It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:09 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Zoran009
 Post subject: Re: sound
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
harry_rasul wrote:
NewDeep wrote:
On Indian YR Darr and Lamhe, the Dolby Digital 5.1 sounds like Dolby Digital 1.0 -- so even though it is not as bad as Sholay B4U where the same sound comes from all the 5 speakers at the same time, it is still bad because there is no separation... everything is oriented towards the centre speech speaker. Plus, the sound sounds harsh... unduly and unhealthy high treble. The worst treatment is of the "kabhi mein kahoo" song in Lamhe... it sounds artificial... like something was dubbed over the video!!! Other YR releases are good audio even with pseudo 5.1 -- for example, old movies Afsana, Dastaan, CID, etc... all good audio... I don't know why Lamhe and Darr are so messed up.

If the masters are the same as the U.S., then even U.S. releases would be as bad in audio.

Do let me know if you need more description. I'll try to write more on the menu options soon.






I have both the DEI/EROS version of DARR and well as the YRF. Sound on DEI/EROS as most all of us know is Dolby 2.0(I think it's stereo surround, like on the DEI/EROS Khalnayak). Clean and Clear. The YRF has a decent 5.1, not anywhere close to the best, but answering your query, I think its definitely way better than Dolby Digital 1.0. Same goes for Lamhe(pseudo 5.1) but no comparison to Dolby 1.0. So its possible that the sound quality for the Indian version could be inferior. It would be great though to see some screen shots of both (Lamhe and Darr) just to compare the versions available in the U.S


Harry both of you are right! Sound is mostly in the centre front!! and is pretty brassy harsh!!

DEI 2.0 Khalnayak, Ghatak are better than many 5.1s imho.

DEI monos..pure are smoother too!!

I dont know why on the earth yrf kaminapan screws thing up! :twisted: :roll: :x

I am more than 100% confident that yrf wont spare even a teddy paisa to make an all over new inferior transfer to fit Indian crowd :x :twisted:
Top
 Profile  
 
Commando303
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Regarding Silsila, I have the "old" (YRF) DVD, and it's 4:3; it looks, in no way, "cropped." My (DEI) Darr is 1.85:1 (I think), and it may br cropped (though picture and sound quality are excellent...I'm satisfied).
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
Indian censor certificates always mention "cinemascope" if the film is widescreen. Silsila censor certificate does not say "cinemascope". So it can never be widescreen unless someone matted it out ;-) in which case, the widescreen would be the cropped version :)
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
http://zulm.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6274&start=60

http://zulm.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t= ... light=darr

Courtesy My self via UL and Brother Harry!! For visual reference on DARR!
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Lamhe, courtesy Technogeek/ali

http://zulm.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2963&start=30
Top
 Profile  
 
Commando303
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
NewDeep wrote:
Indian censor certificates always mention "cinemascope" if the film is widescreen. Silsila censor certificate does not say "cinemascope". So it can never be widescreen unless someone matted it out ;-) in which case, the widescreen would be the cropped version :)


Are you sure about this? The certificates used to-day are quite different from the ones used in the "old days" (yes, some 2.35:1 aspect-ratio film were made even then).
Top
 Profile  
 
harry_rasul
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:50 pm
Posts: 235
so what's the verdict on the sound on the Indian DARR and LAMHE DVD's. From what NewDeep is saying, the U.S version seems better, at least where sound is concerned.....
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
harry_rasul wrote:
so what's the verdict on the sound on the Indian DARR and LAMHE DVD's. From what NewDeep is saying, the U.S version seems better, at least where sound is concerned.....


Nope!! I dont think so, waiting for newdeep to confirm, same transfer as he did not post his SS..if so, it is Exact copy as expected from maha crooks! :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
Commando303 wrote:
NewDeep wrote:
Indian censor certificates always mention "cinemascope" if the film is widescreen. Silsila censor certificate does not say "cinemascope". So it can never be widescreen unless someone matted it out ;-) in which case, the widescreen would be the cropped version :)


Are you sure about this? The certificates used to-day are quite different from the ones used in the "old days" (yes, some 2.35:1 aspect-ratio film were made even then).
O yes, any 35mm-based widescreen movie, whatever its aspect ratio, will be tagged as "cinemascope" in the censor certificate in India. Silsila was 4:3 and this is also what the Indian YRF DVD case says -- and of course the U.S. DVD case also says the same -- so clearly there is error on the web site.
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
 Post subject: soon
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
arsh wrote:
harry_rasul wrote:
so what's the verdict on the sound on the Indian DARR and LAMHE DVD's. From what NewDeep is saying, the U.S version seems better, at least where sound is concerned.....


Nope!! I dont think so, waiting for newdeep to confirm, same transfer as he did not post his SS..if so, it is Exact copy as expected from maha crooks! :lol:
I will try to get my DVDs back from hometown for screenshots... and yes, it's highly unlikely there are two separate transfers... please allow me some time. thx.
Top
 Profile  
 
Commando303
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
NewDeep wrote:
Are you sure about this? The certificates used to-day are quite different from the ones used in the "old days" (yes, some 2.35:1 aspect-ratio film were made even then).
O yes, any 35mm-based widescreen movie, whatever its aspect ratio, will be tagged as "cinemascope" in the censor certificate in India. Silsila was 4:3 and this is also what the Indian YRF DVD case says -- and of course the U.S. DVD case also says the same -- so clearly there is error on the web site.[/quote]

Do you know what Sholay's certificate reads? :D
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
 Post subject: yep
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
Yes... Sholay was released with two separate prints... 35mm and 70mm.

35mm prints were shown as is in theatres, without matting... and as such, there is no mention of cinemascope in 35mm prints fotr theatres... and this is exactly what I've mentioned. (Some 35mm DVD/VHS video transfers have force-matting... only for the videoprints, not for theatres.)

70mm prints do not need the cinemascope tag ;-)
This too is evident from my note specific to 35-mm-based widescreen movies.

Finally, a 35mm-based cinemascope version was re-released a couple years back in Mumbai--and it carries the cinemascope tag

I hope that answers your questions.
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
 Post subject: anokha coincidence
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
have you noticed how much alike LAMHE and ANOKHA RISHTA (Rajesh Khanna, Sabia) are!!

Only the endings are different really -- donn you think so?
Top
 Profile  
 
Commando303
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
!Thanks for the info., NewDeep. :D !
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: I N D I A
Last week I was lucky to see three separate DVD releases of DARR all sitting on the same shelf at a local music store in Delhi --

Darr by Bombino

Darr by Eros

Darr by Yashraj

;)

(All Indian releases)

Indian DVDs usually carry a thumbnail of the Indian Censor Cert on theDVD case. Strangely, Bombino was displaying a hard-to-read "A" certificate... Darr was not "A" but "U/A" in India.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group