Why isn't Blade Runner 2049 available in the IMAX ratio for the home media release? (6 replies and 4 comments)
Seeing the film in IMAX was absolutely absorbing and immersive, and for all the proper home media releases it's cropped for widescreen, cutting off so much of the scale of the world. It would be amazing to get an IMAX version released in 4K as many other IMAX films are these days.
The studio was kind enough to ask the filmmakers what they wanted shown at the premiere and that's what we chose. That would be the best way to see it, in our opinion."
I wonder why that is. I believe Roger said that the film was shot in 1:90:1, and that the full aspect ratio contains more information than the 2:39:1. Now, I agree that more is not always better, but I saw the film in 2D IMAX, and I have to say, having that extra height really adds to the experience, because one of the beautiful things that the film did was present this huge scale metropolis, so I just don't see how putting black bars over the wonderful work that's there is better.
I just wish both could be available, so the work that they did on creating a 1:90:1 image isn't just gone, as many people are attached to that version of the film.
I can't speak for Roger but it's hard to frame for multiple aspect ratios and have all of them be precisely what you want. I would guess the filmmakers of Blade Runner 2049 saw it first and foremost as a 2.39 film.
We shot the film primarily in a widescreen format and not for IMAX. That was just the regular studio ask. Some people like the frame but both Denis and I prefer the 2:40. Some people like the 3D as well. Go figure!
I am interested in such studio "asks". They(or you should say) were lucky that you were shooting spherical and could easily take the Open Gate for the IMAX and you crop for 2:40.
But if you want to shoot anamorphic what do you do for the IMAX version. I doubt you crop the 2:40(2.60) to IMAX so then they project widescreen IMAX or force you to shoot in some other way?
ps: I don't get people who like 3D...
We would have shot spherical whatever the release demands. The fact is the studio wanted an IMAX release and the film does work well as an immersive experience in that format on a large screen. However, I see no justification for not using the entire 2:40 preferred framing when the film is viewed on TV. That would necessitate a smaller frame with no image on the sides of the possible picture area.
I’m curious to know why it would necessitate a smaller frame. There is an open matte version of the film out there online because that was the format one of the streaming services released it on. It’s a 1:78 ratio and you don’t lose anything on the side, it just fills your tv screen by removing the black bars from the top and bottom and giving you more of the vertical information. Is the issue with this that in the close up shots there is more head room than you would prefer? Or something like that? I’m curious to know the benefits of the shorter frame if you’re not losing information on the sides. My assumption is that for close up shots of the actors, you would have to push in the avoid having a bunch of head room on top and bottom, which then would cut off information from the sides. Or am I wrong on this? I say this humbly as an amateur who knows nothing about framing, I’ve just seen Nolan and McQuarrie use 1:78 ratios on their imax films for home video release, and as I’ve mentioned, I’ve seen the open matte version of this film and it would be my preferred way of viewing the film if it was in 4K, as it is the closest to that theatre experience, so I’m curious to know how it all works, and maybe reframe my thinking to fully appreciate why the 2:39 is better.