There is no such thing as a special lens for 4:3. I am sure the screen at y9our local cinema is nowhere as large as the screen that I saw Delhi-6 on and they had absolutely no problem showing the film in 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

90% of the cinema projectors do. If lens are not changed it results of a squished picture.

You have your facts twisted around. All projectors (analog) used in commercial theaters have a native aspect ratio of 4:3. It is for anamorphic (cinemascope, panavision) films that they have to use an anamorphic lens to unsqueeze the picture. If you are seeing a squished picture of a 4:3 movie, then it is because the projectionist is either too lazy to remove the anamorphic lens or is most probably simply a moron and does not know his job too well.


For the last time, please understand how this works. First of all, I personally viewed the film on a huge, 2.35:1 screen and the picture was not distorted in any way at all, thus 2.35:1 prints do exist. Secondly, if the screen in a theater is 2.35:1 then ofcourse a 4:3 film will display a smaller picture. Just think of it as watching 4:3 material on a widescreen (16:9) television with the black bars on the sides. Finally, there is no lens that can make a 4:3 picture fill a 2.35:1 screen without either cropping the top and bottom of the picture and/or without distorting the picture and showing a squished picture.

Sanjay is right, no "special" lens is needed for 4:3. In fact, it's the anamorphic 1:2.35 that needs the lens, and removing it results in a squished picture only for anamorphic films. Films shot in Super35 or simply at 1:1.85 wouldn't be squished.

You 'might' be thinking of cinemas utilizing zoom lenses, which they do, but that doesn't affect the film's ratio.

I wonder if someone royally messed up the prints. I have a feeling the film was shot Super35, and either was meant to be flat, or someone forgot to matte the prints to 1:2.35.

This is the most credible and logical explanation that I can think of to explain the discreprancy between what I saw and what others are claiming. The movie is probably shot in Super35 in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The problem arises probably due to the fact that this would be almost a first for an Indian film and thus a lot of the theaters may not have any experience with such a situation.

PS: I do have to add that the theater, PVR Ambience Mall, that I watched the film at, claims to be a 2K digital projection theater and thus for all I know I may have actually watched the movie digitally. I will investigate this matter further and will get back with the details.

super35 is what i've been thinking too...
meanwhile, let's not forget that the indian censor cert on at least the print sanjay saw, said "cinemascope"

Yaar, Indian Censor Board hai, which means they are probably not technically very sound. To them, probably any movie in widescreen or atleast 2.35:1 may mean 'Cinemascope'. In fact if I remember correctly one of Feroze Khan's movie, I think Qurbani, was shot in 'Panavision', but the Censor Board certificate stated 'Cinemascope'.

yes sanjay that could be .... though I haven't seen "cinemascope" written on any indian censor cert that wasn't anamorphic 2.35:1... abt qurbani -- can check.


so we have ali_ikram who swears the movie was 4:3 in the theatre he saw in, sanjay saw the same in 2.35:1, and youullu in 1.85:1. ali_ikram and youullu are not in india, right? how did those theatres messs up? so if the theatres are not the ones who are messing up, it's probably that there are multiple prints out there in different ARs, and at least one set is anamorphic cinemascope.

that makes me laugh! Now we are claiming to be OSCAR LEVEL industry but do not know what is STD/WS/ANAMORPHIC/CINEMASCOPE/ and cant even make a decent, properly authored DVD of our films, even BIG WIGS like GWARIKOR etc.

you think, Indians are so savvy to make MULTIPLE PRINTS with DIFF AR for every one's need for same film

it'll be interesting to see if the 4:3 ali_ikram saw was a pan-and-scan from the super35 frame...

Down your ends this could be the case, but down here it the complete opposite. These projector were made in Italy. I have no idea if most of the projector are made in Italy or what. The lens to are Italy manufactured.

The discussion between the AR can be resolved when the DVD releases. Unless we do have prints that were matted to 2.35:1 after the release, we dont know.

the dvd release may not really provide the answers though.

Saw Delhi 6 at Cineplex. Distinct Directional audio was used throughout the film. Film Run Time was 143 min. End credits showed both DD and DTS logos.

AR: 1.8:1 (1.78:1 as theatre manger told me) flat Lens used.
(As I mentioned earlier as well, In most North American theatres, you get Max size projection when AR is aprox 1.8:1. 2.35:1 projections are shorter in height. )

Delhi 6 situation is same as Bollywood Hollywood. I saw Bollywood Hollywood in Cineplex (Canada) where it was 1.8:1 and the same film was presented in 2.35:1 in India, Singapore etc. I deduced from zulm discussions and posted screen shots that 1.8:1 AR was the max picture area from which 4:3 (cut sides), 1.8:1 and 2.35:1 (cut top & bottom) versions were made to suit market. Same seems to be the case for Delhi-6.

so looks like it's multiple prints with different ARs... right? If true, DVD releases too may have varying AR