It is currently Sat Sep 28, 2024 3:13 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
rana wrote:
ali wrote:
These two screen shots show how the movie was filmed (~4:3, still some cropped noticed in this version) and how it was shown in cinemas (matted widescreen);

Image

Image

Ali :baaa:

Ali, the matted version shows an AR of aprox 2.45 : 1. I thought the theatrical version was 1.85:1. Whether 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, both seem to have been made by matting top and bottom out of the 1.33:1 picture??

Where do you see cropping in the 4:3 picture. The widescreen shot shows a tiny amount extra on the left and exactly same amount less on the right.

Every time a director picks a frame, is it judgement at that particular time for the AR being used?? It appears that way. I remember Sanjay's post about BH AR to be 2.35:1, where he saw it?? Then what is the OAR in such situations??
Rana

P.S.
How did you get hold of the matted/ theatrical AR screen cap??

If Film was not originally SHOT in STD AR, but in Wide screen! as IMDP data suggest! then why ---??

My comments or amusement is not just for this movie but many others as well.

Arsh, if the movie was shot in widescreen, how did we get the extra picture at the top and at the bottom. There is no picture cut on the left or on the right. The only difference is that top and bottom have been cut in the 2.35:1 picture. Top and bottom will still be cut, a bit less thogh, in the 1.85:1 version when compared to the 4:3 source. The same is in the case of Back To the Future.

Rana



Edited By rana on 1044912862
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
So, I got ur point rana! This film was indeed shot as 4:3 and then was stretched to play in theatre(so should be distorted image, fatter and shorter)?

So imdb, claim that was shot 35mm, widescreen is FALSE!

BTW! UNIVERSAL claims, that those 2-4 minutes of MISFRAMED BTF should be rightfully displayed on WS TV? only prob is with STD TV? So, what do u think here!
Top
 Profile  
 
theon
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2002 11:21 pm
Posts: 540
has anyone ever dreamed that with all the film knowledge we have from people like aryan, dragunr2, and countless others, we could shoot our own zulm.net movie?

now THAT would be fun! and likely impossible...
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
arsh wrote:
So, I got ur point rana! This film was indeed shot as 4:3 and then was stretched to play in theatre(so should be distorted image, fatter and shorter)?

So imdb, claim that was shot 35mm, widescreen is FALSE!

I will refer you to the following page for good explanations of the Cinemascope, Academy and Super 35 frames:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

Widescreen does not have to show MORE picture than 4:3. In the cases of Super 35 and open matte filming widescreen shows less. However, the optimal framing is for the widescreen AR, with very few exceptions.

Quote:
BTW! UNIVERSAL claims, that those 2-4 minutes of MISFRAMED BTF should be rightfully displayed on WS TV? only prob is with STD TV? So, what do u think here!


I don't see how. You would be seeing the same misframing on a 4:3 TV as on a 16:9 TV.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1044935902
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
That would be fun...We could have different units in different countries :D But I'm afraid more is needed than knowledge of aspect ratios...especially money... :)
Quote:
So, I got ur point rana! This film was indeed shot as 4:3 and then was stretched to play in theatre(so should be distorted image, fatter and shorter)?

So imdb, claim that was shot 35mm, widescreen is FALSE!


Arsh, the film was distorted in the theatre??! What are you talking about? What kind of filmmaker would settle for such a compromise?

This website gives an overview of common aspect ratios: http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen/film.html
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Widescreen does not have to show MORE picture than 4:3. In the cases of Super 35 and open matte filming widescreen shows less. However, the optimal framing is for the widescreen AR, with very few exceptions.

Dragun, I'd just like to point out that in the case of anamorphic print made from Super 35, there is likely to be more picture at the sides than a 4:3 release (for TV etc.) But the 4:3 version will likely contain more picture at the top and bottom. It sort of cancels each other out. In a way, this is one reason why Super 35 is common these days. You get to have 2.35 in cinemas and a not-too-cramped picture for TV at the same time.



