It is currently Sat Sep 28, 2024 5:26 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
congress
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 11:29 am
Posts: 1028
Location: Singapore
DragunR2 wrote:
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.

I doubt that they are that stupid!
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
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

At the multiplex I go to, they lower the curtain on the scren for 2.35:1 films and raise it for 1.85:1. So the former are actually just shorter and not wider.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Is it possible that they made prints for 2 different aspect ratios, 1.85 for U.S, CANADA AND EUROPE and 2.35 for the ASIA regions, since BOLLYWOOD/HOLLYWOOD was obviously shot in Super-35?.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
spike86 wrote:
Is it possible that they made prints for 2 different aspect ratios, 1.85 for U.S, CANADA AND EUROPE and 2.35 for the ASIA regions, since BOLLYWOOD/HOLLYWOOD was obviously shot in Super-35?.

That is what Aryan is saying may have been done. It is rather odd, however, for a Super 35 film to be released with anamorphic prints in one part of the world and flat prints to be framed at 1.85:1 in another part. Super 35 for 1.85:1 is virtually unheard of today, though it used to be done for 70mm blowups because of the magnetic soundtrack. First we need to verify that the prints Aryan and Sanjay saw were indeed anamorphic. Anyone here know if there is such a thing as a 2.35:1-shaped aperture plate? The anamorphic plate is ~1.2:1.
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Quote:
It is rather odd, however, for a Super 35 film to be released with anamorphic prints in one part of the world and flat prints to be framed at 1.85:1 in another part.

Is it really all that odd? It's definitely not difficult to do this. The filmmakers just have to ensure that all shots are correctly framed for both versions. She must have done this to ensure that all Indian halls can play the film.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Aryan wrote:
Quote:
It is rather odd, however, for a Super 35 film to be released with anamorphic prints in one part of the world and flat prints to be framed at 1.85:1 in another part.

Is it really all that odd? It's definitely not difficult to do this. The filmmakers just have to ensure that all shots are correctly framed for both versions. She must have done this to ensure that all Indian halls can play the film.

Super 35 for 1.85:1 isn't used much, if at all, anymore because:

1) DD, DTS, SDDS on 35mm has taken away the need for a blow up a 1.85:1 film to 70mm since multitrack sound can now be put on 35mm.

2) A Super 35 print can't be projected, since there is picture area where the optical soundtrack would be. For a 1.85:1 S35 film to be projected in a normal theater, the image would have to be slightly reduced through an optical printer, requiring an extra generation. And why go through all this when you can shoot this AR on an "Academy" frame without going through the extra optical step?

3) Taking the above two points into consideration, if a film is shooting in S35, they might as well frame for 2.35:1 and send anamorphic prints to all theaters.

Indian theaters show American flat films all the time, like Spiderman, and even the rare Indian flat film, so they must be able to do so properly. It's not impossible for the situation you are proposing to happen, but it would be extremely uncommon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
I don't know why you call it "Super 35 for 1.85:1" Also, 70mm doesn't come into this picture at all. ??? Why would the picture area be in the optical soundtrack's position. An anamorphic print of a Super 35 film will be projected just like any other anamorphic Panavision or Cinemasacope film. The film is shot 'flat' on 35mm and cropped to 1.85:1 using soft/hard matting. Another version is cropped to 2.35:1 in the lab. An anamorphic lens squeezes this picture laterally and prints it onto 35mm full frame. At this stage, it looks just like a Cinemascope print, except somewhat grainier. Maybe her preference is to shoot 1.85:1, but she knows that the Indian audience would prefer 2.35:1. I don't know, that's anybody's guess.
Top
 Profile  
 
theon
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2002 11:21 pm
Posts: 540
2.35:1, 1:85:1, 19492142:1, let's not lose sight of the fact that no matter what the aspect ratio is, the movie still sucks.

by the way, where did you guys (dragunr2, aryan etc.) learn all this stuff on film types/aspect ratios/lens from?
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Theon, I thought the film was OK. Not great, but better than some Hollywood films out there. As for filmmaking knowlege...I've been very interested in films since forever. I also have a Diploma in Film.

BTW, I got this info at this site: http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/producti ... ang=en&c=1

Super 35 mm
110 minutes Colour
Aspect ratio 2.35
Original version in English
Director and Scriptwriter Deepa Mehta
Executive producer Ajay Virmani
Producer David Hamilton



Edited By Aryan on 1044859917
Top
 Profile  
 
congress
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 11:29 am
Posts: 1028
Location: Singapore
same case as Earth, Aryan. It was shown in Singapore in 1.85 but the trailers on zee tv were in 2.35. I hope I can compare the 2.35 Shemaroo dvd with the 1.85 VCD version which was shown in Singapore. Only problem is everyone will think the VCD print is cropped but in actual fact it is not...I suspect Cathay got prints from India this time for Hollywood Bollywood...

It is a little confusing about Earth since the Indian 2.35 version is called 1947 and the International 1.85 is Earth.



Edited By congress on 1044877361
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Aryan wrote:
Theon, I thought the film was OK. Not great, but better than some Hollywood films out there. As for filmmaking knowlege...I've been very interested in films since forever. I also have a Diploma in Film.

