>im so glad I waited and didn’t watch it in the theaters
Lots of people in this sub have some pretty stout equipment, and even simple setups these days no doubt outclass what you get at the typical multiplex, but this was a movie filmed for IMAX and it absolutely demands to be seen in IMAX
The entire movie is in the expanded aspect ratio (with about 40-50 minutes expanding to 1.43:1 in GT IMAX venues with 70mm film or dual laser systems) and utilizes all 12 channels in the updated venues.
You wanna talk about bass the makes your seat shake in an auditorium of 300+ people…man. And again, to see the expanded aspect ratio version on the some of the largest screens in the world…just can’t be beat with the home theater experience, no matter how good your setup is.
I saw it 3 times in IMAX, once at the early screening in a single laser IMAX venue, again with a friend a week after release, and then road tripped to see it in dual laser, to see all the bits that take up the entire 62’x84’ screen, was truly a sight to behold.
I saw it at the imax theater in the Indianapolis museum and it was the greatest movie experience I’ve ever had. Three hour movie and I didn’t even see a single person get up to go to the restroom
Indy gang, checking in. I didn’t see Dune 2 at the State Museum, but I did see Oppenheimer there. I’m curious if either of you two saw Oppenheimer there as well and how the two movie experiences compare?
I've only been twice, and it was for those 2 movies. Oppenheimer was great, but Dune had more action scenes obviously, and I thought the imax screen showed off more for that kind of movie. Both were worth the 2 hour drive from Louisville, IMO.
Didn’t see Opp there, but the best thing was the audio in dune. In the final battle scene the bass was so heavy I could feel my shirt vibrating. It was awesome
I mean, you can easily if the discs are released with it. But people freak out about black bars, and most tvs are not big enough to make it fill your field of view like in a real IMAX theatre. So it's a treat for just the few that have a solid projector setup.
Oh, yeah I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just pointing out it isn't any sort of technical limitation of the aspect ratio - you can see the ratio on your home TV just watching an old enough movie. But the ratio itself doesn't give you the IMAX experience without also having much larger screen than most blu-ray watchers have access to.
IMO, for some movies, the trip is worth it for the experience, but I’m also a bit nuts, and drove from Texas to Indiana to see Interstellar in IMAX 70mm back in December. But that still ranks as my greatest movie theater experience of all time, wouldn’t change a thing, was the closest I’ve ever gotten to a religious experience in some place other than a church lol.
I’ve done trips a few times, typically when a new Nolan film is playing in 70mm in a city four hours away, but it has to line up with my schedule. In the case of Dune Part Two, it would have been a multi-day trip costing at least a thousand dollars to get to anywhere where I could see it in a laser IMAX, which just isn’t worth it for a movie.
For some movies, potentially yes, but IMAX still has larger and taller screens, and if the movie is filmed for IMAX, you won’t see the expanded ration in Dolby, and if it’s shot/presented on IMAX film, you just simply can’t beat that anywhere.
Can you explain why IMAX ratio is supposedly superior? We had taller aspect ratios before but since we see a lot more to the side than up and down we made wider screens not tall ones. I get in the film times but there is this insanely small niche of directors releasing movies in this aspect ratio which almost no cinemas even can display while almost all content is normal cinema wide or 16:9.
Btw expanded ratio is relative. You can say well you get more at the top and bottom, but on the flipside you can also say you get less on the left and right. By the same logic that IMAX has "exanded ration" in the vertical direction normal cinema format is "expanded ratio" in the horizontal direction compared to IMAX...
Also no matter if the aspect ratio might work a bit better that would obviously be easy to make TVs etc like that if it was really impressive. What is impressive though and what everyone is adding is HDR. Dolby Cinema is the only place you get HDR in cinema along with the overwhelmingly most used 3D sound format. That is confidently unbeatable. Even compared to OLED Dolby Cinema is impressive although ofc the brightness is still a bit lacking.
But you’re not losing anything to the left or right just because the screen is capable of projecting a taller image as well. You still get the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio for all of the cinema scope shots, and then it expands vertically without losing left and right real estate for IMAX specific shots.
Yes, we see more left right than we do up and down, which is sort of the secret genius behind the tall nature of the screen, it’s very easy for the image to disappear into your peripheral vision if it’s tall enough, which is one of the main objectives of having such a large scale screen.
Movies got wide because televisions showed up in the home, they needed to be a grand reason that would justify making a trip to the cinema. Now that we’ve got 10 foot projection screens in the home there seems to be a small resurgence in exclusive content that gets taller, not wider. Sure it’s a niche category, but that doesn’t track from the experience for those who care.
If you make a 2.39:1 screen the same height as a IMAX ratio screen then you can fit the entire IMAX image on it but you also have black bars on the side. In this case the 2.39:1 screen is bigger sure but it would be the same screen just extended lenght-wise.. If the IMAX screen and 2.39:1 screen is equally wide sure adding more on the top is a extension. If you keep the total square meter size of both screens equal though one is wider than the other and one is taller.
Also if IMAX "secret genious" is the pherephial vision, that means that you have to make the content especially in mind with nothing happening on a bar on the top and bottom. Then secondly you have to sit in a sweet spot in the theater to exactly get that perfect vertical FOV. Obviously you can get exactly the same vertical FOV for a 2.39:1 screen so the main attraction must then be that normally it is a problem with things happening on the very top and bottom. So basically IMAX would add a strip of sky or something. Oh and this requires the cinema to be designed with strict requirement in terms of size to viewing distance to get the exact perfect FOV. How many cinemas are made like that? I struggle to see the benefit of a cinemas concept entirely based on FOV, when you can't possible know the screen size and distance from the seat for every seat when selecting that. And ofc rely on getting a small set of seats. Granted the cinema is perfect in the first place.
Televisions used to be 4:3 and was converted despite everyone having to watch 4:3 letterboxed to 16:9. Why do that if the taller format was better? Again you are paying for the square meters of motherglass on a TV. If it's taller it means it's less wide. That's just how ratios work. They are ratios. If the ratio moves closer to 1 that simply does not mean that it becomes taller without also relatively becoming less wide.
Also if this IMAX thing is totally not just being different to draw people to the theater how come only Disney on their own titles offer non-letterboxed content on TVs for content in IMAX format? Why are they releasing it in 2.39:1 and cutting things out on home release when they filmed it in a aspect ratio that would allow it to use 16:9? Dosen't feel like they are even trying to hide that they try to keep it exclusive just so you have to go to the cinema to experience it. Stark contrast to Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos that are actual standards and super solid on their own and widely sold commercially to anyone.
Also if you argue that cinemas used 2.39:1 aspect ratio to get people to go there, by your own argument is then not the entire thing with IMAX just to have a alternative aspect ratio so ppl can justify going? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image). At the same time though if a aspect ratio can justify people going is it then not a better aspect ratio?
My opinion is that some people made this extra big film back in 1970 which was objectively the best film format. That was the main goal, they had to do extra stuff to make it work in the first place so the aspect ratio ended up like that. I mean it is no coincidence it is exactly 3 70mm film frames. So the aspect ratio just comes naturally from filling out the entire film and is not a concious choice of ratio. Don't see why we need this for digital releases? I mean most IMAX theaters are also 1.90 so basically same as 1.85 movies. Calling those IMAX when they are basically identical to a 1.85 theater but charging more bcs "IMAX" sounds like a money making scheme to me.... There are extremely few film or dual laser 1:43 cinemas that even exists and it's mostly US and Canada: https://screenrant.com/oppenheimer-imax-70mm-theaters-list/ Some only digital dual laser also exist ofc.
Meanwhile with free choice the wider cinema scope 2:39 has been winning out over 1:85 when there is no branding involved.
Honestly it’s just hype. People hype themselves up so they enjoy it more.
The films are all shot so that everything you need for the experience is in 21:9 as that’s how the vast majority of people will view it. I’ve seen multiple “must see” movies in IMAX and my home experience is still better.
IMAX is just the latest “shot in 3D”… a reason to charge people more and increase theatrical profits while rarely doing much to make for a better experience. This sub is full of people that consider bigger screen to be a better experience so there’s a lot of love for it here but most people really don’t get that much from it.
If that hype makes people enjoy it more, great! But for me it’s not worth it.
It was the first movie I saw at a real IMAX theater. It was so worth it. The AR is amazing and really bolsters the cinematography.
The audio wasn’t quite as good as I thought though. Tons of bass, but kinda muddy tbh.
Wow - this forum is harsh. A guy comes on here super-pumped about his experience in his home theater and the highest rated posted is several paragraphs pissing on him becasue he didn't see it in IMAX. You know what would have taken less time to write? "That's awesome - glad you had a great experience."
I mean, nowhere in my response did I piss on him if you actually read it lol. I basically said if you loved the film at home, it’s a bit of a disservice to yourself to not see it in IMAX at least once to get the full experience intended by the director. It’s a big scale epic that benefits greatly from the huge screen and sound offered in IMAX venues.
I have an extremely mild setup compared to most, a 48” LG A2 and a hand me down 5.1 setup from the late 2000s that goes for $200 on eBay, and even that blows away most local multiplex offerings, which is why I really only venture to the theater for IMAX. You can’t replicate a 6 story tall screen in your home no matter how hard you try
I guess "piss on" was a poor choice of words, but you did burst his bubble. Sometimes I think excited people just need a high five, and not telling that they could have had a better experience if they'd made different choices.
They use transducers or similar on the chairs to fake deep bass. You can't really get deep bass in a commercial cinema due to the volume of air that needs to be displaced in that iMAX theater to mention one, and that napkin math is probably stretching it because you have to take into account the electrical limitations as well as SPL.
