When shooting open matte or Super 35 directors protect the top and bottom from boom mikes and other things, but they're framing for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.

No, the Carlotta DVD has exactly the same cut of the film as featured on the DEI disc. The Amazon listing is wrong - the film runs for 3h 10min minutes on the Carlotta DVD, which would be 3h 18min without the PAL speed-up.

As mentioned earlier, there's no way any footage from the longer cut could be on a widescreen DVD since the prints aren't available anymore.

I would'nt give Ramesh Sippy so much credit, that he would have thought of the framing for television. It should be safe to say that Sholay was only intended to be seen widescreen.

CORRECTION: It has been mentioned in the past, EROS-DEI version really is 198 min (197 min 58 sec) and not 187 or 185 min that's stated on the EROS-DEI cover erroneously.

EROS-DEI DVD is one of the earlier Indian DVDs where they must have used 185 min time on the cover picking it from PAL VHS covers (PAL VHS was 4% faster). They (DEI-EROS) reauthored Sholay from Film to NTSC (no 4% speed up), the DVD is 198 min. Covers must have been printed picking up 185-190 min info from PAL VHSs.

(-----Incorrect sentence deleted-----)

As you mention it's 190 min in PAL for same 198 min content in NTSC, may be it's direct Film to PAL transfer with 4% speed up as it should be for a proper Film to PAL DVD.

(EROS director's cut is a few minutes ( 6-7 min) longer mainly due to different ending, extended Sachin torture and extended "Gabbar-Hema-Dharminder" chase scene)

It's 100% definitely a proper film-to-PAL transfer, with a 4% speed-up and no combing at all.

That's a good news then.

It makes perfect sense. 198 min for NTSC (DEI-EROS) and 190 min for PAL.

I must have been confused with PAL Bhoot shots.

I think the whole "open matte vs. matted-widescreen" thing came into play in the release of the Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines DVD, as well. Some people were shocked to see that the "full-screen" DVD offered more picture information than did the "widescreen" one; as people recalled having seen the film in 2.35:1 aspect-ratio in theaters, an assumption arose that the full-screen version was already cropped from the sides, and that the widescreen, then, was further cropped (from the top and the bottom). It didn't seem to occur to people to imagine one of the "widescreen" captures as though it had a lot of additional picture information on all sides; the close-ups would have ended up being mid-range shot, and long shots might have looked just ridiculous.

Commando, open matte and Super 35 filming have been around long before Terminator 3.

I remember when American Pie came out on DVD. People were arguing that Full Screen is better because the Full Screen edition showed more Shannon Elizabeth boobs


anyway, my personal pref is wide. but I'll watch whatever the director intended.

This film and a few others, like Striptease, where director's intention was to show a PG film and not an Adult film??

And perhaps audience too wanted to watch a PG film??

Or, may be widescreen couldn't capture what 4:3 could??

Yes, I'm well aware of this. I was just saying that (some) people threw a fit upon seeing that the full-screen DVD showed more picture than did the wide-screen DVD; of course, these people were not familiar with the concept of an "open matte," and thus drew such a conclusion.

That could be because widescreen was touted as showing more picture, using Panavision and 70mm films, which have to be panned-and-scanned, for comparision. Or erroneously illustrating 1.85:1 films as pan-and-scan (like MGM's booklets used to do). What should have been stressed was that widescreen is the proper framing, disregarding the amount of picture we see.

Just received my copy -- I think we should call this Eros-Carlotta because on the backside of the DVD case there's an Eros logo.

The DVD (available on two discs with a break exactly where the theatrical interval happens) is anamorphic and the movie (PAL) runs for 3 hours 4 minutes (quoted on the case).

The best part is a statement by Ramesh Sippy in an extra feature -- He clearly is seen stating that he shot Sholay with Gabbar dying but the censors would not allow it... That's straight from the horse's mouth!

I agree with all those who think that the Carlotta PQ more "real" than DEI-Eros. Yes, even though a little grainy at times, the movie on Carlotta is the same color and tone as seen in theatres. DEI-Eros appears to be sexed up.

The sound in Dolby Digital 1.0 is a vast improvement over previous mono-written-on-5.1.

I do believe there is slightly more picture information on the left and right edges compared to Ultra DVD. If true, this is the "widest" Sholay DVD so far, though yes, there's a little cropping horizontally (compared to DEI-Eros).

Sholay was re-released in India in 35-cinemascope (I think) in 2003/2004. Perhaps the Eros-Carlotta transfer is from that master...

= = = = = = =



Just compare the Hema-in-mandir-and-Dharam-fooling-her-with-a-"megaphone" shots of the full-frame Eros-B4U with the matted-widescreen of Eros-Carlotta, and then tell me if you still think Sholay was never intended to be seen in full-frame. This is just one example where the open-matte has very creative composing that "all fits in." Look at Dharam's legwork as he fools her---those postures etc are all very very sensible.

There's not a single shot in open-matte Sholay that appears to have any edges worth "chopping off" or having "unnecessary info" to be matted out. Every bit & piece in the full-frame is carefully composed. Matting out, in my opinion, only ruins the picture. Compare this to movies that were shot for later matting-out of unnecessary info... an example already discussed is below:



Can you really find any such shot in open-matte Sholay? I couldn't.

= = = = = =



Help is available in English http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/tg/bro ... 74-6921717

Plus like Stephen says:

Hey folks,
I am planning to buy this DVD though its very costly but still its worth because of the Interviews included. Also, I have the Eros version of this dvd and so I am a bit anxious to know how good the sound quality of this dvd compared to DEI version (As I heard the DEI version is having DD 2.0) and this is having just a mono. So when you watch the movie in a Home theater, were you guys able to enjoy it or found the sound to be hollow and distracting.

The only downside to the audio on the Carlotta DVD is just the fact that it's mono - other than that, it's perfectly fine with no distortion, pops, crackles and the like. No problems on my surround set-up.