BTW, I got this info at this site: http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/producti ... ang=en&c=1

Super 35 mm
110 minutes Colour
Aspect ratio 2.35
Original version in English
Director and Scriptwriter Deepa Mehta
Executive producer Ajay Virmani
Producer David Hamilton

So that proves it then. Why didn't you say so in the first place? :) IMDB also says the same thing, though I take what they have with a grain of salt, since they are often wrong.

http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0303785

Quote:
I don't know why you call it "Super 35 for 1.85:1" Also, 70mm doesn't come into this picture at all. Why would the picture area be in the optical soundtrack's position. An anamorphic print of a Super 35 film will be projected just like any other anamorphic Panavision or Cinemasacope film. The film is shot 'flat' on 35mm and cropped to 1.85:1 using soft/hard matting. Another version is cropped to 2.35:1 in the lab. An anamorphic lens squeezes this picture laterally and prints it onto 35mm full frame. At this stage, it looks just like a Cinemascope print, except somewhat grainier. Maybe her preference is to shoot 1.85:1, but she knows that the Indian audience would prefer 2.35:1. I don't know, that's anybody's guess.


No, I simply meant that a Super 35 flat print cannot be projected. I wasn't talking about the anamorphic reduction. Super 35 for 1.85:1 just isn't common these days for the reasons I have mentioned. BH being S35 and having some 1.85:1 prints is an oddity since this would mean unnecessarily going down a generation for that aspect ratio. I mentioned 70mm because it was a reason that Super 35 1.85:1 used to be done, but it isn't being done much, if at all, today.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
More on this, from a Google search of newsgroups for "Super 35 1.85:1"

http://tinyurl.com/5mbz

Labs can project Super35 answer prints - I guess you can choose what size mask
you want if you only want to see the 2.35 area.

But a Super35 print is useless as a theatrical format since it has no room for
an optical soundtrack, plus most theaters aren't set up to show Full Aperture.
So if you want to make a "flat" theatrical print, it has to be reduced to the
normal Academy Aperture width.

But to answer the question, Super35 cameras use normal spherical lenses -
THAT'S the whole point of the format...

While some people have shot Super35 for a 1.85 "flat" release, the practice
has almost disappeared (except for shooting Super35 for TV shows as a
protection for HDTV) because the improvements in grain from making a reduction
element is offset by the loss of quality and the increase in cost due to using
optical printing instead of contact printing. In other words, if you want
1.85 "flat" then shoot 1.85 "flat" - it's not worth the hassle of dealing with
Super35. Optical printing adds an element of harshness and grittiness
(from overly "crisp" or sharp grain when the image is rephotographed onto a
dupe negative) that is less common with contact printing. I tend to think of
the grain structure of an optical element made from Super35 as being similar
to video edge enhancement - as if every grain particle was not only
rephotographed but a tiny drop shadow was added, making the grain pop out more.

On the other hand, shooting Super35 for a 2.35 anamorphic release is becoming
more and more common...

David M.

David Mullen is a cinematographer, FYI.


Theon, to answer your question, I learned about this stuff by reading about it. Books, internet sites, and newsgroups mainly.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1044900105
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
OK!! Guys! Take a bREAK? so ARE we gETTING a PROG, anamorphic ,widescreen edition of BH, from MONGREAL MEDIA? Izzy? aap ki kiya rai hai?

Snake EYES? Jaani DUSHMAN!! ha ha!! If so? BEST PLACE to order?



Edited By arsh on 1044903237
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
I’m bringing this from another thread as this thread seems to be more appropriate.

Arsh you wrote about 1947 Earth (in that thread):
"Well!! I hope this is not STD AR too, like Mehta's other Bollywood Hollywood? Any comments?"



Why don't you like 4:3 AR even if it contained more (not less) picture than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 versions.

In the case of these two films, "Back to the future", Sholay and many other films, we have seen that often Frames exist in a 4:3 AR. Various AR prints or editions are made from the available 4:3 frame by matting top and bottom of the picture.

Who knows, what area of the frame was intended for a director's vision AR. or whether the director picks the same picture area every time he has to decide where to pick, even if he concentrates on one AR. Forget about any consistency if he has to pick various ARs at various times.

Unless there is such a thing as "Original Aspect Ratio", or one single Aspect Ratio, my preferrence will be:

If Director or his instructions are not available, I would like to see the fullest picture. Be it 4:3, 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. And if the Aspect Ratio is wider than 1.6:1, the DVD should be anamorphic. If extra picture at top and bottom is available, I see no point in 2.35:1 letterboxed in 1.85:1 anamorphic frame or in 4:3 frame. The same way I don’t see any point in 1.85:1 letterboxed in a 4:3 frame when extra picture is available at top and bottom. Instead of the black bars, we may as well see what was in the shot that didn’t make it into “a” particular print. Artefactcts like booms and mikes, if any, have to be taken care of, though.

Rana



Edited By rana on 1044903893
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Well, rana!! i appreciate ur INPUT! If ORIG DESIRED AR by director is to SHOW US IN 4:3 , I am very much acceptive of that! The way film was projected in Theatre!was not to my LIKENING!! the way SHOTS were fRAMED!

I have a cOPY of CINABELLA version! and we will soon see, how Mongreal version, is displayed frame wise!

If Film was not originally SHOT in STD AR, but in Wide screen! as IMDP data suggest! then why it was masered that way for theatres , or for dvd!
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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