I love the almost tangible texture of that second one.

Actually there is... one shot -- Sanjeev chasing Amjad -- Here, the horse dummy can be clearly made out from the bottom of the screenshot -- this indeed should have been matted out. There's also the appearance of road in the bottom right corner, which should also have been matted out.


==
As far as the line "James Bond kay potey hai" versus "Tantiya Tope kay potey hai", Ultra DVD, Carlotta DVD, DEI - all have the "James Bond..." version. Eros-B4U has "Tantiya Tope." I wonder what the Gold VHS has...

Carlotta DVD


Ultra DVD


DEI DVD


Eros B4U DVD

I'm sure that can be chalked up to just typical 1970s continuity.

excellent contribution newdeep

Hasn't anyone figured out a way to contact Ramesh Sippy? I'm sure there's a way... .

This one shot sure shows that it was composed for wide screen with extra info that was supposed to be blanked out. But, what about other shots, where 4:3, with extra info at the top and at the bottom, seems to be more complete composition.

Anyway, assuming that SHOLAY was meant for widescreen and also assuming that it was shot using 70 mm film, question arises why shoot on larger film area of 70 mm where useful info is only one half of it, easily captured on a 35 mm scope with almost same (film area) quality. May be, for 4 ch sound ?? Also, what's 70mm film's unstretched AR ??

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Rana. 70mm film's "default" aspect ratio is 2.2:1, whereas 35mm's is 1.33:1. With the former, not only does one gain much more resolution (meaning, the movie can be projected larger, with less grain and more crispness), but the ability to (as you stated) use 4-track surround sound.

As you said, 70mm default AR is 2.2:1 and we know that there is extra picture at top and bottom as compared to 2.2:1, then SHOLAY must have been shot in anything but 70 mm.

Rana, I think you misunderstand: Again, it's possible that Sholay was shot onto 70mm film, and only onto 70mm film. If this is the case, then it had to be converted to 35mm film, as 70mm projectors were not widely available in India in 1975 (nor have they ever been so anywhere, at any time). In converting the movie, it is possible either that the sides were cut off; that the 2.2:1 aspect ratio was maintained; or the a bit was cut off from the top and the bottom, the movie's being projected in a matted 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

It is also possible that Sholay was shot only onto 35mm film, and that copies were then converted to 70mm film, to be shown in theaters that could support the format. In this case, it is possible either that it was shot onto the 35mm film in 1.33:1 aspect ratio; or 2.35:1 aspect ratio, either open- or closed-matte. If it was shot 1.33:1, in converting to 70mm, a bit would have to have been cut off from the top and the bottom; if 2.35:1, a bit would have to have been cut off from the sides.

Third, it is possible that Sholay was shot onto both 70mm film and 35mm film. If this is the case, different versions were shown at different theaters. Further, we don't know whether the 35mm version was shot 1.33:1 or 2.35:1. Even if the 35mm version was shot 1.33:1, we don't know if this was "open-matte," meaning whether or not is was ever meant to be shown "full-frame."

Last, we have no idea which sources were used to master which DVDs currently on the market. It's possible that the Eros version shows "all there is to see"; meaning, it might be showing "everything we should see," or "more than we were ever meant to" (we can really only guess to this). It is also possible that the Eros version was mastered from a "70mm" (originally shot onto) print of the film, meaning we are missing information from the sides. It is also possible that different parts of the Eros DVD are mastered from different sources (which, of course, would only add to our consternation).

So, to conclude, we can not say that, "Sholay must have been shot in anything but 70mm."

Another comparison of how Eros's 4:3/1.33:1 picture would look in comparison with a matted 2.2:1 aspect-ratio one:

The above ss shows studio artifacts at the bottom and hence implying that bottom and perhaps top too director intended to matt it out.
But, consider another shot (any volunteers to post it ??) in the song Yeh Dosti where Amitabh just starts his lines, the full frame (4:3) is a perfect frame and in 2.35:1, Dharmender's face and facial expressions are totally cut off.

So, what was the director's intention ?? I say, Director intended nothing. Just whatever available for whatever AR demanded by the customer.

Probably 1.66 was the intended ratio for Sholay widescreen, with just a little bit of matting top and bottom. (That would take care of the Sanjeev chasing Amjad shot as well as the one Rana talks abt. in the post above.)

Stanley Kubrik was a director who disliked scope and shot all his movies full-frame, some of which were slightly matted to 1.66...

It is said that the best and the most obvious widescreen possible from 35mm open matte is 1.66...

I believe that Kubrick was a (still-) photographer, using 35mm film, before he got into movie-making. Thus, his visual taste was likely influenced by the eye he had developed for still pictures.

I don't know if that shot was part of a tilt or some other moving shot, but if it was not framed to be later cropped to ~2.20:1, then cinematographer Dwarka Divecha must not have heard of the rule of thirds!

The "rule of thirds," first of all, is simply a heuristic, understood to often result in more interesting shots. When needed, it is certainly to be "broken." Also, the "rule" doesn't apply to motion picture quite the same way, quite so pertinently, as it does to still photography. A still picture is one image, which one looks at for as long as one wishes, analyzing it, contemplating it, being or not being absorbed be it. A movie, on the other hand, is a series of images, one very quickly appearing after another: I don't think that the "rule," then, applies quite so strongly there.