It is currently Sun Dec 22, 2024 8:17 am

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 4
  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
rana wrote:
Well, these are my observations and preferrences. I do prefer more picture, whether it is 2.35:1 AR or in 1.33:1 AR, whether Director wanted us to see it or not (for theatrical presentation). And these optional ARs are available in the case of Hollywood films.

So I guess you would also support a system wherin you would be able to change the film itself, after all who cares what the director/film makers intended, right? Also what I understand from your posts is that that you would actually prefer to see the unintended shots of the boom mic and other unintended props etc. showing up on your screen as long as you get to see a little more of essentially useless and unintended info on the top and bottom. Also I guess the whole idea of a well composed shot does not gel with you but rather a poorly framed shot with MORE info on the top and bottom is what you prefer.

Please don't be offended by my post but honestly there are lots of directors and cinematographers who are very much offended by the rape of their art done by Home Video producers at times. The only way to correctly watch a film is in it's ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO. Also, "More, is not always Better"
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
DragunR2 wrote:
HD transfers? What films of his got HD transfers? The first version of Warner's Kubrick box set used old LD transfers. I wasn't aware that Warner did HD transfers like the other studios.

I am not sure if any Stanley Kubrick's films got a HIGH DEF transfer. But there is a slight chance of 'Eyes Wide Shut' having a High Def transfer. WB does high def transfers, the recent high def transfer I saw was 'TRAINING DAY' on HBO-HD. My guess is unlike Indian dvd companies all hollywood studios transfer films to HD tape, then downconverts it for dvd resulting in superb DVD picture.
Top
 Profile  
 
ganti
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 3:45 pm
Posts: 515
Location: columbus
Dragun,
I guess youullu was talking about the HBO-HD transfers. They have nothing to do with DVD transfer. Most of the HBO-HD movies gets a HD transfer and strangely all of them are shown at 1.85:1 irrespective of their theatrical presentation.



Edited By ganti on 1043071974
Top
 Profile  
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
I'm talking about the process Hollywood goes throug for all its movies nowadays. They transfer from film to HD, and then downconvert for DVD. I know this was done for Kubrick's films(and was initiated with his approval of which print to use and how to frame it, as well as what type of sound would be featured), and I at least have a TIME magazine article verifying it.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
youullu wrote:
I'm talking about the process Hollywood goes throug for all its movies nowadays. They transfer from film to HD, and then downconvert for DVD. I know this was done for Kubrick's films(and was initiated with his approval of which print to use and how to frame it, as well as what type of sound would be featured), and I at least have a TIME magazine article verifying it.

Kubrick died before the remastered Kubrick box set was released. I think he died right before the first box was released as well. I don't know if Kubrick signed off on using old LD masters, but the first DVDs certainly didn't look very good.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6143
There are a lots of querries directed at me and I can clarify most of them. There are so many of them. I don't know if I'll ever get time to respond in the near future.

Anyway, I still want info about different AR versions, regarding which version is Director's version, Pan & Scan, More on top and or bottom, cut from sides, problem framing etc etc. What was as shot AR, what was intended AR, Soft Matte, Hard Matte etc. As we all know, this info is not easily avail and sometimes never available.

Thanks.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
DragunR2 wrote:
Kubrick died before the remastered Kubrick box set was released. I think he died right before the first box was released as well. I don't know if Kubrick signed off on using old LD masters, but the first DVDs certainly didn't look very good.

He did die before the box sets were released, but the plan to transfer his films from film to HD was done while he was alive. I'm not saying he signed off on DVDs per say, but the HD masters that were made were based on his approval.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
Anyway, I still want info about different AR versions, regarding which version is Director's version, Pan & Scan, More on top and or bottom, cut from sides, problem framing etc etc. What was as shot AR, what was intended AR, Soft Matte, Hard Matte etc. As we all know, this info is not easily avail and sometimes never available.

It is safe to assume that the theatrical AR is the intended AR. Sometimes you might get a film like Dick Tracy where the director wanted 1.37:1 for stylistic reasons, but that is extremely rare. Even with DT, it isn't sure whether the images were framed specifically for 1.37:1.

Sometimes seeing more of the frame ruins the image or a joke. In Pee Wee's Big Adventure, there is a scene where Pee Wee pulls an endless chain out of the basket in his bike. It looks normal in the matted 1.85:1 version, but in the open matte version, you can see that there is a long chain being fed into the bottom of the basket, thus ruining the illusion.
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Watched this one scene from the movie Simone and reminded me of this thread. The film is well framed @ 2.35:1. One scene you see a man with an eye patch (he's blind in one eye) in the frame while two people move a picture of eye across the screen in the background - poignantly arty farty :laugh: Thought a scene like that would be ruined if anyone would reframe the picture by cropping, pan/scan or other means - it'll definitely ruin the effect of that scene @ 1.85:1 ratio.

Ali :baaa:
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6143
jag wrote:
Quote:
I prefer to see more picture


Why would you want to see more picture than what the director intends to show? Is it really the black bars that are bothering you or the fact that the TV's screen is not being used fully?

