It is currently Sat Sep 28, 2024 5:24 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 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
It is getting interesting now.

I saw Bollywood Hollywood in THX certified Silvery City theatre. AR was 1.85 :1. A few others on zulm confirmed that OAR was 1.85:1.

I think, it was Sanjay who saw in an India theatre with an AR of 2.35:1. Aryan, you say the same thing. Where did you see it?

From the screen shot above, it is obvious that 2.35:1 screening is acieved by excessive matting at the top and bottom of the 4:3 shots. A little bit less matting is used for 1.85:1.


Question:
"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 Bollywood-Hollywood AR to be 2.35:1, where he saw it?? In North America we saw it at 1.85:1. Then what is the ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO in such situations?? It happens all the time Hollywood movies or Bollywood movies."

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
This brings to attention, when I saw the Indian promos for Earth, they were in 2.35:1. I had seen the film in 1.85:1. I think that this time here in Singapore, we may have got the Indian version. I noticed that in portions, the voice was dubbed - the actors lips were saying something completely different from the dialogue heard - especially whilst they were cursing. Did the U.S. versions have any cuss words, cause the Singapore version was as clean as a Disney movie. Also, I found the song portions to be a tad bit long for non-Indian audiences. For Earth too, the Indian version had extended song sequences. In any case, the picture wasn't too grainy at all considering the cropping done. she must have anticipated this and shot on slower stock.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Is it? EARTH, or 1947 EARTH?
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
It is getting interesting now.

I saw Bollywood Hollywood in THX certified Silvery City theatre. AR was 1.85 :1. A few others on zulm confirmed that OAR was 1.85:1.

I think, it was Sanjay who saw in an India theatre with an AR of 2.35:1. Aryan, you say the same thing. Where did you see it?

Aren't most Indian screens 2.35:1? So if they don't have proper masking curtains, theaters may be cropping 1.85:1 films to 2.35:1 just so the whole screen is used.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I think u r right DRAGUN, to pls audience with FULLER PICTURE! Damn it!
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Arsh and Dragun, I really don't think that the cinemas are cropping the films to 2.35:1. For one, I saw the Indian trailers and music videos for Earth on television in 2.35:1. Another reason is that 2.35:1 is achieved by using anamorphic lenses - no matter whether it was shot with spherical (Super 35/Technovision) or anamorphic lenses (Cinemascope/Panavision). Indian cinemas, are I'm quite sure, more likely to have anamorphic facilities than strange 2.35 : 1 masking facilties. Also, I saw Bollywood Hollywood in a state of the art Singaporean cinema. It was 2.35:1. There is not a single reason why they would have cropped the film.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
I concur with Dragun's statement. I think American cinemas are more accomodating of 1.85 ratio using masks and 99% of Indian cinemas are not, resulting in a small picture in the middle of the huge scope screen. May be this is the reason why the masked it to 2.35. You can't always go by the movie trailer AR. Even scope films like Lord OF THE rings have flat(1.85) trailers which can be misleading.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Aryan, the fact that the pirate DVDs of Bollywood Hollywood have open matte transfers supports that this film is intended to be projected at 1.85:1. No 2.35:1 films are matted to that AR from a flat (spherical) print at the projector. Whether shot using anamorphic lenses or Super 35 with spherical lenses, cinema prints of all 2.35:1 films will be anamorphically stretched.

I do not doubt that you and Sanjay saw the film at 2.35:1. Is it possible you guys saw Bollywood Hollywood horizontally stretched to 2.35:1, instead of being vertically cropped? Theaters can crop a spherical print to that AR, though. I've read on some newsgroups of some American theaters showing ALL films at around 2:1, regardless of OAR.
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Spike - Indian cinemas and Singaporean cinemas are vastly different. We are very much exposed to the various formats of the different cinemas of the world.

Quote:
Aryan, the fact that the pirate DVDs of Bollywood Hollywood have open matte transfers supports that this film is intended to be projected at 1.85:1. No 2.35:1 films are matted to that AR from a flat (spherical) print at the projector. Whether shot using anamorphic lenses or Super 35 with spherical lenses, cinema prints of all 2.35:1 films will be anamorphically stretched.