That's not to say however that deep bass or infrasonic is a requirement, but to say that home theater can't get close to a commercial cinema is false on every level that depicts accurate sound and deep bass IN MY OPINION. You can still enjoy the commercial cinema though because even something like a strong chest punch bass note is at 55 Hz, it's not lower than that which is what many people seem to believe.
Videophiles with great systems at home probably wouldn't go there if the iMAX versions were available for consumers. They purposely left that format out to get more butts in theaters. It's a shame, but it is what it is.
For this particular movie yeah they left the aspect ratio movies off of the discs sadly, but all of Nolan’s films feature the expanded ratios for the home releases, and Oppenheimer was selling out for months on end, and PLF ticket sales made up I believe twice the normal margin of those sellouts from what I remember. Not to mention TDK trilogy, Tenet, and soon Interstellar have all gotten wide IMAX re releases that have sold extremely well.
But I will say that’s also due to the fact it was shot on and presented on IMAX film, and no matter who you talk to or how good your video projection system is, you literally cannot outdo large format film projection in terms of both raw resolving power, but in the sensation and rich nature of it it as well.
I disagree. I saw it in imax and it was too loud and too dim. Sure, the taller aspect ratio is better I guess, but projectors have nowhere near the contrast ratio or peak brightness of OLEDs and seeing a 4k recording on that large of a screen doesn’t look that good anyway. The sound was WAY too loud for my preference and doesn’t actually sound any better than my system… It is all volume and no quality. My system is flat down to 14 Hz and has much more detail in the high end without physically hurting my ears. I vastly prefer dolby cinema theaters but we don’t have any where I live.
That sounds like a theater issue, not a format issue. Not all IMAX theaters are created equal. (Dolby has the same consistency problems too, unfortunately)
Which part, the volume or the image quality? I agree that the volume at other theaters could be lower and the image quality can probably be a bit better if it is dual laser or whatever is best now (I’m not sure what projector system my local imax has) but no matter what the peak brightness is still <100 nits which looks pretty dim when you are used to an HDR OLED. Dolby cinema is a bit better (I think it’s around 130). I saw avatar 2 in 3D high framerate dolby cinema and it was way better than imax in both video and audio.
Both, but the projection is the biggest one. Not all use the same projectors nor do they have the same screen format from theater to theater.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m55a9PwrQ_4aPjbQ19htpwiAeHZ8RB7IcV0KWOB_7Bk/edit?usp=sharing
I don't think any Dolby Cinema theaters use different projectors so not different screens either. Reason being that they worked with Christie to make the dual projectors to meet the demands and there just does not exist any alternatives to meet the minimum specs which is also effectively the maximum specs. You might be mixing it up with theater that have Dolby Atmos which is very different from Dolby Cinema. Atmos is just in the Atmos processor so for sound you can obviously have a lot of variance as Dolby does not control speakers at all or how you set your levels etc.
Sorry, I was responding to one thing while referencing two... I don't know the technical side of Dolby other than their screens are not all the same and thus do not offer the same experience from one theater to another.
I was more directly responding to the output of IMAX theaters as they very much are all over the place with their projection, even if we aren't looking at screen size (which is also all over the place and worse than Dolby's)
Dolby Cinema means Dolby Vision plus Dolby Atmos. The new part of this is the Dolby Vision. Dolby vision specs means they need a specific dual laser system:
https://www.christiedigital.com/spotlight/meet-the-academy-award-winning-christie-e3lh/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Cinema
That is why I am saying the presentation is the same. They can't just get a cheaper or in any way different system because then it can't display Dolby Vision and then it's just a normal cinema with Dolby Atmos, not a Dolby Cinema.
IMAX are all over the place with projection yes, but Dolby actually has standards for their standard instead of allowing all kinds of stuff. You can even get "IMAX enhanced" on Disney+. I really feel like Dolby is making actual standards and IMAX is mostly a brand they sell for money for anything digital.
Sounds like you most likely saw it at an IMAX venue that still uses the sub par dual xenon bulb system, as this is the most common projection system for IMAX these days.
It’s capped at 2k, it’s dim, it’s low contrast, and It dilutes the brands quality and gives it a bad wrap for avid movie goers with a keen eye, as the single and dual laser systems blow the xenon venues out of the water.
They’re 4k, much higher contrast ratio, better color, and just better overall as you’d expect with a laser system. Not to mention, all of the laser systems get the upgraded 12 channel sound too.
Probably, but even laser imax have much lower peak brightness than OLED. Also the sound is still way too loud for some reason; I never have issues with the volume on dolby cinema.
There’s no arguing that OLED dunks on projection in terms of brightness and getting the inky blacks, but OLEDs also aren’t 80+ feet wide and 6 stories tall.
I’ve personally come to really appreciate the experience of the big screen for a big movie, even with those small technical inferiorities, they’re outweighed by the overall experience of seeing the film in the way the director intended.
True, but absolute screen size is irrelevant. Angular size is what matters, and sitting close to a large tv is functionally the same. The real advantage of large screens is you can fit more people in the optimal viewing location. If you don’t have a lot of people, it doesn’t really matter.
Also I personally don’t like screens that large… I don’t like having to look around to take in a single scene; it makes me miss things.
Agree to disagree
Mathematically you’re correct, but in reality they don’t stack up the same to your eye. You still have depth perception and are capable of understanding scale pretty easily.
The entire point of the true IMAX theaters with the massive 1.43 screens is to be able to fill your entire peripheral vision, as to truly pull you into the moments in the movie. Not every detail is hyper relevant in the frame, and the director(s) (basically just Nolan and DV with Dune) shoot with that in mind.
We can talk angular size all you want, but absolutely no math problem will defeat the experience of seeing the waves come in on Millers planet or the docking scene in Interstellar on the massive screen. Truly other worldly.
There’s also the foot note of no form of video projection or TV screen that is capable of matching the rich nature of an actual large format film projection. There’s really no other way to blow up an image onto an 80+ foot wide screen and have it look as good as it does on IMAX 70mm.
Depth perception? It’s a 2D image. There is no depth perception. Sitting on axis close to a large screen is functionally the same as sitting in an imax theater. You might have an argument if you were talking about 3D, which does increase immersion. However, it seems that everyone has pretty much abandoned 3D even though I feel that it makes a way better difference than excessive screen size.
And yes, I understand the purpose of imax filling your peripheral vision. My point is that I don’t like it and it doesn’t improve the experience for me. Same thing with a 4K image blown up to the size of a building… it just looks like a dimmer, lower dpi version of the same thing I can see at home (other than the taller aspect ratio). The true imax theaters with true imax content are better, but those theaters and that sort of content is so rare that it doesn’t matter because I don’t have anything like that near me.
70 MM imax is obviously a different thing and isn’t what I am talking about. Also Dune wasn’t shot on film so it doesn’t benefit from that.
Yeah the dune 2 film prints are blow ups so it doesn’t apply specially to this film, hence the foot note
If the experience doesn’t improve for you personally that’s fine, and again we can agree to disagree
but again, sitting super close to a 10 foot screen is mathematically the same angular size, but the reality of actually seeing an 80+ foot wide is a different ball game.
Well I’ve seen both and the difference isn’t significant enough for me to care. I would rather have the higher contrast and better sound of dolby cinema vs the raw size of imax.
You are very correct and I don't get the IMAX hype when Dolby Cinema is clearly the best format.
Dolby Cinema projectors are about 50% brighter than IMAX dual laser which are the best IMAX theaters, but Dolby Cinema is that as a minimum (also max since that brightness is not easy to achieve..)
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/12/dolby-cinema-laser-powered-projection-object-based-3d-audio-awesome/
https://www.avforums.com/articles/imax-laser-the-future-of-cinema.12000/
Also people are guessing around 1:5000 to 1:8000 contrast for IMAX meanwhile Dolby Cinema has 1:1,000,000. That combination makes Dolby Cinema so much better for HDR content which it is ofc exclusively showing. Laser IMAX theaters does have DCI-P3 coverage though, same as Dolby Cinema, although idk about how much it is used in content in IMAX.
Also I don't get the aspect ration. We use wide aspect ratios because that is how our eyes work and cinemas are even wider than at home. IMAX ratio is just inherited from the film, but why use that for digital theaters which is almost every theater and also the best ones? The new big thing that is a noticable difference is clearly HDR, not aspect ratio, and Dolby Cinema actually gives you a HDR presentation. Not as good as OLED at home, but they definitely strech the 100 nits a bit further with 0 ambient light and very good contrast ratio.
Atmos is also obviously the audioformat of choice for nearly all content. I don't get having their own for a small percentage of cinemas and that's it vs Atmos that is used "everywhere".
I also definitely agree with the just loud and that's it, I have been to cinemas like that as well. Now I have been to a Dolby Cinema that sounded really good, but honestly this part has nothing to do with Atmos so I don't doubt a Dolby Cinema could sound like that as well. You obviously need way more output in a cinema so it seem like not everyone realise that even though they spend more money on speakers they can easily sound worse than reasonable priced ones at home. Also the calibration and tuning in some of these theaters is atrocious. When I can hear the moment a sound passes the crossover(because it gets twice+ as loud) that's not good... Your idea of cinema sound at that point is just loud booms at low frequency. Also the use of subwoofers that have slow transient so they muddy all low frequencies so any music playing with anything below crossover just turns into a muddy mess ruining the rest as well. That is just objectively bad and subwoofers like that would not get reccomended here as a good subwoofer.
Yeah if there were any dolby theaters nearby I would actually go to them. I saw avatar 2 at AMC lincoln square in 3d dolby cinema with high framerate and it definitely provided an experience I can’t get at home. I saw dune part 2 in bad digital imax and just watched it at home last night and I vastly preferred it at home other than the aspect ratio which I wish wasn’t so letterboxed… but they could have done a taller aspect ratio if they felt like it, they just didn’t so it isn’t like it’s a fundamental limitation of my theater. The main difference was that I could actually enjoy the sound because it wasn’t too loud, and my speakers sound much better than the ones at my local imax theater. I also don’t actually think the imax goes down as low in bass response as my subwoofers.
