Proud to say that i watched Dune 2 exclusively in 70mm TWICE. It’s only a 9 minute drive to the screening and the fact that it was one of 12 in the world felt so good.

Hey Kirk, great video. I watched Dune Part Two in 70mm film at the Ritz in Sydney, standard digital (ritz), and then 4K IMAX in Melbourne. My favourite experience was the 70mm at the ritz with all that grain, soft filmic look, really bringing me into the desert. Objectivley, the greater experience was the 4K IMAX Melbourne - probably the most immersive.

Hey Kirk! I saw both formats in IMAX Melbourne a few weeks back, and I have some thoughts: *Video* This one goes to laser, no competition. The real strength to the 1570 version in my experience was the inherent "anti-aliasing" film provides, taking the digital edge off hard lines and text elements; but otherwise it's a wash. On film, colors were desaturated, black levels were raised, highlights less discernable and generally the contrast was quite low. Another thing that I don't see many people talking about is the flicker. Really, I shouldn't be surprised, since film projectors work by blocking light 50% of the time, but the flicker was super distracting to me. Darker scenes were fine, but brightly lit environments were especially obnoxious to my eye. Lastly - I recognize this is far more venue specific, so this is more a limitation of projector positioning than the format - but the entire image was keystoned to the right and up. 1.43 scenes still seemed to fill the entire screen, but during letterboxed 1.90 scenes the top letterbox was clearly much shorter than the bottom one, meaning you're losing some of the frame in the process. As I said, likely to vary from one venue to another. Laser was, in a word, glorious. The only real downside to that experience is this "rainbow shimmer" that you get when laser reflects off the silver finish on the screen, but that effect is super mild, and I forgot about it after a few minutes. It's brighter, it's more contrasty, it's much sharper, there's zero flicker, it's more saturated, the image is perfectly aligned with the screen; it's really everything I wanted. 10/10. *Audio:* The extra punch you noticed in laser wasn't placebo. I had a very similar experience to you in terms of 1570 audio; worth noting that 1570 film is only compatible with IMAX 6 Track audio rather than the full-blown 12 Track the laser sessions get. I generally find IMAX audio too loud - the reason I typically wear hearing protection - which is why I was rather caught off guard when watching the 1570 session presented me with a much lower (and more comfortable) listening level. But the *detail* was far lower in my experience. Bass was very strong, but not especially discernable; a good example is the IMAX Countdown at the beginning, which has a sweeping bass note throughout. In laser, it sounded like a bass drop, but in 1570 is just sounded like loud rumbles. Laser is louder, bolder and crisper for sure, and many of the musical moments of the score that were lost in 1570 were easy to hear in that format. Those action sequences absolutely sing on laser. So yeah, laser all the way! You can make the argument that film is a novelty, but unlike Oppenheimer being finished photochemically, you're essentially paying a premium for a measurably degraded experience. No matter which way you slice it, the film transfer is an inherent distortion of the source material that likely only happened in the first place because of Oppenheimer's success. Essentially an emulation of what projection of digital films used to be like - flaws and all - before we moved on to native digital projection. I wonder why we stuck with it? 🤣

I watched the movie in an IMAX Digital theater, where the aspect ratio is 1.90:1. It's a great middle ground experience where I believe every shot is both tall and wide enough, and I feel it would be the perfect aspect ratio for the home release. Although, I should put emphasis on "would", because WB decided to go with the standard digital aspect ratio of 2.39:1 instead. And, unless they eventually release an IMAX version of the film for home release, I'm going to be angry about this forever. Btw, the sound in that IMAX theater was amazing, and it's an experience I won't forget for as long as I live.

I had a complete opposite experience, the 1570 film looked so much better and more natural than the digital imax projection, way better colors and roll off not as artificial in the contrast as the laser projection.

