Dear Hollywood, You're Doing IMAX Wrong! 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Unfortunately, the aspect ratio is not there on the Blu-ray, even in 4K.

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.

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

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.

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???

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

yup. Dunkirk IMAX at home is full screen, zero black bars

This is what I crave

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

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!

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

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

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. ;)

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! ;)

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?

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 😅

Dude thats so true. I gate that more dont do that

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.

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...

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

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.

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!

Thank you so much!

Thats currently an unsubstantiated rumor

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...

Thanks !

Lol. But in all seriousness the imax shots of new Mexico alone are worth it

Thanks!

Awesome! Thanks for the correction

@@TheWritersBlockOfficial to nuance the discussion a bit, I want to say that when considering IMAX it's a lot more than just considering the aspect ratio. It is more to do with the sensor size of the camera, and the possible imagery you can capture with a large format sensor and the accompanying lenses. If you boil it down to an aspect ratio discussion, regular viewers could just say that their TV-show looks like IMAX since it's 16:9. When shooting IMAX - or any large format - you can get a lot closer to subjects while also getting a wider field of view compared to super 35. As you say in the video, the films that utilize IMAX to the best ability use that to get closer, to get a larger In my opinion, Marvel films does not usually exploit those possibilities. The framing and shooting style of Marvel films are quite safe and conventional. I don't think there is a big tangible difference in Marvel films shot in IMAX compared to those shot in normal cinemascope. I would actually argue that you could get a very similar look just shooting 16:9 on a regular Alexa sensor. Top Gun: Maverick gained a lot shooting IMAX, since they could get a much wider field of view in the cockpit of the aircrafts without distortion that you would get on a similar setup with super 35 cameras.

so glad this video connected with you!

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

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.

Most IMAX auditoriums pump the volume to extreme levels. They are uncomfortable.

They used CG to cover up the stunts and it didn't look all that good.

Ok

@@TheWritersBlockOfficiallol

Thank you so much!

There's certainly an argument to be made for that. Just depends on the subject matter of the film

It all depends on the screen you are viewing the content on. The best theaters used to be made for the wide CinemaScope, Panavision, and 70mm roadshow shot films. They were spectacular, wall-to-wall screens and they had ratios from 2.05:1 all the way to 2.76:1. Human vision is more sensitive in the horizontal plain and the wide ratios are actually more enveloping to our human senses. The rise of mini mall theaters with their constant width screens ruined the scope ratio experience because it made less wide movies look bigger. They were supposed to be constant height screens where the scope ratio films were shown bigger.

@@dan_hitchman007 Yeah totally get that. The cinema I used to work at was built in the 1930s and the only way to get the screen the right shape for Cinemascope/Panavision films was to effectively letterbox it and bring the top of the screen down.

Nothing wrong with that. Avatar is dope

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.