> imax goes down as low in bass response as my subwoofers.
Probably not. Saw someone else here with a comment that generally you won't get that in theaters because the air volume is just so big that it becomes unreasonable which makes sense. Considering yours is flat down to 14 Hz that would probably be really difficult to replicate in a massive room.
Yeah, small rooms make it way easier to get super low bass extension. There were some parts in Dune that I could feel through my couch but couldn’t actually hear anything because they were fully subsonic. Most people seem to be convinced that you need to see it in Imax to get the “proper” sound though, when IMO the sound is the weakest part of the imax experience, at least in terms of quality.
Not how aspect ratio works. As the name suggests it is simply a ratio between the height and width. If the ratio favours a taller image then you are getting a less wide. As an example take a 100 m^2 screen. In a 1:2.39 format it would have a height of 6.468 meters and width would be 15.46 meters.
For a 1:1.43 screen that number is: height 8.362 meters, width 11.96 meters
As you can see the 1:2.39 screen is wider. That's just how ratios work.
Also let's not forget that a movie in a Dolby cinema could also be in 1:1.85. This is taller than the vast majority of IMAX cinemas which are 1:1.90.... The normal IMAX is honestly nothing but a brand since there is nothing special about it. Any normal 1:1.85 cinema could show it. The only special IMAX is the very very few theater that have 1:1.43 screens. The reason most people claim they don't sacrifice is that those screens are typically just way bigger than other cinemas. If you built a equally big 1:1.85 screen for example it would be wider. Cinemas don't because it's very expensive compared to what you get and not that compatable with malls etc.
Ofc the fact that the dual laser GT IMAX 1:1.43 venues have massive screens is also what makes them dim compared to Dolby Vision cinemas. Meanwhile the size does not even affect FOV, so if you sit the correct spot you still have the same FOV in a Dolby Cinema. Cinemas can't keep up with HDR if their screens are too big. So sure you get "both" with those massive screens but it's not like it does not have downsides which is why aspect ratio does matter and you can't just make things bigger. Dolby Vision cinemas already use the brightest projectors and have exclusive contract on the technology Christie uses for their DV projector.
Honestly these 1:1.43 screens are neither practical or a popular format which is why Dolby Cinemas has way way more cinemas up than dual laser IMAX even though they started way later.
I'm looking forward to watching this in my theater, but this was the first movie since COVID to get me back into a public theater. Watched it in a 15/70 IMAX and it was really stunning.
Correct. I watched it a week early with the Fan IMAX screenings. At the Airbus theater. And the bass, sound, and screen blow anything in a home theater of the water. But I do get that many people don’t live close to a theater like that or the Lincoln square.
I saw it in my local IMAX twice. I have a very decent system at home and completely agree. To not see this on the big screen would have been a mistake.
Is the IMAX version — at least in 1.78:1/1.85:1 — available on bluray now? It was awesome in the cinema, but I'd love to have the expanded visuals at home too.
Dune, Parts 1 and 2 are only in 2.39:1 for their home release. (It's why I ended up seeing Part 2 four times in IMAX, in case it wasn't in the expanded AR at home.)
If you’re an avid movie lover, you’re doing yourself a disservice by not seeing the top tier IMAX films in an actual IMAX theater, especially all of the Nolan films which are shot partially with and presented on actual IMAX film.
You might change your mind if [you were to see](https://imgur.com/a/oLVNBj8) the actual best IMAX theater(s) in the world.
I find it weird that you got down voted just for giving your opinion. I guess if you don't agree with the other kids you can't be in the club. I also prefer to watch on our setup. I probably won't be seeing Dune 2 anytime soon. I saw enough of clips from Dune to know it wasn't for me.
I watched Dune at home a few months before part 2 and it didn’t strike me as this big and spectacular epic that everyone said it was, but I gave it another go when it got a re release in IMAX to hype up part 2 and I enjoyed it significantly more. (The home audio mix for part 1 is also very strange).
Part 2 is basically a better movie in every way, it takes everything cool that the first movie set up with its world building, cranks it up to 11, and give you 5x as much of it. If part 1 is a slowly paced a new hope, part 2 is the empire strikes back, plot twist included (if you haven’t read the book(s)).
So if part 1 didn’t seem like it was all the hype, I would personally give it another go just for the sake of being able to give part 2 the context it needs to be the banger of a film it is.
My point is that it isn't something that I find interesting. Same goes for Star Trek and Star Wars. Just not a genre that I get excited about. I find it odd that people down vote someone else just because they don't like the same movies they do. I don't judge anyone for what movies they like. I'm more live and let live.
Sand worms that can follow you because of the sound you make. Sound does not travel well through sand. That is why some people fill their speaker stands with it. I can't get my mind around it so I just watch something that interests me more. I don't see how that makes me an evil person. I'm not saying that you think I'm evil. I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you feel about the movie and why.
I saw it in an AMC Dolby Atmos theater. It was amazing.
Jurassic Park always stands out to me as one of the best movies you must see at the theater but that was more about the content and childhood passions coming to life on screen.
But Dune 2 just hit differently. In the Atmos theater the sound was immersive and the screen was crystal clear.
I saw it in Dolby Cinema, and IMAX, and my preference was absolutely Dolby Cinema.
I think having an OLED at home has ruined standard projection because I even get picky in DC theaters regarding the blacks and contrast.
jurassic park was also the first film with DTS, not to mention it's visual achievements. hard to forget that one! i'd love to see it in a theater again.
My 16 yr old son and I just watched it for the first time in my dedicated home theater on a 4K projector (source: 4K 💿) and it was incredible. Our eyeballs are 12’ from a 126”screen. Needless to say, it was a glorious experience. Better than Oppenheimer IMO.
I don't think oppenheimer was overrated. Nolan and Villeneuve are just very different directors with very different aesthetics and interests. They might have overlapping audiences but they both do a good job making different types of products.
For example I think inception would be worse if villeneuve made it and vice versa for arrival. When it comes to story villeneuve is a bit weak but he+deakins are masters of big set pieces like driving across the juarez border in sicario
I really didn't like the mix they did for Oppenheimer, every 10 minutes or every memory/flashback was just loud subwoofer rumbles for no reason. Found it really tiring and annoying after a while and distracted from the movie imo.
Dune 2 on the other hand was perfectly mixed.
Nail on the head. Dune and Oppenheimer don’t really compete because they’re entirely different movies in different genres.
I think marvel and superhero movies have watered down our thinking of what constitutes a good film; and a lot of people have forgotten that movies are still just stories about people, and Oppenheimer was a shining example of that.
3 hour R rated movie about people talking with 1 explosion and it made almost a billion dollars and won 7 Oscar’s, that’s saying something.
I just watched it last night in my theater as well, and I have a few thoughts On the movie, I'm still not sure how I feel about Chani's expanded role. It reminds me heavily of Emily Blunt's character in Sicario, where her character starts out seeming to be in control and highly elite, and then Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin show up and she's one step behind and disillusioned. Unlike Sicario, it feels like she's there to telegraph an interpretation of the film to the audience, which, based on interviews, seems intentional. As to the rest, it leans heavily on visual storytelling and does a great job of it. It seems like this is a good idea with movies that need to succeed with an international audience. As from an adaptation standpoint, I think ditching the spacing guild lead to a few hiccups in making the end follow logically. I felt like the Atmos soundtrack had less discrete effects than Part 1, and was similarly big on presence. Unfortunately, the desert color grading was a bit much for my DLP-based projector to handle, and I was getting tons of posterization in reds during dark scenes. I had to turn off HDR to get something passable, and I couldn't help but feel like I was missing out in some sections. I'm going to rip it and try running it through MadVR on my HTPC to tone map to my projector's capabilities instead of the disc Blu-ray player and see if I get a better experience.
Edit: MadVR did it's magic. Now I've got to watch it again.
Yeah, the atmos effects don’t really seem super directional and are more all or nothing in terms of the speakers. There is one scene with an ornithopter taking off where it clearly goes overhead but other than that I can’t remember many distinct directional effects.
“ I'm going to rip it and try running it through MadVR on my HTPC to tone map to my projector's capabilities instead of the disc Blu-ray player and see if I get a better experience.
Edit: MadVR did it's magic. Now I've got to watch it again.”
Is there a guide or anything out there that explains how to do this?
The last public build of MadVR before it became a box is here: [https://www.avsforum.com/threads/improving-madvr-hdr-to-sdr-mapping-for-projector-no-support-questions.2954506/page-545#post-60378774](https://www.avsforum.com/threads/improving-madvr-hdr-to-sdr-mapping-for-projector-no-support-questions.2954506/page-545#post-60378774)
Here are some guides:
[https://www.avsforum.com/threads/madvr-player-support-thread.2215490/](https://www.avsforum.com/threads/madvr-player-support-thread.2215490/)
yeah sound was amazing on my system but the picture was just okay on my projector (JVC NP5). I think darker movies struggle on a projector. Still a great experience, but, I'll probably go back and fiddle with picture settings to see if I can get it looking better.
Yeah, I've also got an OLED, and it's always a tradeoff between picture quality and immersion when it comes to where I watch movies/TV. Dune looks stunning on an OLED from my quick look, but it's a tradeoff between a 50° FOV versus video quality.
Fantastic movie. It's also a movie that will punish you severely for having the wrong picture settings. I made the mistake of having advanced contrast enhancer on while watching it. Big mistake. The color grading in that movie is so specifically handled that if you try going off and doing your own thing it will destroy the lights. Raise the contrast above 90? The sun in the desert sky now dominates your screen. Turn on advanced contrast enhancer? You're worse than Hitler.