Thanks for providing this comparison. I'm out in Southern California, and while I consider myself lucky enough to be in a place where I can watch the 70mm version, I always suspected that the 4K laser experience was the way to go for this film. It's a shame that the venues that could have presented the Imax laser version chose to go with the 70mm. This feels purely like a marketing gimmick and to the overall detriment of the film's intended look.

I noticed chromatic aberration in my local theatre(Canada UltraAVX) as well. I thought it was the problem of the theatre, however this video proves that it wasn't me alone who experienced it! I also watched the film in IMAX Dual Laser format, and I definately think that IMAX is the ultimated format to watch this film in.

Hey Kirk I love your videos actually I am in Chennai which is one of well known cities in India . I experienced it in digital imax (1:90:1) I was amazed and fell in love with the experience .One of my aim in my life is to experience movies such as oppenheimer,dune 1 and 2,interstellar and mainly tenet

I saw it at IMAX Melbourne in 1:43 Digital. Phenomenal! Wish it was 8k though! (one day dual laser might get there) The image quality of the 4k was pretty good but could see some speckles / pixel / grid effect

Hey Kirk, great video! I watched it in Xtreme and 70mm as well here in Melbourne. For some reason, enjoyed the xtreme screen more because I found the 70mm slightly washed and not as crisp/bright as I’d like but was AMAZING regardless. Upon your recommendation I see now that I may have enjoyed the 4K laser as I had the same critiques about 70mm. SO… I’ve booked in 4K laser for the last show IMAX Melb are showing next Wednesday :)

This was very informative, Thankyou! I saw Oppenheimer in 1570 at Melbourne, as well as dune 2. I'm going to see dune 2 in 4k next week their too, thinking that its gonna look worse than the 1570 screening as i had it in my mind that 1570 was gonna look like Oppenheimer, looking back on the dune 2 1570 i can't believe i didn't notice, i guess i had it in my mind that it was 16k and told myself it looked as stunning as Oppenheimer, but as you've explained in the video it was only scanned from 4k.

I watched dune 4 times in 70mm and once normally, and I think that as long as you watch in any form of IMAX the experience will be great

Dune 2 on imax 70 mm at Bfi imax is the best but please get your seats closer to the centre of the 6th row if possible, the front row distorts the aspect ratio on faces in closeup although it is more fun to watch the action sequences when the camera pans out to the desert.

I just went to see Dune 2 last night at my local cinema in the standard 4K 21:9 experience, the place had just been revamped with new projectors and all that so personally I did not notice any issues with the projection quality, even though i know that IMAX would look 100x better, I still enjoyed the film and thought it looked terrific.

I watched all formats of Dune Part 2 minus 15/70. My verdict: Dolby Cinema wins. The image and colors were better than IMAX laser. The sound was more detailed and balanced. And the scope format was appreciated even tho the expend ratio in IMAX was cool to have but not necessary

I saw Dune Part 2 in 70mm IMAX (unfortunately was sitting very close to the screen) and Regal RPX in the NYC. The main reason is that I was curious to hear if there will be any sound quality difference between the two. To my untrained eyes I only saw that RPX picture wasn't the same height as IMAX with white bars above and below the picture. But to my surprise with my audiophile's ears I heard no sound quality difference between the two. The only thing I know that IMAX is available in 6 and 12 track sound but I was unable to find any information between the two and which one was used by the theater to show the movie. But if you are just after picture you definitely should see it in IMAX

I went to watch the 70mm 1.43.1 in SF, I sat Middle to the side. I did notice artifacts sometimes, I don't know if this was because this is how film is or because the Film was being used for the past 3 weeks😂. I am wondering if, in terms of resolution and detail, you found the 70mm 1.43, or the Digital 1.43 better? I wanna know for Dune Messiah 😅 Edit: Also specifically which seating do you find best? Middle 3/4 to the back, or Middle last 2 rows?

