocol 1.43 scenes back.
I agree 👍 😊
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS ME!!!! THIS IS AMAZING
so glad this video connected with you!
8:05 fin.
Ok
@@TheWritersBlockOfficiallol
The thing is; today, theatres are only a small part of where the movies go. It's *much* more important to make a movie look good on the average TV, because that is where most people will see it.
I seem to recall Quenten Tarantino getting royally stuffed by his choice to use a particular format because when his movie came out, the only theatres that could show it in it;s fukll glory were fully booked by another movie that needed that equipment.
Also: if your movie's promotion includes the term "imax" then in my opinikon you've already admitted that your movie is about the visual spectacle and basically has no story worth noting.
Idc what anyone says but Avatar is my favorite movie I’ve ever seen in IMAX
Nothing wrong with that. Avatar is dope
Seems like u just discovered IMAX ratio just couple days ago. Many mistakes in your video. Nolan crops to 1.78:1, not 1.90:1
Got it! Thank for the correction
"...You're missing the greater picture."
Great pun! Lmao.
Thanks !
Tron: Legacy did it right imo
Also in the first episode of season 2 of The Mandalorian they do a subtle opening of the aspect ratio. My wife didn't even realize it until I pointed it out to her.
I get what you're saying, but this has nothing to do with what imax really is. it's not your fault either because modern imax has reduced their whole identity to these aspect ratio changes. it's not at all what it was at the beginning nor what nolan is using it for. the point of imax was never that it had a different aspect ratio (which was even considered less "spectacular" as widescreen formats, as you point it out yourself) it was just about resolution and having bigger projection screens. I think it's only after the aspect ratio changes in batman that everyone started thinking that this is what it meant to use the format. but as you are also pointing out, you don't need to use imax cameras (or branding) to change aspect ratios.
Yeah i kept asking myself if i was actually seeing IMAX. And I saw it in IMAX twice.
I’m disappointed this movie wasn’t shot on traditional 35mm considering the last six movies were shot mainly on celluloid.
Movies with changing aspect ratio is annoying and bad. Can work sometimes in movies like The Grand Budapest, but generally a movie should stay in one ratio throughout the movie to not be distracting.
My iMax theatre had 0 IMAX scenes for MI7
So obviously this comes with the caveat that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the counterargument to this is that changing aspect ratios and formats multiple times within the film makes the filmmaking less consistent and can even be jarring if the section swap only lasts for a few second, as Nolan was want to do in oppenheimer. My theory is that Cruise didn't like the changing aspect ratios in the last mission impossible once he saw it in theatres and chose to restrict the aspect ratio of these scenes to keep viewers immersed.
The biggest fault that Nolan has is jumping back and forth in aspect ratios without a storyline reason.
He is inconsistent with its usage.
If you are talking about Oppenheimer, you definitely missed the point. The aspect ratio jumping in that movie refers to the 3 different timelines of Oppenheimer's life. Eventually, at the end of the movie 2 timelines is merging together.
4:41 and 4:43 can any of you tell me what is their to notice and how.
It goes from black bars on top and bottom to black bars on the side. In an actual imax theater, it would just expand vertically, but due to the limits of a 16 by 9 display, you get a very weird transition
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I guess that makes sense sure
The Imax theater is also bigger and the sound is better. The sound is better than Dolby imo. Dolby is just loud and obnoxious. The Imax theater is usually the biggest screen and biggest room. So theres that going for it.
Most IMAX auditoriums pump the volume to extreme levels. They are uncomfortable.
I’m a representative from Hollywood, we got your letter, we’re listening. Big changes soon
Very true.
Are you saying this because Dead reconing flopped at the box office and Oppenheimer succeded? bro make sense
Dead Reckoning's low performance has nothing to do with the lack of IMAX expanded scenes, the video is about how such scenes should be executed. Quantumania came out in February and was used as an example here, and its IMAX scenes were inconsistent with its continuity.
Why is everyone so obsessed with Oppenheimer in 1570 IMAX when the film is like 70%, if not more, in 5 perf 70mm?