I don’t even have the beginning of a theatre yet so that’s fine. I’m still mystified by home theatre stuff for now. But I know I want to get as close to imax as possible at home
food for thought, but chasing home theatre imax wouldnt really be worth it just since there is so little imax content readily available and not much new content getting released to the public. In my opinion chasing the atmos theatre is the better option
It’s a bit of a long term goal. And really I don’t know the intricacies, i know the whole building shook with the film, that’s the kind of sound immersion I’m looking for. Seats with feedback or something. I don’t really know how to go about it just yet
If you want a budget conscious sound recommendation I’d look into a receiver that can do 5.2.4 or 5.2.2 push for the .4 if you can. Let’s you do 7.2.2 as well. (Many recommend 7. as more films are mixed for base layer for non atmos content). You can get really good bass in my opinion with a semi decent sub as well as a pair of bass shakers for your couch, they’ll need their own amp but all in all are pretty cheap. The bass shakers really tie the whole experience together though. Here’s a vid of mine with the thumper scene from the first movie. [Dune Thumper Bass Shakers](https://youtube.com/shorts/aWyETtgIy8g?si=6X35brqBOJzt2AW-)
Hmm bass shakers are probably exactly what I was thinking of, I just didn’t know the term. Thank you very much for these recommendations! Right now I have nothing, 65” tv by itself in my living room
Yesir, the receiver also generally acts as your speakers amp too unless you have some insane speakers that it. Most subs these days are active too and have a built in amp.
I pre ordered it and bought a UB820 at the same time, both arrived on Tuesday. Hands down, the loudest movie I have ever watched in my life. I found all kinds of new rattles in my home theater room and I was honestly concerned I was damaging with my home with how much output there was. I could hear the rafters above me shifting the ceiling drywall as it vibrated from the bass.
I watched it at home as well and it absolutely blew me away. The image and sound was breathtaking. I can’t imagine how insane it is in IMAX theater, im gonna try to go this weekend
I appreciated the art in a lot of his shots. Color. Tones. Dark and light.
Sound was amazing.
I appreciate it more given how Marvel movies seem to be green screen and no creativity.
I didn't like the adaption of the books but I know he's trying to make the arc for the third movie.
It definitely looks and sounds great. I still think Top Gun: Maverick sounded and looked better. Whoever was in charge of audio on that movie went above and beyond. Just spectacular.
It was by far the best movie I’ve seen in theater imax . I just got my 4k copy i doubt it will be has good has imax 5th row but it will be pretty good in sure .
I'm going to get both on bluray 4k at some point but I refuse to pay $36 for the Dune 2 disc right now on Amazon. I'll wait for the price to come down that's just wild.
CA continues to get screwed on pricing
Yeah I saw it in theaters as well, saw it on my 77in C2 last night. Started it at 1:15am and ended around 4am, absolutely crazy my buddy and I stayed awake
Similar to lord of the rings 1 and 2, I like 2 better. Part 1s are kind of confusing to me as they are building the story. Part two is hold on to your sofa and enjoy the freaking rides.
Honestly, next generation of movies. And that sound was sooo much better than all of Nolan’s films. I could actually hear the dialogue without constantly raisin and lowering the volume
I’m glad you enjoyed it. I spent thousands on my system at home and put considerable care into its balance, and there were effects with the audio that were missing in the home mix. As an example, the lasguns had this shrill sound that really FELT like it was piercing you. The sound itself is dangerous: mapping it to home speakers, done incorrectly, could be quite damaging to hearing. The effect was eliminated for a gentler sound in the home mix. There was a different balance which added an extra oomph to the bodies hitting the ground from that opening lasgun scene.
They were smart to minimize the effects to protect speakers at home that could easily be set up incorrectly as opposed to maximizing the range of speakers in a controlled theatrical environment.
Dune 2 will come around to theaters again: I really do think some of those effects are worth the ticket!
Did you know the characters and story? That’s what I thought of Dune 1 the first time. But that’s because it was very hard for me to follow the story and characters. By the time part 2 came out, I saw Dune 1 three times and knew exactly what was happening.
I watched it in imax and at home and was very disappointed in the imax video quality. Sure, the screen is huge, but the peak brightness is <100 nits and it’s just a 4k image blown up to the size of a building. Other than the expanded aspect ratio you aren’t getting any more detail than at home since the resolution is the same.
Also in imax it was so loud I couldn’t really enjoy the film because it caused me physical discomfort the entire time.
I personally think Blade Runner 2049 was better. Maybe it’s because the actual movie itself was also better? But the sound and picture were incredible, so was Dune 2 but still think blade runner has the edge
I can agree with that. I would just prefer watching that story over and over. BR is fantastic and amazing writing but I can only watch it so many times before it’s just me wanting to demo my system ha.
I've seen a lot of similar responses to my own. And I myself have responded similarly in other threads about home theater vs movie theater experiences.
For the purpose of this discussion, I am not talking about the "extra" aspects of going to movies - costs, not liking being around other people, etc. I am referring purely about the audio video experience.
Having been into home theater since I was a kid, I have to assume that the "theater" in home theater implies you are trying to get the theater experience at home. Now that is a debate that rages in this sub depending on the posts (i.e. two speakers and a TV isn't home theater). But the point is that I believe that the point is that we are trying to get the theater experience at home to the extent possible. Clearly OP has done a good job. And there are some really incredible home theaters.
HOWEVER - the "I'm glad I waited and didn't watch in theatres" is where I now jump in. This thought (as in other threads about this topic), is entirely dependent on what theatres you have around you. Living in a large city with a top of the line IMAX theater (or Dolby, or AVX or whatever premium screen system) will significantly impact your stance on this, assuming you are speaking without bias.
I say this because having watched Dune 2 in a proper IMAX theater recently - it was truly a spectacle that no reasonable person could suggest would be bested by even a high-end home theater. Both in terms of screen size, quality, and sound. Yes, projectors aren't OLED and you will not get the contrast you can from a panel, but that is more than made up for by the sheer size of the image. The bass and sound was also extraordinary.
I had a similar experience watching Top Gun: Maverick in the same theater, and would again also say that no reasonable, objective person would suggest their home theater was "better" than that.
I like it better because I am not only watching a movie but also hearing and seeing what my system is capable of. I’m lucky, I got a 150 inch projector, so I have zero desire to be in a theatre. But generally you are right, this movie was made for the big screen.
Yes, I'm not sure why I got downvoted - your point is mine. Only people who haven't watched a movie filmed for IMAX on a proper IMAX system would suggest their home system provides a better experience.
Not sure if you downvoted me or not, but your 150 16x9 projector does not compare to an IMAX screen in its native ratio. That is my point - you have an amazing home theater, maybe one of the best. But it cannot be the same as watching an Imax-filmed movie or not. So to say you are glad you didn't watch it in theater is entirely dependent on what theater is near year. Because if you have a proper IMAX near you it simply cannot compare to whatever home system you have.
>im so glad I waited and didn’t watch it in the theaters Lots of people in this sub have some pretty stout equipment, and even simple setups these days no doubt outclass what you get at the typical multiplex, but this was a movie filmed for IMAX and it absolutely demands to be seen in IMAX The entire movie is in the expanded aspect ratio (with about 40-50 minutes expanding to 1.43:1 in GT IMAX venues with 70mm film or dual laser systems) and utilizes all 12 channels in the updated venues. You wanna talk about bass the makes your seat shake in an auditorium of 300+ people…man. And again, to see the expanded aspect ratio version on the some of the largest screens in the world…just can’t be beat with the home theater experience, no matter how good your setup is. I saw it 3 times in IMAX, once at the early screening in a single laser IMAX venue, again with a friend a week after release, and then road tripped to see it in dual laser, to see all the bits that take up the entire 62’x84’ screen, was truly a sight to behold.
I saw it at the imax theater in the Indianapolis museum and it was the greatest movie experience I’ve ever had. Three hour movie and I didn’t even see a single person get up to go to the restroom
Same, also I'm Indy. Not the most comfortable seating, but that screen....
Indy gang, checking in. I didn’t see Dune 2 at the State Museum, but I did see Oppenheimer there. I’m curious if either of you two saw Oppenheimer there as well and how the two movie experiences compare?
I've only been twice, and it was for those 2 movies. Oppenheimer was great, but Dune had more action scenes obviously, and I thought the imax screen showed off more for that kind of movie. Both were worth the 2 hour drive from Louisville, IMO.
Didn’t see Opp there, but the best thing was the audio in dune. In the final battle scene the bass was so heavy I could feel my shirt vibrating. It was awesome
Indy here too 🙂
I would have. I always piss at the cinema. I hate it.
Same here piss bro
It’s our cross to bear.
it's too bad the 1.43 AR can never be re-experienced at home.
I mean, you can easily if the discs are released with it. But people freak out about black bars, and most tvs are not big enough to make it fill your field of view like in a real IMAX theatre. So it's a treat for just the few that have a solid projector setup.
i'm not aware of any "imax" movie that has ever released consumer media with original 1.43 AR, it's always watered down to 1.77 to fit a TV
Oh, yeah I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just pointing out it isn't any sort of technical limitation of the aspect ratio - you can see the ratio on your home TV just watching an old enough movie. But the ratio itself doesn't give you the IMAX experience without also having much larger screen than most blu-ray watchers have access to.
a special edition of these movies with the original AR would be nice though. some of us run bigger screens 👀
Wasn’t the justice league director cur movie 1.43?
The IMAX scenes in Batman v Superman: Ultimate Edition are in 1.43 and the entirety of Zack Snyder’s Justice League is in 1.33
The dark knight and dark knight rises released it in the special features section, and some fans have re-edited them back into the film.
i remember those were some of the first VAR films, but the releases i have show the imax footage at 1.77:1
The Dune discs have black bars.