I watched Dune Part Two in regular 2D yesterday. Do you reckon its worth going back for the IMAX version? (I think its the common imax, not laser or 1570)

I watched it in IMAX and Dolby Vison Cinema. I enjoyed both very much - but Dolby vision clearly has the superior sound and picture quality On the other hand IMAX had a länger screen and a way more bombastic bass

I saw Oppenheimer in iMax and it didn’t had so many iMax shots. At least dune was all the time full screen which I like more. More immersive. Didn’t noticed a Resolution difference.

I am not fortunate enough to have the option of viewing in IMAX, either digital or film. However, i want to share that i have watched an interview with DoP Greig Fraser where he explains that their process was the same in part 2 as for part 1, whereby they printed from digital to 35mm and then scanned back to digital. So i believe the printing onto 70mm comes After this whole process, because there would have been a bunch of colour grading and finishing to do once the 35mm to digital had taken place. I don't know for sure though. I mean that is a lot of copying if it Then is printed to film. In any case, i love the idea of the experience of watching something projected via film, even if the movie itself was recorded digitally. I am dreaming i will get the chance one day. I wonder how often cinemas repeat screenings of 1570mm films since they have them sitting there in storage. Does IMAX Melbourne ever do this? I love the fact that they were doing both film and digital showings, so you could compare on the same screen, what an absolute treat!!

I watched it in digital IMAX today in Berlin. A month ago I saw it in a regular local theater (the chain is called cinestar). I instantly knew I would have to re-watch it and I wasn't disappointed. The sound and projection are so much better I wouldn't have thought it to be this much of a difference. I'm definitely going to see more movies in imax in the future.

Yeah I saw it in the 1570 and the 4K IMAX both at IMAX Melbourne. I'd say that they were pretty comparable with the 1570 having the edge, the character that film has is amazing. But yeah, unlike Oppenheimer which i saw in 1570 it was only 4K compared to 16K which makes the digital and 70mm in IMAX more comparable.

I saw it in Digital IMAX (Chiharadai, Chiba, Japan). I get that people like this format, they certainly filmed it for this format, but its not for me. Its just too square. I saw the movie a second and third time at a regular cinema with 2.39:1 aspect ratio and actually preferred it. I guess when I see movies in IMAX, I'm marvelling at all the details etc, but for just relaxing and enjoying a movie, for me I think seeing the movie in IMAX to experience it as it was intended will always be a must, but to just enjoy the story, bog standard movie cinemas win for me.

Young pup !

so film imax ratio is 'fake' ? its basically zoomed in since it was shot on digital ?

I actually thought the 15/70 version looked the best. It felt like a movie 🎥 from the golden age of cinema, rather than a sterile image, ya know. Even if it didn’t have the resolution of Oppenheimer in 15/70

I completely agree. Film is the best when it is a real film. Nothing beats a film projection of a film that has been always a film. But a film that is made from digital is borderline, sometimes better in film, sometimes better in digital (seems random), but film that got scanned to add VFX to be then "printed" as a film is totally cringe. Remeber. A/D conversion loses quality. Always. Because digital is discrete, analog is continuous. You have infinite number of colors in analog, finite (but granted, huge) number of colors in digital and this is true with everything, not just colors. In analog, you have infinite number of almost every property (except for framerate, that will never be infinite, but each frame is uncompressed image, in digital, each frame is derived from some key frame). You have no reason to film analog if you want to scan it and add VFX. I would enact medieval punishments to those that chose to capture on film in order for the film to be scanned to add VFX. So pointless waste of precious film that could be used so much better. And pointless waste of my money who paid premium.

dolby cinema > liemax

The best way to watch Villeneuve's overlong, "Dune"-themed music video is not at all. The characters in this film are two-dimensional, the actors in the lead roles (save for Javier Bardem) are inauthentic and wooden, and nothing in the film makes any sense. It's the "Feelies" right out of Brave New World -- cinema for illiterates. Frank Herbert must be spinning in his grave.

I'm going to save you the trouble. Its film...its always film. Digital is too flat and clean and not very immersive.