There’s technical cinematography debate regarding the camera that shot Dune Part Two. Some shreds of evidence indicate that Dune 2 was shot entirely on IMAX film cameras (Filmed with IMAX), and others demonstrate that it was shot digitally (Filmed for IMAX) in the same cameras as part one. Let’s talk about it.
Filmed with IMAX: The proofs
The definition ‘Filmed With IMAX’ means that the movie was shot by using IMAX 65mm 15 perforation film cameras. Make sure to read our article that explains the differences between ‘Filmed with IMAX’ vs. ‘Filmed for IMAX’. BTW, those definitions are trademarked by IMAX. Anyway, here are the two proofs that Dune Part 2 was filmed with IMAX cameras:
IMAX CEO: “Dune 2 was shot with our cameras”
In an interview with Forbes India, talking a bit about 2nd generation of IMAX cameras, Richard Gelfond – IMX CEO stated: “There are two ways to release a film at IMAX: One is to use a special process to improve the film’s resolution, and the other is to use IMAX cameras to shoot the films. The way we decide is by looking at the scope of the project, the scale of the film, and how important sound is in that project. Second, we also look at the director. For instance, if it’s Christopher Nolan or James Cameron, you just know that the film is made for IMAX. Lately, we have had many more inquiries for new projects than we have the capacity for. Some filmmakers want to use IMAX cameras, whereas some don’t”. And then Gelfond talked about Dune Part Two and said: “Dune is a great example. The filmmakers had a great experience, and so we are now doing Dune 2 using IMAX cameras as well. More and more filmmakers prefer shooting with our cameras. Cary Fukunaga, the director of No Time to Die, filmed it with IMAX cameras. He said, ‘After I was flying first class, I don’t want to go back to economy’”. Hence, it was confirmed by IMAX CEO that Dune 2 was shot with IMAX film cameras.
Collider: “Dune Part 2 was entirely shot in IMAX
Moreover, Collider wrote that Dune Part 2 was entirely shot in IMAX, as stated: “As confirmed today during the Warner Bros. panel at CinemaCon, Dune: Part Two was completely shot in IMAX. To put it into context, only 40% of the first installment was filmed while using the format, giving a whole new look to the second part of the story. During an exclusive interview with Collider, the filmmaker had previously indicated how he wanted to continue experimenting with the format. Here’s what Greig Fraser who is the Director of Photography of Dune (1&2) said about using IMAX cameras during the production of Dune: Part Two: ‘Definitely! And I we fell in love with this format, and definitely there be—even probably more—IMAX footage in this movie”. Thus, this is proof number two that Dune 2 was shot with IMAX film cameras.
Filmed for IMAX: The proofs
As explained above, ‘Filmed for IMAX’ means that the film was shot with certified IMAX cameras, which are, by definition, IMAX digital cameras. Even IMAX CEO has been saying over and over again that certified cameras can be defined as IMAX digital cameras. For instance, if the film was shot with ALEXA Mini LF, and the camera can be called ARRI ALEXA Mini LF IMAX, or Sony VENICE IMAX. That’s a bit of a marketing maneuver/trick since the cameras were not engineered by IMAX. These are the same cameras. But have undergone dedicated post-production processes defined by IMAX, in order to look better at IMAX theaters. However, these are NOT real IMAX cameras. Anyway, these are the proofs that Dune was not with IMAX-certified digital cameras:
IMDB Tech Spec
The IMDB Tech Spec which has a 90% accuracy states that the Dune Part Two was shot with the ARRI ALEXA LF and Mini LF, just like in the first chapter. Moreover, it says that the lenses are Panavision H-Series. The marriage between the ARRI LF and H-Series is just an ideal choice for that movie. Hence, it seems to be logical.