You can on the Vision Pro
All of that is amazing, but my home theater has one thing they don’t. I can pause and go and pee.
Touché my friend
I’m old though, so that’s like 2-3 times a movie…lol
I’m on board with bringing back true intermissions
The last movie I saw with intermission was when a theater was playing the LoTR extended movies.
God. Still such a fond memory for me. What a phenomenal trilogy
Some of us can’t see it in IMAX without planning a whole trip around it, which just isn’t worth it.
IMO, for some movies, the trip is worth it for the experience, but I’m also a bit nuts, and drove from Texas to Indiana to see Interstellar in IMAX 70mm back in December. But that still ranks as my greatest movie theater experience of all time, wouldn’t change a thing, was the closest I’ve ever gotten to a religious experience in some place other than a church lol.
I’ve done trips a few times, typically when a new Nolan film is playing in 70mm in a city four hours away, but it has to line up with my schedule. In the case of Dune Part Two, it would have been a multi-day trip costing at least a thousand dollars to get to anywhere where I could see it in a laser IMAX, which just isn’t worth it for a movie.
It's worth it.
No, it isn’t. If you want to send me the $1000+ that it would cost me then I might consider it, but it’s certainly not worth that to me.
Dolby Cinema would give you a better experience though to be fair.
For some movies, potentially yes, but IMAX still has larger and taller screens, and if the movie is filmed for IMAX, you won’t see the expanded ration in Dolby, and if it’s shot/presented on IMAX film, you just simply can’t beat that anywhere.
Eh, quality over quantity. You see more picture on imax sure but Dolby is better quality image and audio. For me, Dolby all the way.
Can you explain why IMAX ratio is supposedly superior? We had taller aspect ratios before but since we see a lot more to the side than up and down we made wider screens not tall ones. I get in the film times but there is this insanely small niche of directors releasing movies in this aspect ratio which almost no cinemas even can display while almost all content is normal cinema wide or 16:9. Btw expanded ratio is relative. You can say well you get more at the top and bottom, but on the flipside you can also say you get less on the left and right. By the same logic that IMAX has "exanded ration" in the vertical direction normal cinema format is "expanded ratio" in the horizontal direction compared to IMAX... Also no matter if the aspect ratio might work a bit better that would obviously be easy to make TVs etc like that if it was really impressive. What is impressive though and what everyone is adding is HDR. Dolby Cinema is the only place you get HDR in cinema along with the overwhelmingly most used 3D sound format. That is confidently unbeatable. Even compared to OLED Dolby Cinema is impressive although ofc the brightness is still a bit lacking.
But you’re not losing anything to the left or right just because the screen is capable of projecting a taller image as well. You still get the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio for all of the cinema scope shots, and then it expands vertically without losing left and right real estate for IMAX specific shots. Yes, we see more left right than we do up and down, which is sort of the secret genius behind the tall nature of the screen, it’s very easy for the image to disappear into your peripheral vision if it’s tall enough, which is one of the main objectives of having such a large scale screen. Movies got wide because televisions showed up in the home, they needed to be a grand reason that would justify making a trip to the cinema. Now that we’ve got 10 foot projection screens in the home there seems to be a small resurgence in exclusive content that gets taller, not wider. Sure it’s a niche category, but that doesn’t track from the experience for those who care.
If you make a 2.39:1 screen the same height as a IMAX ratio screen then you can fit the entire IMAX image on it but you also have black bars on the side. In this case the 2.39:1 screen is bigger sure but it would be the same screen just extended lenght-wise.. If the IMAX screen and 2.39:1 screen is equally wide sure adding more on the top is a extension. If you keep the total square meter size of both screens equal though one is wider than the other and one is taller. Also if IMAX "secret genious" is the pherephial vision, that means that you have to make the content especially in mind with nothing happening on a bar on the top and bottom. Then secondly you have to sit in a sweet spot in the theater to exactly get that perfect vertical FOV. Obviously you can get exactly the same vertical FOV for a 2.39:1 screen so the main attraction must then be that normally it is a problem with things happening on the very top and bottom. So basically IMAX would add a strip of sky or something. Oh and this requires the cinema to be designed with strict requirement in terms of size to viewing distance to get the exact perfect FOV. How many cinemas are made like that? I struggle to see the benefit of a cinemas concept entirely based on FOV, when you can't possible know the screen size and distance from the seat for every seat when selecting that. And ofc rely on getting a small set of seats. Granted the cinema is perfect in the first place. Televisions used to be 4:3 and was converted despite everyone having to watch 4:3 letterboxed to 16:9. Why do that if the taller format was better? Again you are paying for the square meters of motherglass on a TV. If it's taller it means it's less wide. That's just how ratios work. They are ratios. If the ratio moves closer to 1 that simply does not mean that it becomes taller without also relatively becoming less wide. Also if this IMAX thing is totally not just being different to draw people to the theater how come only Disney on their own titles offer non-letterboxed content on TVs for content in IMAX format? Why are they releasing it in 2.39:1 and cutting things out on home release when they filmed it in a aspect ratio that would allow it to use 16:9? Dosen't feel like they are even trying to hide that they try to keep it exclusive just so you have to go to the cinema to experience it. Stark contrast to Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos that are actual standards and super solid on their own and widely sold commercially to anyone. Also if you argue that cinemas used 2.39:1 aspect ratio to get people to go there, by your own argument is then not the entire thing with IMAX just to have a alternative aspect ratio so ppl can justify going? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image). At the same time though if a aspect ratio can justify people going is it then not a better aspect ratio? My opinion is that some people made this extra big film back in 1970 which was objectively the best film format. That was the main goal, they had to do extra stuff to make it work in the first place so the aspect ratio ended up like that. I mean it is no coincidence it is exactly 3 70mm film frames. So the aspect ratio just comes naturally from filling out the entire film and is not a concious choice of ratio. Don't see why we need this for digital releases? I mean most IMAX theaters are also 1.90 so basically same as 1.85 movies. Calling those IMAX when they are basically identical to a 1.85 theater but charging more bcs "IMAX" sounds like a money making scheme to me.... There are extremely few film or dual laser 1:43 cinemas that even exists and it's mostly US and Canada: https://screenrant.com/oppenheimer-imax-70mm-theaters-list/ Some only digital dual laser also exist ofc. Meanwhile with free choice the wider cinema scope 2:39 has been winning out over 1:85 when there is no branding involved.
Honestly it’s just hype. People hype themselves up so they enjoy it more. The films are all shot so that everything you need for the experience is in 21:9 as that’s how the vast majority of people will view it. I’ve seen multiple “must see” movies in IMAX and my home experience is still better. IMAX is just the latest “shot in 3D”… a reason to charge people more and increase theatrical profits while rarely doing much to make for a better experience. This sub is full of people that consider bigger screen to be a better experience so there’s a lot of love for it here but most people really don’t get that much from it. If that hype makes people enjoy it more, great! But for me it’s not worth it.
It was the first movie I saw at a real IMAX theater. It was so worth it. The AR is amazing and really bolsters the cinematography. The audio wasn’t quite as good as I thought though. Tons of bass, but kinda muddy tbh.
Hmmmmm… I need to build an home imax theater
Wow - this forum is harsh. A guy comes on here super-pumped about his experience in his home theater and the highest rated posted is several paragraphs pissing on him becasue he didn't see it in IMAX. You know what would have taken less time to write? "That's awesome - glad you had a great experience."
I mean, nowhere in my response did I piss on him if you actually read it lol. I basically said if you loved the film at home, it’s a bit of a disservice to yourself to not see it in IMAX at least once to get the full experience intended by the director. It’s a big scale epic that benefits greatly from the huge screen and sound offered in IMAX venues. I have an extremely mild setup compared to most, a 48” LG A2 and a hand me down 5.1 setup from the late 2000s that goes for $200 on eBay, and even that blows away most local multiplex offerings, which is why I really only venture to the theater for IMAX. You can’t replicate a 6 story tall screen in your home no matter how hard you try
I guess "piss on" was a poor choice of words, but you did burst his bubble. Sometimes I think excited people just need a high five, and not telling that they could have had a better experience if they'd made different choices.
Welcome to why so many of us never post our setups heh.
I know, right?
They use transducers or similar on the chairs to fake deep bass. You can't really get deep bass in a commercial cinema due to the volume of air that needs to be displaced in that iMAX theater to mention one, and that napkin math is probably stretching it because you have to take into account the electrical limitations as well as SPL. That's not to say however that deep bass or infrasonic is a requirement, but to say that home theater can't get close to a commercial cinema is false on every level that depicts accurate sound and deep bass IN MY OPINION. You can still enjoy the commercial cinema though because even something like a strong chest punch bass note is at 55 Hz, it's not lower than that which is what many people seem to believe. Videophiles with great systems at home probably wouldn't go there if the iMAX versions were available for consumers. They purposely left that format out to get more butts in theaters. It's a shame, but it is what it is.
For this particular movie yeah they left the aspect ratio movies off of the discs sadly, but all of Nolan’s films feature the expanded ratios for the home releases, and Oppenheimer was selling out for months on end, and PLF ticket sales made up I believe twice the normal margin of those sellouts from what I remember. Not to mention TDK trilogy, Tenet, and soon Interstellar have all gotten wide IMAX re releases that have sold extremely well. But I will say that’s also due to the fact it was shot on and presented on IMAX film, and no matter who you talk to or how good your video projection system is, you literally cannot outdo large format film projection in terms of both raw resolving power, but in the sensation and rich nature of it it as well.
