It is currently Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:23 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
darius25
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 2:36 am
Posts: 435
Sanjay, the anamorphic enhancement doesn't really apply to theatrical presentations (not in the same way as DVD and HD presentation anyway). For any movie the aspect ratio depends on two crucial factors:

1.) the way it was shot (full ratio (Super 35), Scope ratio (2.35), 1.85 ratio, etc...)

2.) the way the projectionist mattes the screen. For example many of the 2.35 ratio films are actually shot full screen (using DVD examples) but the extra top and bottom portions are NEVER meant to be seen.

This is the reason you saw the movie in a more open ratio - cause the projectionist didn't apply the proper mattes.

I'm only basing this on my limited knowledge so correct me if I'm wrong please.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2002 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Well, if u see, shots from trailor, taken in non enhanced, letterbox mode, there is a diff!! Ali, might be able to exact it by measuring, what was orig AR and when enhanced, kept or cropped!! :baaa: ???
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
darius25 wrote:
Sanjay, the anamorphic enhancement doesn't really apply to theatrical presentations (not in the same way as DVD and HD presentation anyway). For any movie the aspect ratio depends on two crucial factors:

1.) the way it was shot (full ratio (Super 35), Scope ratio (2.35), 1.85 ratio, etc...)

2.) the way the projectionist mattes the screen. For example many of the 2.35 ratio films are actually shot full screen (using DVD examples) but the extra top and bottom portions are NEVER meant to be seen.

This is the reason you saw the movie in a more open ratio - cause the projectionist didn't apply the proper mattes.

I'm only basing this on my limited knowledge so correct me if I'm wrong please.

darius25,
I appreciate your comments, but maybe I can shed a little more light on the anamorphic issue. Yes, you are right anamorphic in the case of DVD and in the Cinema theater are different, but anamorphic is definately a part of the shooting and projection process in the theaterical presentation of films. Panavision and Cinemascope being the two most commone processes of using anamorphic technology for the movie theater. By the way no film, Indian or English, has ever been presented in the 2.35:1 ratio that does not use the anamorphic process, namely the two most common patented brands Panavision and/or Cinemascope. There are other brands/processes also that have been used over the years, for eg. Todd-AO.
Basically how the process works is that an anamorphic lens is used while shooting the film, which enables a much wider (2.35:1 and greater) picture to be captured on a normal 35mm film (1.33:1), albeit in a distorted (horizontally squeezed) form. In the theater the projectionist uses a reverse (anamorphic) lens which corrects the distorted picture. It is a bit like the funny mirrors that you may have seen at an amusement park.
In the case of DVDs, 'anamorphic enhancement' is not really always a correct term. In the case of films that were originally shot using an anamorphic process, also referred to as scope films, there is absolutely no enhancement done or required. Pretty much you just transfer the film as is. The player then squeezes the picture vertically to present the film in the correct aspect ratio or in the case of players setup for 4:3 TVs, the player corrects the aspect ratio by deleting certain number of lines of resolution, the exact method differs from player to player.
It is only in the case of DVDs, of films that have been shot using some form of matting/masking, that the term anamorphically enhanced is applicable to. In the case of such DVDs the film (the relevant portion) has to be artificially vertically stretched during the transferring/mastering process. To the player both kind of DVDs (of scope films and matted/masked films) are the same and the player treats them the same way.

Now, coming to the film 'Makdee', since no Indian film has ever utilized the matting/masking technique, it is quite unlikely that Makdee was shot using this process. Indian films are either shot in Cinemascope (only Feroze Khan has ever used Panavision) or they are simply shot flat, with no masking/matting, in the original aspect ratio (1.33:1) of the 35mm film used. The only exceptions would be in the case of films shot in 70mm, which have an approx ratio 2.2:1 without using anamorphic lenses. As for the DVD of Makdee is concerned, my guess is that the authoring company has incorrectly masked the film just so as to be able to present it anamorphically. In plain simple language, I think that the DVD is incorrectly presented (1.90:1 aspect ratio makes no sense anyhow) and they have chopped of the top and bottom part of the film to create an incorrect ratio of 1.9:1

PS: Do keep in mind my observations on Makdee are based on conjecture and guess work and not on conclusive evidence. Also if it makes any difference, I saw the film in the top most theater in Delhi, where the projectionists are well versed with the masking/matting process due to their experience with projecting Hollywood films.



Edited By Sanjay on 1040013783
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
re Makdee; trailer shows an AR of 2:1 which I believe is the correct ratio for this film (or just assume it is - regardless of how odd it sounds). This DVD shows the video AR @ 1.90 but there’s no cropping involved. If you look closely on top left corner of the screen caps you can see the film curve from where the video has been transferred from – this when the film is presented properly shouldn’t be seen – so when matted to cover this up (same case as with many DEI transfers that should cover the slice marks, but don’t) – you’ll effectively get an AR for 2:1 – same as the trailer.

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2002 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Ali, 2:1 does sound odd, unless this film was shot by Vittorio Storaro, who is a proponent of the 2:1 Univisium format. The standard "flat" 35mm aspect ratios are 1.37:1 (not likely for theatrical release), 1.66:1 (definitely possible), and 1.85:1 (most likely). Whoever has this DVD, please look for any artifacts of CinemaScope filming. These include lens flares that stretch horizontally across the screen and oval shaped out of focus lights in the background.
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 4:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
DragunR2 wrote:
Ali, 2:1 does sound odd, unless this film was shot by Vittorio Storaro, who is a proponent of the 2:1 Univisium format. The standard "flat" 35mm aspect ratios are 1.37:1 (not likely for theatrical release), 1.66:1 (definitely possible), and 1.85:1 (most likely). Whoever has this DVD, please look for any artifacts of CinemaScope filming. These include lens flares that stretch horizontally across the screen and oval shaped out of focus lights in the background.

One thing I definately can confirm, that Makdee was most certainly not shot in Cinemascope or for that matter in any scope (anamorphic) process. In my opinion based on what I saw in the theater, the film was filmed on flat 35mm (1.33:1).
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
dragun, yaar, one thing I noticed and told ali, too, was:
In screen caps, u see a very little curvy blackbars on top and bottom, but on my widescreen tv, it filled the whole screen, with out any blackbars!

so, point is, AR, has to be 1:85 or less to do so, according to my naive understanding, unless, it was modified in a way, like DEI to fill most of ur screen vertically, cropping it from sides...

As i understand, some hindidvd did have pseudo anamorphism, also, by just stretching it vertically.....damn!
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Arsh, I think that little curve at the top of the screenshots is because the image area on film has rounded corners like that, rather than sharp corners. Perhaps your TV overscans that part. Computer screenshots show more than typical TVs, right? It looks like the top of the frame was the top of the frame of the video transfer, with the bottom of the film frame cropped out.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
ALI, OFFERED THE SAME EXPLAINATION OF OVERSCAN...
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 11:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Here's two screen shots Bhaskar sent from the Ultra VCD of Makdee;

Image

Image

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
u can very well c, why this is a vcd! cheers!
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group