IMAX YouTube channel
A few days ago, IMAX released the trailer for Dune Part Two. The title is Dune: Par Two | Official IMAX trailer | Filmed for IMAX. The trailer is presented in a 1.90:1 aspect ratio, which characterizes the IMAX aspect ratio. Thus, IMAX itself mentioned that Dune 2 was ‘Filmed for IMAX’. If the movie was filmed with IMAX film cameras, then it was mentioned in the trailer loud and clear. Watch the IMAX trailer below:
Yes it’s a big deal
Till now, it has been confirmed that Dune Part Two was shot with IMAX film cameras, and on the other hand, it was shot with IMAX-certified cameras. So what’s the truth? The question is: Did they use IMAX film cameras to shoot Dune 2? We know that on Dune 1, the team has done tremendous efforts in order to grant the movie the film look. The movie was shot digitally, and then was transferred to 35mm film, and then scanned back to digital. All that to create the most accurate emulation possible, reducing the digital sharpness, and elevating softness. Read on about this fascinating process here. That caused a lengthy post-production process for almost 1 year. Consequently, it makes sense that the team was eager to shoot with film cameras, in order to avoid this complicated emulation workflow and get the film to look like a…. film. Nevertheless, our gut feeling is that Dune Part Two was not shot with IMAX film cameras and that the IMDB Tech Spec is right. That means Dune 2 was shot with the same cameras as Part One: ARRI ALEXA LF. But we hope to be wrong on this one. So what’s your opinion? Did they shoot Dune Part Two on the ARRI LF, or on the IMAX MSM 9802?
Budget provisions on Imax(cert) cam vs non Imax cam?
It never made any sense to me that they did what they did with the first one, and what it seems they’re also doing with the second one. It’s just ridiculous, in my view. Why on Earth would you capture digitally, transfer to film, then scan it in to produce a digital negative? For crying out loud, just capture it on film from the get-go. It would look WAY better and be a lot less work (and money). None of their reasoning for doing what they did ever made any logical sense to me. I didn’t like the look/feel of the first film at all. If they’re doing things the same way with the follow-up “film(s)”—if you can even call it/them that—I doubt I’ll care for it/them, either. Please, FILMmakers, shoot on *film*…
Hi,
The obvious reason to do it is saving money! If you look into filmmaking, you’d see all the benefits of shooting digitally. The sheer amount of additional people you’d have to hire to load and unload film, the care you have to take and the transportation of the rolls, not to mention the size of IMAX-cams… You can’t shoulder them, you need huge rigs to emulate it and they’re loud as hell, you have to dub it afterwards because you can hear the film rattling through. That is just a small amount of problems that occur if you shoot on film. So saying it would be cheaper, shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A well edited and cured digital picture looks as good as an analogue one. I could give you hundreds of films to compare and if you would divide into digital and analogue, your match rate would be randomly wrong, I guarantee. You are probably one of those guys that say vinyl has a better sound then digital. Smh
Ha! I’m the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about? I shouldn’t even bother replying, but you are just too hilarious.
I could provide you with a list a mile long of filmmakers (and their films) who opted to shoot film because it was actually cheaper overall after all was said and done, oftentimes substantially so. With big Hollywood productions especially, that have large budgets, the only way shooting film ends up being more expensive is if the people involved with making the movie are completely incompetent. It’s actually digital effects work that usually causes budgets to balloon out of control. Digital is nearly always the money pit, not film. Even a lot of lower budget indie films are shot on film because it’s almost always cheaper than shooting digitally. Digital is generally only going to be cheaper if one is shooting something extremely low budget, and is using consumer equipment (i.e. not professional cinema cameras). Even then, if they don’t already own the equipment, it may or may not be cheaper than film. All of this is extremely well documented. For crying out loud…
With productions that have budgets in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, the argument that movies are being shot digitally in order to “save money” is beyond hilarious. I mean, it’s absolutely hysterical…
Quoting you: “The sheer amount of additional people you’d have to hire to load and unload film…”
Haha! My gosh, how many people do you think this requires? Reading your comment is like the beginning of a bad “how many [insert the group of people you’re trying to make fun of] does it take to change a lightbulb” joke. Again, for crying out loud…
Did I ever say they should have shot IMAX-format film or even in standard 65mm film for Dune? No, I didn’t. And why would I? They didn’t print the digitally-captured image to large format film and then scan it back to digital (which would have been incredibly pointless/stupid since the source digital image couldn’t even come close to approaching the resolution of large format film–that would have been a total waste); they printed it to 35mm and then scanned it back in to produce their digital intermediate. So, where on Earth did you get the idea I thought this movie should have been filmed in IMAX and/or 65mm? Filming in 35mm would have been more than adequate (even if planning on doing a 70mm blow-up for the handful of theaters that still have the equipment to project it), rendering basically every challenge you mentioned moot/irrelevant since they pretty much all apply to the unique obstacles one must overcome when using IMAX film cameras for capture. Those obstacles simply don’t exist with 35mm film cameras. Once again, for crying out loud…
Again, quoting you: “A well edited and cured digital picture looks as good as an analogue one.”