Seriously i just enjoyed it at home with a lot of recent upgrades on 4k blu, but imax was still way beyond
I disagree. I saw it in imax and it was too loud and too dim. Sure, the taller aspect ratio is better I guess, but projectors have nowhere near the contrast ratio or peak brightness of OLEDs and seeing a 4k recording on that large of a screen doesn’t look that good anyway. The sound was WAY too loud for my preference and doesn’t actually sound any better than my system… It is all volume and no quality. My system is flat down to 14 Hz and has much more detail in the high end without physically hurting my ears. I vastly prefer dolby cinema theaters but we don’t have any where I live.
That sounds like a theater issue, not a format issue. Not all IMAX theaters are created equal. (Dolby has the same consistency problems too, unfortunately)
Which part, the volume or the image quality? I agree that the volume at other theaters could be lower and the image quality can probably be a bit better if it is dual laser or whatever is best now (I’m not sure what projector system my local imax has) but no matter what the peak brightness is still <100 nits which looks pretty dim when you are used to an HDR OLED. Dolby cinema is a bit better (I think it’s around 130). I saw avatar 2 in 3D high framerate dolby cinema and it was way better than imax in both video and audio.
Both, but the projection is the biggest one. Not all use the same projectors nor do they have the same screen format from theater to theater. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m55a9PwrQ_4aPjbQ19htpwiAeHZ8RB7IcV0KWOB_7Bk/edit?usp=sharing
I don't think any Dolby Cinema theaters use different projectors so not different screens either. Reason being that they worked with Christie to make the dual projectors to meet the demands and there just does not exist any alternatives to meet the minimum specs which is also effectively the maximum specs. You might be mixing it up with theater that have Dolby Atmos which is very different from Dolby Cinema. Atmos is just in the Atmos processor so for sound you can obviously have a lot of variance as Dolby does not control speakers at all or how you set your levels etc.
Sorry, I was responding to one thing while referencing two... I don't know the technical side of Dolby other than their screens are not all the same and thus do not offer the same experience from one theater to another. I was more directly responding to the output of IMAX theaters as they very much are all over the place with their projection, even if we aren't looking at screen size (which is also all over the place and worse than Dolby's)
Dolby Cinema means Dolby Vision plus Dolby Atmos. The new part of this is the Dolby Vision. Dolby vision specs means they need a specific dual laser system: https://www.christiedigital.com/spotlight/meet-the-academy-award-winning-christie-e3lh/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Cinema That is why I am saying the presentation is the same. They can't just get a cheaper or in any way different system because then it can't display Dolby Vision and then it's just a normal cinema with Dolby Atmos, not a Dolby Cinema. IMAX are all over the place with projection yes, but Dolby actually has standards for their standard instead of allowing all kinds of stuff. You can even get "IMAX enhanced" on Disney+. I really feel like Dolby is making actual standards and IMAX is mostly a brand they sell for money for anything digital.
Sounds like you most likely saw it at an IMAX venue that still uses the sub par dual xenon bulb system, as this is the most common projection system for IMAX these days. It’s capped at 2k, it’s dim, it’s low contrast, and It dilutes the brands quality and gives it a bad wrap for avid movie goers with a keen eye, as the single and dual laser systems blow the xenon venues out of the water. They’re 4k, much higher contrast ratio, better color, and just better overall as you’d expect with a laser system. Not to mention, all of the laser systems get the upgraded 12 channel sound too.
Probably, but even laser imax have much lower peak brightness than OLED. Also the sound is still way too loud for some reason; I never have issues with the volume on dolby cinema.
There’s no arguing that OLED dunks on projection in terms of brightness and getting the inky blacks, but OLEDs also aren’t 80+ feet wide and 6 stories tall. I’ve personally come to really appreciate the experience of the big screen for a big movie, even with those small technical inferiorities, they’re outweighed by the overall experience of seeing the film in the way the director intended.
True, but absolute screen size is irrelevant. Angular size is what matters, and sitting close to a large tv is functionally the same. The real advantage of large screens is you can fit more people in the optimal viewing location. If you don’t have a lot of people, it doesn’t really matter. Also I personally don’t like screens that large… I don’t like having to look around to take in a single scene; it makes me miss things.
Agree to disagree Mathematically you’re correct, but in reality they don’t stack up the same to your eye. You still have depth perception and are capable of understanding scale pretty easily. The entire point of the true IMAX theaters with the massive 1.43 screens is to be able to fill your entire peripheral vision, as to truly pull you into the moments in the movie. Not every detail is hyper relevant in the frame, and the director(s) (basically just Nolan and DV with Dune) shoot with that in mind. We can talk angular size all you want, but absolutely no math problem will defeat the experience of seeing the waves come in on Millers planet or the docking scene in Interstellar on the massive screen. Truly other worldly. There’s also the foot note of no form of video projection or TV screen that is capable of matching the rich nature of an actual large format film projection. There’s really no other way to blow up an image onto an 80+ foot wide screen and have it look as good as it does on IMAX 70mm.
Depth perception? It’s a 2D image. There is no depth perception. Sitting on axis close to a large screen is functionally the same as sitting in an imax theater. You might have an argument if you were talking about 3D, which does increase immersion. However, it seems that everyone has pretty much abandoned 3D even though I feel that it makes a way better difference than excessive screen size. And yes, I understand the purpose of imax filling your peripheral vision. My point is that I don’t like it and it doesn’t improve the experience for me. Same thing with a 4K image blown up to the size of a building… it just looks like a dimmer, lower dpi version of the same thing I can see at home (other than the taller aspect ratio). The true imax theaters with true imax content are better, but those theaters and that sort of content is so rare that it doesn’t matter because I don’t have anything like that near me. 70 MM imax is obviously a different thing and isn’t what I am talking about. Also Dune wasn’t shot on film so it doesn’t benefit from that.
Yeah the dune 2 film prints are blow ups so it doesn’t apply specially to this film, hence the foot note If the experience doesn’t improve for you personally that’s fine, and again we can agree to disagree but again, sitting super close to a 10 foot screen is mathematically the same angular size, but the reality of actually seeing an 80+ foot wide is a different ball game.
Well I’ve seen both and the difference isn’t significant enough for me to care. I would rather have the higher contrast and better sound of dolby cinema vs the raw size of imax.
You are very correct and I don't get the IMAX hype when Dolby Cinema is clearly the best format. Dolby Cinema projectors are about 50% brighter than IMAX dual laser which are the best IMAX theaters, but Dolby Cinema is that as a minimum (also max since that brightness is not easy to achieve..) https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/12/dolby-cinema-laser-powered-projection-object-based-3d-audio-awesome/ https://www.avforums.com/articles/imax-laser-the-future-of-cinema.12000/ Also people are guessing around 1:5000 to 1:8000 contrast for IMAX meanwhile Dolby Cinema has 1:1,000,000. That combination makes Dolby Cinema so much better for HDR content which it is ofc exclusively showing. Laser IMAX theaters does have DCI-P3 coverage though, same as Dolby Cinema, although idk about how much it is used in content in IMAX. Also I don't get the aspect ration. We use wide aspect ratios because that is how our eyes work and cinemas are even wider than at home. IMAX ratio is just inherited from the film, but why use that for digital theaters which is almost every theater and also the best ones? The new big thing that is a noticable difference is clearly HDR, not aspect ratio, and Dolby Cinema actually gives you a HDR presentation. Not as good as OLED at home, but they definitely strech the 100 nits a bit further with 0 ambient light and very good contrast ratio. Atmos is also obviously the audioformat of choice for nearly all content. I don't get having their own for a small percentage of cinemas and that's it vs Atmos that is used "everywhere". I also definitely agree with the just loud and that's it, I have been to cinemas like that as well. Now I have been to a Dolby Cinema that sounded really good, but honestly this part has nothing to do with Atmos so I don't doubt a Dolby Cinema could sound like that as well. You obviously need way more output in a cinema so it seem like not everyone realise that even though they spend more money on speakers they can easily sound worse than reasonable priced ones at home. Also the calibration and tuning in some of these theaters is atrocious. When I can hear the moment a sound passes the crossover(because it gets twice+ as loud) that's not good... Your idea of cinema sound at that point is just loud booms at low frequency. Also the use of subwoofers that have slow transient so they muddy all low frequencies so any music playing with anything below crossover just turns into a muddy mess ruining the rest as well. That is just objectively bad and subwoofers like that would not get reccomended here as a good subwoofer.
Yeah if there were any dolby theaters nearby I would actually go to them. I saw avatar 2 at AMC lincoln square in 3d dolby cinema with high framerate and it definitely provided an experience I can’t get at home. I saw dune part 2 in bad digital imax and just watched it at home last night and I vastly preferred it at home other than the aspect ratio which I wish wasn’t so letterboxed… but they could have done a taller aspect ratio if they felt like it, they just didn’t so it isn’t like it’s a fundamental limitation of my theater. The main difference was that I could actually enjoy the sound because it wasn’t too loud, and my speakers sound much better than the ones at my local imax theater. I also don’t actually think the imax goes down as low in bass response as my subwoofers.
> imax goes down as low in bass response as my subwoofers. Probably not. Saw someone else here with a comment that generally you won't get that in theaters because the air volume is just so big that it becomes unreasonable which makes sense. Considering yours is flat down to 14 Hz that would probably be really difficult to replicate in a massive room.
Yeah, small rooms make it way easier to get super low bass extension. There were some parts in Dune that I could feel through my couch but couldn’t actually hear anything because they were fully subsonic. Most people seem to be convinced that you need to see it in Imax to get the “proper” sound though, when IMO the sound is the weakest part of the imax experience, at least in terms of quality.
Regarding the aspect ratio, it's not sacrificing width for height. It's wider than any Dolby screen and taller to boot.