Better late than never.
Finally, my reason coming up, as soon as sknath posts a particular shot that I asked him to.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6143
Looks like it will be a while before I could get a more appropriate shot posted, to explain why I want to see extra pic, if avail, instead of black bars.

I DON'T WANT EXTRA PIC IF SHOTS ARE FRAMRD PROPERLY(example: what Ali described above for the movie Simmone). But are they properly framed in Indian movies??

Consider the following shot from Mann (2 in 1 Sirf Tum/ Mann DVD thread):
Image


Do you see anything wrong with this shot?? BTW, this is not just for a split sec when the camera is moving but stays this way for the whole shot lasting about a minute. Moreover, the same is applicable to all other shots from Mann posted in that thread.

Would you have wanted to see more pic at the top or bottom or on the sides?? Or would you have cropped or matted the pic to make it better framed?? Or may be it is a perfect shot as it is??

What do you think, DragunR2, youullu, Aryan, Sanjay, et.al.??

Please bear with me. My comments later.

Thanks.

Rana



Edited By rana on 1046269904
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
It looks like squeezed 1.85. 2.35 would've been the correct ratio. It doesn't look right.
You can't achieve more pic from top and bottom because its shot in anamorphic 2.35 or even around 2.39.

And who are we to question the framing, unless we were responsible from the direction or cinematography of Mann.
???
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
What exactly are you asking, Rana? We can't see more picture than is in that shot because it was shot with anamorphic lenses. The only solutions are to properly letterbox it to the OAR or to crop it.

If anything is wrong with the picture, I would get rid of the onlookers in the background! But otherwise I see nothing wrong with the composition.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6143
rana wrote:
Looks like it will be a while before I could get a more appropriate shot posted, to explain why I want to see extra pic, if avail, instead of black bars.

I DON'T WANT EXTRA PIC IF SHOTS ARE FRAMRD PROPERLY(example: what Ali described above for the movie Simmone). But are they properly framed in Indian movies??

Consider the following shot from Mann (2 in 1 Sirf Tum/ Mann DVD thread):
Image


Do you see anything wrong with this shot?? BTW, this is not just for a split sec when the camera is moving but stays this way for the whole shot lasting about a minute. Moreover, the same is applicable to all other shots from Mann posted in that thread.

Would you have wanted to see more pic at the top or bottom or on the sides?? Or would you have cropped or matted the pic to make it better framed?? Or may be it is a perfect shot as it is??

What do you think, DragunR2, youullu, Aryan, Sanjay, et.al.??

Please bear with me. My comments later.

Thanks.

Rana

I was trying to explain, my resoning why I want to see more picture as Jag had asked me.

To do that, there was a better example, but I didn’t succeed in posting that screen cap. Then I found this example from MANN.

I wanted to see if you find anything wrong with this shot. I think, we all agree, there is nothing wrong with this shot.

Now, I am sure, we all will agree again that if we cut off the picture from above Aamir Khan’s ear, it will be an incorrect composition. Try it. Unfortunately, this one shot (lasting 1 min) is not the only one. This annoyance is seen all through the movie. This is how EROS’s 2.35:1 anamorphic print is and perhaps the same was in some or all of the 2.35:1 theatrical screenings. Moreover, you see this kind of missframing in many 2.35:1 Film DVDs.

I agree that by carefull matting, an acceptable 2.35:1 frame can be obtained. This may require a vigilant decision maker who keeps adjusting the selected frame area. I’m sure good director’s do that and yet we end up with the kind of framing seen in EROS DVD’s print.

Did a film print with an AR of 1.85:1 exist??
Obviously, it did. Otherwise how did we get the above shot.

Did the Director matt out the top and bottom of the picture to make it a 2.35:1 frame or it is left to the projectionist??

Is there such a thing as ‘Original Aspect Ratio’?? How do we decide if 1.85:1 was the OAR or a matted 2.35:1 was the OAR. Both film prints probably exist.


I AM SURE WE ALL AGREE THAT ERRORS CAN BE MADE IN CHOOSING FRAMING. Also, different framing can be picked at different times, even by the same person.
FOR THIS REASON, I WANT TO SEE EXTRA PICTURE, if available, that can be placed where the black bars appear. Black Bars, that appear at the top and bottom of a 1.85:1 (anamorphic) frame for a 2.35:1 picture and at the top and bottom of a 4:3 frame for a 1.85:1 or for a 2.35:1 picture.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
One thing about indian movies is that they arent't shot on super35, which would allow masking of different ARs. What usually happens when Indian movies are transferred to some video medium, is that they are done so cropped(to ~ 1:1.85, in the case of older DEI titles), or they don't use the entire film frame. Indian movies as far as I know(and I'm talking mainstream titles here), only use anamorphic lenses.
I don't know about "likng" more picture on the top, or bottom, or sides. I want to see the film in the way the director intended to show it in theatres. Do you feel better about a 1:2.35 image if it's opened up on a 4:3 TV? yes, but if you had a front projection system, then you'd never say that. I personally hate not seeing films in their OAR.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
  [ 56 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 17 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