Edited By Aryan on 1044936845
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Aryan wrote:
Quote:
Widescreen does not have to show MORE picture than 4:3. In the cases of Super 35 and open matte filming widescreen shows less. However, the optimal framing is for the widescreen AR, with very few exceptions.

Dragun, I'd just like to point out that in the case of anamorphic print made from Super 35, there is likely to be more picture at the sides than a 4:3 release (for TV etc.) But the 4:3 version will likely contain more picture at the top and bottom. It sort of cancels each other out. In a way, this is one reason why Super 35 is common these days. You get to have 2.35 in cinemas and a not-too-cramped picture for TV at the same time.

Are you talking about the very small horizontal cropping on a 4:3 transfer of a Super 35 film?
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
BTW, Aryan, I thought that the Super 35 frame was wider AND taller than the Academy frame, but that it still had the 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Is this true, or is the S35 frame 1.6:1, like Leopold's site says?
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
If you look at the examples of the cropping on this website : http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen/film.html you'll see that the horizontal cropping is quite substantial. Super 35 is supposed to have a ratio of 1.6:1 - thus the significant amount of horizontal cropping. However, I suppose it isn't impossible to shoot a film on standard 1.37 and crop for 1.85 and 2.35 (anamorphic) - but I don't know of any examples, its just a guess.
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
theon wrote:
has anyone ever dreamed that with all the film knowledge we have from people like aryan, dragunr2, and countless others, we could shoot our own zulm.net movie?

now THAT would be fun! and likely impossible...

Not a bad idea! I have a movie idea if you guys want to implement it :oops: Do Micheal Moore style film - paying surprise visits to these Indian DVD companies, shops that pirate, DVD authors etc. And start battering them questions about quality of DVDs :laugh: and be sarcastic as possible :ohyeh:

Camcoders at the ready and go! :bash:

[I can just imagine some chach dressing up as Ali-G and doing this – and getting battered by the first shop he visits :laugh: it'll make great entertainment]

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
arsh wrote:
So, I got ur point rana! This film was indeed shot as 4:3 and then was stretched to play in theatre(so should be distorted image, fatter and shorter)?

4:3 frame is not stretched horizontally to make it wide screen. In the case of Bollywood Hollywood and many other films, widescreen version was obtained by cutting from top and bottom of 4:3 frame.

Rana



Edited By rana on 1044958544
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
arsh wrote:
BTW! UNIVERSAL claims, that those 2-4 minutes of MISFRAMED BTF should be rightfully displayed on WS TV? only prob is with STD TV? So, what do u think here!

They admitted misframing for 2 - 4 min. It shows misframing is a possibility. Be it for one shot or for full movie. Depeds on the judgement on a particular day by a particular person. Does director really pick the framing or the duplicating technician??

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
congress
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 11:29 am
Posts: 1028
Location: Singapore
ali wrote:
theon wrote:
has anyone ever dreamed that with all the film knowledge we have from people like aryan, dragunr2, and countless others, we could shoot our own zulm.net movie?

now THAT would be fun! and likely impossible...

Not a bad idea! I have a movie idea if you guys want to implement it :oops: Do Micheal Moore style film - paying surprise visits to these Indian DVD companies, shops that pirate, DVD authors etc. And start battering them questions about quality of DVDs :laugh: and be sarcastic as possible :ohyeh:

Camcoders at the ready and go! :bash:

[I can just imagine some chach dressing up as Ali-G and doing this – and getting battered by the first shop he visits :laugh: it'll make great entertainment]

Ali

hahaha...ali G or ali ji :D
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
arsh wrote:
So imdb, claim that was shot 35mm, widescreen is FALSE!

IMDb does not claim that!
It says clearly that the process is super 35!
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
[Arsh, the film was distorted in the theatre??! What are you talking about? What kind of filmmaker would settle for such a compromise? ]

I VERY MUCH AGREED TO THAT PREVIOUSLY, THAT THEATRIC PROJECTION OF THIS FILM LOOKED VERY WEIRED!

NOW, SO DIRECTOR'S INTENDED AR OF THIS DVD IS CINABELLA'S VERSION?
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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