Dragun, I'm making exactly the same point as you here. Films are generally not cropped to 2.35. Also, generally movie trailers are sometimes 1.85 even if the film is anamorphic so as to ensure that the trailers can be played in all halls. Furthermore, they may be made prior to the print being readied for anarmorphic Super 35. 1.85 films normally wouldn't have 2.35:1 trailers though. And no, I didn't see the film horizontally stretched. I would have walked out of the hall!! Singaporeans are a relatively savvy movie-going lot. What I am suggesting is that the film was shot on 4:3. Then it was matted for 1.85 for U.S./Europe release. Then it went for the Super 35 process for Indian/Asian release. It's not all that complicated.



Edited By Aryan on 1044762548
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Aryan wrote:
Dragun, I'm making exactly the same point as you here. No film is cropped to 2.35. Also, generally movie trailers are sometimes 1.85 even if the film is anamorphic so as to ensure that the trailers can be played in all halls. Furthermore, they may be made prior to the print being readied for anarmorphic Super 35. And no, I didn't see the film horizontally stretched. I would have walked out of the hall!! Singaporeans are a relatively savvy movie-going lot. What I am suggesting is that the film was shot on 4:3. Then it was matted for 1.85 for U.S./Europe release. Then it went for the Super 35 process for Indian/Asian release. It's not all that complicated.

Oh, okay, I understand. Aryan, if this film is still playing there, would you mind seeing it again (or sneaking in before/after seeing another film) and checking whether the reel changeover cues are circle or oval?
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Hey, I just watched the trailer on the net - there were scenes missing from the version I watched...
Top
 Profile  
 
kaindiazINC.
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 10:57 pm
Posts: 192
Quote:
I've read on some newsgroups of some American theaters showing ALL films at around 2:1, regardless of OAR.

That is somewat true. I went to watch Final Destination 2 last week and the OAR for FD2 is 1.85. Before the movie, the trailers were being shown at 2.1 and as soon as it began, instead of switching it to 1.85, it was stretched out to 2:1 and the picture was horizontally stretched.
Fortunately 10 minutes after it was framed back to its proper AR.

Getting back to the Bollywood Hollywood dvd, anybody care commenting on the audio? How is it?
Top
 Profile  
 
SnakeEye
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 10:03 pm
Posts: 246
Location: Dordrecht, Netherlands
These are the Special Features of the Mongrel DvD..

16 x 9 Widescreen Presentation (2:35:1)
Up Close Commentary with Deepa Mehta
Interview with Lisa Ray
Featurette
Extended/Deleted Scenes
Stills Gallery – Theatrical Trailer – Cast and Crew Bios – Song Gallery
2.0 Stereo, English
5.1 Surround, English
2.0 Stereo, French (dubbed track)
Video Description Track, English (by AudioVision Canada)
DVD-ROM Features
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Waaahey Mongrel DVD looks like the one to get! Thanks for the info SnakeEye.

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
Aryan wrote:
Spike - Indian cinemas and Singaporean cinemas are vastly different. We are very much exposed to the various formats of the different cinemas of the world.

Quote:
Aryan, the fact that the pirate DVDs of Bollywood Hollywood have open matte transfers supports that this film is intended to be projected at 1.85:1. No 2.35:1 films are matted to that AR from a flat (spherical) print at the projector. Whether shot using anamorphic lenses or Super 35 with spherical lenses, cinema prints of all 2.35:1 films will be anamorphically stretched.


Dragun, I'm making exactly the same point as you here. Films are generally not cropped to 2.35. Also, generally movie trailers are sometimes 1.85 even if the film is anamorphic so as to ensure that the trailers can be played in all halls. Furthermore, they may be made prior to the print being readied for anarmorphic Super 35. 1.85 films normally wouldn't have 2.35:1 trailers though. And no, I didn't see the film horizontally stretched. I would have walked out of the hall!! Singaporeans are a relatively savvy movie-going lot. What I am suggesting is that the film was shot on 4:3. Then it was matted for 1.85 for U.S./Europe release. Then it went for the Super 35 process for Indian/Asian release. It's not all that complicated.

It happens all the time. There is one THEATRICAL ASPECT RATIO for 1.85:1 theatre screens. There is another THEATRICAL ASPECT RATIO for 2.35:1 screens. I don't think, there is such a thing called ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO. Movies are projected to fit the screen.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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