Hilarious. How old are you? Are you even old enough to remember what movies that were entirely shot, edited, printed, and projected on film looked like on the silver screen, and perhaps even more importantly, what they *felt* like? My guess is not. And if you are, you must have a terrible memory, which is unsurprising as most people do today. They simply believe something is better because they were told it is better, even when it very clearly isn’t.
Again, quoting you: “I could give you hundreds of films to compare and if you would divide into digital and analogue, your match rate would be randomly wrong, I guarantee.”
Even though your sentence is terrible and its meaning nearly indecipherable, if you’re saying what I think you’re trying to say, then, again, it’s just more comical nonsense.
And one final time, quoting you: “You are probably one of those guys that say vinyl has a better sound then digital. Smh.”
Nope. I’ve been a proponent of digital audio since CDs entered the market, and not just for music, but in theaters as well. Regarding music recordings, assuming the same source, the only time vinyl sounds better than a lossless digital format is when the digital mastering was done poorly. Simply put, there is never any excuse for lossless digital audio sounding worse than its analog counterpart, but it does frequently happen. In particular, this has been an ongoing issue with poorly mastered CDs over the decades, where, yes, the vinyl oftentimes does sound better, even though it shouldn’t. This, like most things, is the result of incompetence. When done correctly, CDs (as well as FLAC, etcetera) are a superior music format than vinyl. Digital image capture/projection, however, is an entirely different animal. It is NOT superior to film capture/projection for things made to be exhibited theatrically on a huge canvas–not even close. That doesn’t mean digital doesn’t have its place. It does. But it’s not here…
By the way, if you don’t want to listen to me and don’t in any way value my opinions (and clearly you don’t), that’s fine. That’s your right. You are free to believe whatever you want. But if you want to dismiss what I have to say, then maybe you should listen to plenty of actual filmmakers, who have similar opinions to my own. Tarantino comes to mind.
Take care.
P.S. I could be wrong, but the fact you used “Smh” in your comment tells me you’re probably not old enough to know much anything about anything regarding the evolution of the moviegoing experience as you probably haven’t been around long enough to even remember what going to a theater was like when everything was done entirely photochemically, or how the aesthetic started to change once DIs started being employed, or how it changed even more when digital capture became a thing, and then again when film projectors started being replaced with digital projectors and theatrical film prints subsequently disappeared, and so on and so forth. I lived through and witnessed all of these changes, all of which were sold to us as “progress.” And yet, being there and seeing/experiencing these changes AS THEY OCCURRED, I can tell you without hesitation every single one of these changes has been a step backwards, in my opinion. I lived it, and I saw/felt the degradation of the moviegoing/theater experience firsthand. Maybe I’m wrong, but again, my guess is you didn’t (or perhaps you’ve just forgotten and bought into the lies of “progress”). It seems to me you likely just believe something is better because you were told as much, without actually experiencing these changes and deciding for yourself. Sadly, that seems to be the reality regarding all too many people today, regarding all too many things (not just this topic).
P.P.S. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’ve also posted under the names “MJ” and “ND” on another post, where you also responded to me (and then yourself) with utter nonsense.
Sorry but what you’re writing is just not true. Every single featurette or behind the scenes report that shows the filming of Dune part 2 shows Arri digital Alexa cameras, which even in the 65 model, are far from iMax film 15/70 definition. That’s just lying for marketing and misinforming people. Dune part 2 wasn’t shot on iMax 15/70 film cameras. And if you read what the CEO said, he never said that. He said “it was shot on our cameras” which could just mean cameras approved for iMax digital, or even just cameras that belong to the iMax company but are not iMax 15/70 film cameras.
from what I gathered in the film community, it was shot on digital, transferred to 35mm to add the “film look”, then retransferred to digital for distribution. The theatres that are showing it in 15/70 are showing a blown up 70mm from the 35mm original. Maybe the 35mm transfer was done on Vistavision to get more real estate than regular vertical 35mm, but that, I don’t know.
This is point-blank wrong. It’s really depressing how much incorrect information is out there in filmland.
Greig Fraser – the cinematographer himself – gave interviews to ARRI Rental explaining -“We decided to keep the fundamental through-line of large-sensor ALEXA cameras, but to combine ALEXA 65 with ALEXA Mini LF and shoot the whole thing spherical. That kept our options open for the IMAX version and we felt that 65 mm with the Mini LF was a good combo.”
The film was not shot in IMAX. It was shot with a view to IMAX projection, but was in-fact shot on ALEXA 65 and ALEXA Mini LF.
https://www.arrirental.com/en/about/overview/news/interview-on-dune-part-two-with-greig-fraser-acs-asc