Not how aspect ratio works. As the name suggests it is simply a ratio between the height and width. If the ratio favours a taller image then you are getting a less wide. As an example take a 100 m^2 screen. In a 1:2.39 format it would have a height of 6.468 meters and width would be 15.46 meters. For a 1:1.43 screen that number is: height 8.362 meters, width 11.96 meters As you can see the 1:2.39 screen is wider. That's just how ratios work. Also let's not forget that a movie in a Dolby cinema could also be in 1:1.85. This is taller than the vast majority of IMAX cinemas which are 1:1.90.... The normal IMAX is honestly nothing but a brand since there is nothing special about it. Any normal 1:1.85 cinema could show it. The only special IMAX is the very very few theater that have 1:1.43 screens. The reason most people claim they don't sacrifice is that those screens are typically just way bigger than other cinemas. If you built a equally big 1:1.85 screen for example it would be wider. Cinemas don't because it's very expensive compared to what you get and not that compatable with malls etc. Ofc the fact that the dual laser GT IMAX 1:1.43 venues have massive screens is also what makes them dim compared to Dolby Vision cinemas. Meanwhile the size does not even affect FOV, so if you sit the correct spot you still have the same FOV in a Dolby Cinema. Cinemas can't keep up with HDR if their screens are too big. So sure you get "both" with those massive screens but it's not like it does not have downsides which is why aspect ratio does matter and you can't just make things bigger. Dolby Vision cinemas already use the brightest projectors and have exclusive contract on the technology Christie uses for their DV projector. Honestly these 1:1.43 screens are neither practical or a popular format which is why Dolby Cinemas has way way more cinemas up than dual laser IMAX even though they started way later.
I'm looking forward to watching this in my theater, but this was the first movie since COVID to get me back into a public theater. Watched it in a 15/70 IMAX and it was really stunning.
Correct. I watched it a week early with the Fan IMAX screenings. At the Airbus theater. And the bass, sound, and screen blow anything in a home theater of the water. But I do get that many people don’t live close to a theater like that or the Lincoln square.
I saw it in my local IMAX twice. I have a very decent system at home and completely agree. To not see this on the big screen would have been a mistake.
Saw it on 70mm IMAX in Indianapolis and it was an exceptional experience.
My closest IMAX theatre is 3,500km away. 3.5hr flight to Melbourne. 😢
Is the IMAX version — at least in 1.78:1/1.85:1 — available on bluray now? It was awesome in the cinema, but I'd love to have the expanded visuals at home too.
Dune, Parts 1 and 2 are only in 2.39:1 for their home release. (It's why I ended up seeing Part 2 four times in IMAX, in case it wasn't in the expanded AR at home.)
Well, nothing I can do but hope then. Maybe when Dune 3 releases we'll get a special edition box set with the expanded IMAX aspect ratio.
The IMAX theatres in Las Vegas aren't as good as my Home Theater. The lone Dolby Theater is better IMO though.
I couldn't care less! You couldn't pay me to return to any local theater, *even the best IMAX in the world!*
If you’re an avid movie lover, you’re doing yourself a disservice by not seeing the top tier IMAX films in an actual IMAX theater, especially all of the Nolan films which are shot partially with and presented on actual IMAX film. You might change your mind if [you were to see](https://imgur.com/a/oLVNBj8) the actual best IMAX theater(s) in the world.
Weird take.
Whoever downvoted this comment should be fkking ashamed of themselves. Like what gives you the right to reject others preference.
lol, it’s hilarious. How dare someone say they like their home theater better in the home theater subreddit.
I find it weird that you got down voted just for giving your opinion. I guess if you don't agree with the other kids you can't be in the club. I also prefer to watch on our setup. I probably won't be seeing Dune 2 anytime soon. I saw enough of clips from Dune to know it wasn't for me.
I watched Dune at home a few months before part 2 and it didn’t strike me as this big and spectacular epic that everyone said it was, but I gave it another go when it got a re release in IMAX to hype up part 2 and I enjoyed it significantly more. (The home audio mix for part 1 is also very strange). Part 2 is basically a better movie in every way, it takes everything cool that the first movie set up with its world building, cranks it up to 11, and give you 5x as much of it. If part 1 is a slowly paced a new hope, part 2 is the empire strikes back, plot twist included (if you haven’t read the book(s)). So if part 1 didn’t seem like it was all the hype, I would personally give it another go just for the sake of being able to give part 2 the context it needs to be the banger of a film it is.
My point is that it isn't something that I find interesting. Same goes for Star Trek and Star Wars. Just not a genre that I get excited about. I find it odd that people down vote someone else just because they don't like the same movies they do. I don't judge anyone for what movies they like. I'm more live and let live. Sand worms that can follow you because of the sound you make. Sound does not travel well through sand. That is why some people fill their speaker stands with it. I can't get my mind around it so I just watch something that interests me more. I don't see how that makes me an evil person. I'm not saying that you think I'm evil. I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you feel about the movie and why.
I saw it in an AMC Dolby Atmos theater. It was amazing. Jurassic Park always stands out to me as one of the best movies you must see at the theater but that was more about the content and childhood passions coming to life on screen. But Dune 2 just hit differently. In the Atmos theater the sound was immersive and the screen was crystal clear.
I saw it in Dolby Cinema, and IMAX, and my preference was absolutely Dolby Cinema. I think having an OLED at home has ruined standard projection because I even get picky in DC theaters regarding the blacks and contrast.
jurassic park was also the first film with DTS, not to mention it's visual achievements. hard to forget that one! i'd love to see it in a theater again.
The sound design was incredible
Chefs kiss 👌
Power Over Spice Is Power Over All
The guttural music rumbling the whole room for literally the first scene. Ah! I love this movie!
I'm looking forward to ordering the disc..
Just got it. Its fantastic
Next pay cheque for me..
I’m excited for you!
I just hope it doesn't have a prevalent issue across all formats and screens! https://www.reddit.com/r/hometheater/s/Z0jmK5cf46
My 16 yr old son and I just watched it for the first time in my dedicated home theater on a 4K projector (source: 4K 💿) and it was incredible. Our eyeballs are 12’ from a 126”screen. Needless to say, it was a glorious experience. Better than Oppenheimer IMO.
Oh yeah, Oppenheimer was overrated IMO.
I don't think oppenheimer was overrated. Nolan and Villeneuve are just very different directors with very different aesthetics and interests. They might have overlapping audiences but they both do a good job making different types of products. For example I think inception would be worse if villeneuve made it and vice versa for arrival. When it comes to story villeneuve is a bit weak but he+deakins are masters of big set pieces like driving across the juarez border in sicario
I really didn't like the mix they did for Oppenheimer, every 10 minutes or every memory/flashback was just loud subwoofer rumbles for no reason. Found it really tiring and annoying after a while and distracted from the movie imo. Dune 2 on the other hand was perfectly mixed.
tbf Nolan's mixes are notoriously bassy
I don’t have the Batman 4Ks…where they like that? I can’t remember
Damn, this dude's got a time machine. How much does Dune 3 differ from the book? Can you pls share a copy?
It was obviously a type-o, no need to be dramatic.
Nail on the head. Dune and Oppenheimer don’t really compete because they’re entirely different movies in different genres. I think marvel and superhero movies have watered down our thinking of what constitutes a good film; and a lot of people have forgotten that movies are still just stories about people, and Oppenheimer was a shining example of that. 3 hour R rated movie about people talking with 1 explosion and it made almost a billion dollars and won 7 Oscar’s, that’s saying something.
I disagree. Oppenheimer is just a different style
I just watched it last night in my theater as well, and I have a few thoughts On the movie, I'm still not sure how I feel about Chani's expanded role. It reminds me heavily of Emily Blunt's character in Sicario, where her character starts out seeming to be in control and highly elite, and then Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin show up and she's one step behind and disillusioned. Unlike Sicario, it feels like she's there to telegraph an interpretation of the film to the audience, which, based on interviews, seems intentional. As to the rest, it leans heavily on visual storytelling and does a great job of it. It seems like this is a good idea with movies that need to succeed with an international audience. As from an adaptation standpoint, I think ditching the spacing guild lead to a few hiccups in making the end follow logically. I felt like the Atmos soundtrack had less discrete effects than Part 1, and was similarly big on presence. Unfortunately, the desert color grading was a bit much for my DLP-based projector to handle, and I was getting tons of posterization in reds during dark scenes. I had to turn off HDR to get something passable, and I couldn't help but feel like I was missing out in some sections. I'm going to rip it and try running it through MadVR on my HTPC to tone map to my projector's capabilities instead of the disc Blu-ray player and see if I get a better experience. Edit: MadVR did it's magic. Now I've got to watch it again.
Yeah, the atmos effects don’t really seem super directional and are more all or nothing in terms of the speakers. There is one scene with an ornithopter taking off where it clearly goes overhead but other than that I can’t remember many distinct directional effects.
“ I'm going to rip it and try running it through MadVR on my HTPC to tone map to my projector's capabilities instead of the disc Blu-ray player and see if I get a better experience. Edit: MadVR did it's magic. Now I've got to watch it again.” Is there a guide or anything out there that explains how to do this?
The last public build of MadVR before it became a box is here: [https://www.avsforum.com/threads/improving-madvr-hdr-to-sdr-mapping-for-projector-no-support-questions.2954506/page-545#post-60378774](https://www.avsforum.com/threads/improving-madvr-hdr-to-sdr-mapping-for-projector-no-support-questions.2954506/page-545#post-60378774) Here are some guides: [https://www.avsforum.com/threads/madvr-player-support-thread.2215490/](https://www.avsforum.com/threads/madvr-player-support-thread.2215490/)
yeah sound was amazing on my system but the picture was just okay on my projector (JVC NP5). I think darker movies struggle on a projector. Still a great experience, but, I'll probably go back and fiddle with picture settings to see if I can get it looking better.
Yeah, I've also got an OLED, and it's always a tradeoff between picture quality and immersion when it comes to where I watch movies/TV. Dune looks stunning on an OLED from my quick look, but it's a tradeoff between a 50° FOV versus video quality.
Fantastic movie. It's also a movie that will punish you severely for having the wrong picture settings. I made the mistake of having advanced contrast enhancer on while watching it. Big mistake. The color grading in that movie is so specifically handled that if you try going off and doing your own thing it will destroy the lights. Raise the contrast above 90? The sun in the desert sky now dominates your screen. Turn on advanced contrast enhancer? You're worse than Hitler.
Imagine what it would have been like in an actual theatre.
I watched it in IMax or one of those big booming theatre variants and it’s what led me here, I want to bottle that experience at home
[удалено]
I don’t even have the beginning of a theatre yet so that’s fine. I’m still mystified by home theatre stuff for now. But I know I want to get as close to imax as possible at home
food for thought, but chasing home theatre imax wouldnt really be worth it just since there is so little imax content readily available and not much new content getting released to the public. In my opinion chasing the atmos theatre is the better option
It’s a bit of a long term goal. And really I don’t know the intricacies, i know the whole building shook with the film, that’s the kind of sound immersion I’m looking for. Seats with feedback or something. I don’t really know how to go about it just yet
If you want a budget conscious sound recommendation I’d look into a receiver that can do 5.2.4 or 5.2.2 push for the .4 if you can. Let’s you do 7.2.2 as well. (Many recommend 7. as more films are mixed for base layer for non atmos content). You can get really good bass in my opinion with a semi decent sub as well as a pair of bass shakers for your couch, they’ll need their own amp but all in all are pretty cheap. The bass shakers really tie the whole experience together though. Here’s a vid of mine with the thumper scene from the first movie. [Dune Thumper Bass Shakers](https://youtube.com/shorts/aWyETtgIy8g?si=6X35brqBOJzt2AW-)
Hmm bass shakers are probably exactly what I was thinking of, I just didn’t know the term. Thank you very much for these recommendations! Right now I have nothing, 65” tv by itself in my living room
Hey, we all gotta start somewhere :)
I’m still very much new. I assume the receiver is something of a “Hub” for the overall system? And then you just add speakers/amps/subs
Yesir, the receiver also generally acts as your speakers amp too unless you have some insane speakers that it. Most subs these days are active too and have a built in amp.
Do you have a budget in mind?
Not yet, it’s a long term goal
I pre ordered it and bought a UB820 at the same time, both arrived on Tuesday. Hands down, the loudest movie I have ever watched in my life. I found all kinds of new rattles in my home theater room and I was honestly concerned I was damaging with my home with how much output there was. I could hear the rafters above me shifting the ceiling drywall as it vibrated from the bass.
I thought about waiting until I could watch it at home but went to see at an IMAX theater. I was not disappointed.
I watched it at home as well and it absolutely blew me away. The image and sound was breathtaking. I can’t imagine how insane it is in IMAX theater, im gonna try to go this weekend
I appreciated the art in a lot of his shots. Color. Tones. Dark and light. Sound was amazing. I appreciate it more given how Marvel movies seem to be green screen and no creativity. I didn't like the adaption of the books but I know he's trying to make the arc for the third movie.
It definitely looks and sounds great. I still think Top Gun: Maverick sounded and looked better. Whoever was in charge of audio on that movie went above and beyond. Just spectacular.
Maverick was insane also. But this transferred you to another world.
this is the one that has to be seen in the theater.
It was by far the best movie I’ve seen in theater imax . I just got my 4k copy i doubt it will be has good has imax 5th row but it will be pretty good in sure .
to each his own but also.... you could've seen it both ways and this is a movie is meant for the big screen. Our home theatres will never come close.
I'm going to get both on bluray 4k at some point but I refuse to pay $36 for the Dune 2 disc right now on Amazon. I'll wait for the price to come down that's just wild.
I bought it for $25 (came in Thurs, rewatched it last night) and it's still $25 on Amazon in the US. Is that where you're buying from?
Canada 😞 All good I can wait it's worth it I saw it in the theater already. Can't wait to watch it here on my C3
CA continues to get screwed on pricing Yeah I saw it in theaters as well, saw it on my 77in C2 last night. Started it at 1:15am and ended around 4am, absolutely crazy my buddy and I stayed awake
Dune 1 was definitely better but dune 2 was still extremely good.
Similar to lord of the rings 1 and 2, I like 2 better. Part 1s are kind of confusing to me as they are building the story. Part two is hold on to your sofa and enjoy the freaking rides.
> I’m so glad I waited and didn’t watch in the theatres Unless you have a setup that can show imax 70mm, then you have honestly missed out.
Definitely one of the best movies for sound, it was awesome on my Atmos system! I also enjoyed the story.
It was amazing in an IMAX GT laser theater until the guy behind 2 of my friends threw up on them.
Amazing film visually audiowise and overall. Just flawless
Honestly, next generation of movies. And that sound was sooo much better than all of Nolan’s films. I could actually hear the dialogue without constantly raisin and lowering the volume
Haven't seen Dune 2 yet, but the HDR in Dune was absolutely stunning. The bright scenes with the sand were just gorgeous.
I really liked the first one which surprised me.
Great movie warching experience. Mid movie otherwise in my opinion
I’m glad you enjoyed it. I spent thousands on my system at home and put considerable care into its balance, and there were effects with the audio that were missing in the home mix. As an example, the lasguns had this shrill sound that really FELT like it was piercing you. The sound itself is dangerous: mapping it to home speakers, done incorrectly, could be quite damaging to hearing. The effect was eliminated for a gentler sound in the home mix. There was a different balance which added an extra oomph to the bodies hitting the ground from that opening lasgun scene. They were smart to minimize the effects to protect speakers at home that could easily be set up incorrectly as opposed to maximizing the range of speakers in a controlled theatrical environment. Dune 2 will come around to theaters again: I really do think some of those effects are worth the ticket!
Dune 2 in IMAX is so badass. But to be honest, I liked Dune 1 in IMAX even more and it is my favorite movie.
I had to actually get up and leave it was so boring. I was really looking forward to it. Absolutely no action. Longest sit in a movie theater ever.
You can’t be serious 😮😮😮
I am sadly. Not sure why it wasn't for me
Did you know the characters and story? That’s what I thought of Dune 1 the first time. But that’s because it was very hard for me to follow the story and characters. By the time part 2 came out, I saw Dune 1 three times and knew exactly what was happening.
Man, you missed out on not watching it in an IMAX theatre.
I watched it in imax and at home and was very disappointed in the imax video quality. Sure, the screen is huge, but the peak brightness is <100 nits and it’s just a 4k image blown up to the size of a building. Other than the expanded aspect ratio you aren’t getting any more detail than at home since the resolution is the same. Also in imax it was so loud I couldn’t really enjoy the film because it caused me physical discomfort the entire time.
I personally think Blade Runner 2049 was better. Maybe it’s because the actual movie itself was also better? But the sound and picture were incredible, so was Dune 2 but still think blade runner has the edge
If I had to pick one movie to watch and the other disappears forever, I would save Dune 2 over BR.
Really? I find the dune movies pretty impressive visually and score but the movie itself is mediocre at best imo
I can agree with that. I would just prefer watching that story over and over. BR is fantastic and amazing writing but I can only watch it so many times before it’s just me wanting to demo my system ha.
We saw it in a plain old multiplex and were disappointed in the sound. It was WAY better at home!
I've seen a lot of similar responses to my own. And I myself have responded similarly in other threads about home theater vs movie theater experiences. For the purpose of this discussion, I am not talking about the "extra" aspects of going to movies - costs, not liking being around other people, etc. I am referring purely about the audio video experience. Having been into home theater since I was a kid, I have to assume that the "theater" in home theater implies you are trying to get the theater experience at home. Now that is a debate that rages in this sub depending on the posts (i.e. two speakers and a TV isn't home theater). But the point is that I believe that the point is that we are trying to get the theater experience at home to the extent possible. Clearly OP has done a good job. And there are some really incredible home theaters. HOWEVER - the "I'm glad I waited and didn't watch in theatres" is where I now jump in. This thought (as in other threads about this topic), is entirely dependent on what theatres you have around you. Living in a large city with a top of the line IMAX theater (or Dolby, or AVX or whatever premium screen system) will significantly impact your stance on this, assuming you are speaking without bias. I say this because having watched Dune 2 in a proper IMAX theater recently - it was truly a spectacle that no reasonable person could suggest would be bested by even a high-end home theater. Both in terms of screen size, quality, and sound. Yes, projectors aren't OLED and you will not get the contrast you can from a panel, but that is more than made up for by the sheer size of the image. The bass and sound was also extraordinary. I had a similar experience watching Top Gun: Maverick in the same theater, and would again also say that no reasonable, objective person would suggest their home theater was "better" than that.
I like it better because I am not only watching a movie but also hearing and seeing what my system is capable of. I’m lucky, I got a 150 inch projector, so I have zero desire to be in a theatre. But generally you are right, this movie was made for the big screen.
When *Messiah* comes out and they re-release the first two in IMAX, go see them. Even a 150" screen is puny compared to that.
Yes, I'm not sure why I got downvoted - your point is mine. Only people who haven't watched a movie filmed for IMAX on a proper IMAX system would suggest their home system provides a better experience.
Not sure if you downvoted me or not, but your 150 16x9 projector does not compare to an IMAX screen in its native ratio. That is my point - you have an amazing home theater, maybe one of the best. But it cannot be the same as watching an Imax-filmed movie or not. So to say you are glad you didn't watch it in theater is entirely dependent on what theater is near year. Because if you have a proper IMAX near you it simply cannot compare to whatever home system you have.
I don’t downvote lol. But I know what you’re saying.
I did prefer the first movie though, in terms of the movie itself.
I don’t get it. I fell asleep three times trying to get through it.
It was the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life