I feel that a certain "epic quality" is missing from the very-close-to-square picture format.

I was sitting in the first row so maybe it looked like a full frame ratio from where I was seated. This new print of "Sholay" was screened a few years back at Loews Lincoln Square on the IMAX screen. It was some kind of free charity event and Saif Ali Khan/Preity Zinta were there to present. Everyone had to wait like half an hour before all the sponsors finished their speeches before it rolled. I had to leave unfortunately due to no subs. But I did see the first 5 min. and can confirm the 35mm/scope/5.1 mix. It looked great.

There really can be no argument anymore about if Sholay was shot on 70mm - just compare any frame from the 4:3 Eros DVD to the Carlotta 16:9 DVD and you'll see that it was not. If any kind of proper restoration is to be done, it can only be using the original 35mm print.

Rana Wrote

Is this for real or what.If so can you name yoru source. Or should we just accept your word for it.

Rana, are you certain that Sholay was never shot onto 70mm film? From what I've heard (I'll post sources if I find them), the movie was, indeed, shot onto the larger format, and not merely "converted" from 35mm for the sake of better quality. .

[color=#000000]The prints might have been 70mm, but not necessarily the negative. Blowups from 35mm anamorphic or the Sholay method of cropping to 2.20:1 (70mm aspect ratio) could have been done. In Hollywood, before 35/70 blowups, shooting on 65mm and printing onto 70mm was the common method of producing 70mm films. 35/70 was probably cheaper. I haven't seen any of these films besides Sholay, so I don't know if they show any of the tell tale signs of spherical non-anamorphic shooting.

[color=#000000]Actually I did make a mistake with the listing of Sholay

[color=#000000]I saw this statement on a review on startrek, dvd:

At the time of its release, some 70mm blow up prints were made for premier engagements and these featured the 6 channel magnetic sound format. Decades later, fashioned into a new 5.1 Dolby Digital mix, what we have is likely very close to what audiences heard in 1986.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1 ... -2003.html

So, 70mm, blow up prints are factual..

http://www.zulm.net/modules.php?op=modl ... e=&order=0

Sholay was filmed at a 4:3 aspect ratio but was released for the cinema in a matted 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 70mm film format.

Presented at a zoomed 1.85:1 aspect ratio from the original 2.35:1 matted version of Sholay you can tell from the screen shots below exactly how much of the picture is missing compared to the full frame version of Sholay.

(TO SEE PIC, GO TO LINK:
http://www.zulm.net/modules.php?op=modl ... e=&order=0
full frame view of Sholay scene - Eros/B4U DVD


zoomed wide screen scene - DEI/Eros DVD


covered parts show how much of the frame is missing from the DEI/Eros DVD

It's not as bad I've made out though. In reality this version is only cropped from the left and right as it been taken from the 70mm version of Sholay - it's a surprising common practice to shoot a movie at full frame and them later present it in a matted wide screen format, which was the case with Sholay.

None of these posts really confirms that Sholay was not — or could not have been — shot on 70mm film; if anything, most seem to rely on hearsay to reach their conclusions.

I guess we'll just have to hunt down Ramesh Sippy and beat the truth out of him...

comparison shots in this link.

For Ali:

This, link still states Director's cut Sholay to be 16 min longer than orig release. We know now, as I have posted earlier a 'second by second' comparison of the two versions, that it's ony 6 min difference.
May be, it should be fixed or refer to my post for the detailed list of differences, second by second.

(I'll search and post that link later on, as I find some time)

http://www.zulm.net/of/showthread.php?threadid=503

SECOND BY SECOND account of DIFFERENCES (Total difference is 6min. 35 sec.) between Director's Cut (EROS-B4U) and previously released (EROS-DEI; theatrical release) version of SHOLAY:

1) Directors cut has 15 sec. extra (i.e. the movie stars from 15 sec earlier) at the beginning (not counting the Censors cert for about 10 sec. and another 10 sec. for EROS logo)
(both versions are identical for next 78 min)
2) Director's cut has 7 sec. extra for 'a village person on fire during a raid by Gabar'.
3) Director's cut has 108 sec. extra for 'pre-torture footage of a young village boy, Sachin (showing Gabar's ruthlessness)'.
4) Director's cut has 43 sec. extra for 'Ramlal fitting metal-spiked studs on Thakur's shoes'.
5) Director's cut has 82 sec. extra for, 'Hema Malini kidnapping and Dharaminder reaching Gabbar hide-out'. This scene is aprox 8 min long, mostly horse riding. The sequence of events in the two versions is different. In the Directors cut, Dharminder is in hot pursuit of the dacoits before Hema is captured. In Director's cut Dharminder appears after Hema has been captured and hence has to look for hints where to go. This gives extra intensity to the situation. In the theatrical version, as we are shown that Hema is being chased by the dacoits and the dacoits are being chased by Dharminder, the seriousness of the situation is a little bit less intense.
6) Director's cut has 45 sec. extra for, 'Veeru (Dharminder) dragging a bandit with a neck-noose galluping on horse- back'. The beginning of this shot, after Amitabh dies, is different. In Director's cut, Dharminder is shown, taking the rope along for his horse-back. In the theatrical version, he goes on the horse without the rope.
7) Director's cut has 95 sec. extra for, more graphic footage of the fight between Gabar and Thakur and for Dharminder consoling Thakur in the film's ending.


FURTHER COMMENTS:
Theatrical release is by no means incomplete. It was redundant to show the metal studs being installed as they were not used in that version ending. Similarly the remaining scene differences are appropriate for the intensity of the version being presented.

It is odd that Uncensored version (Director's cut)has censor cert. attached and the censored version (EROS-DEI) has no censor cert.

Are you saying that the dvd format was taken from the questionable 70 mm original print.It coudl very well be taken from the 35 mm ..The movie was shot in 70mm for the theatre screening as that is what 70mm was meant to be -to give what television could not.

there's only one "comparison shot" on that page.

Just received my Carlotta copy --

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 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.

...even the EROS-204-minute version appears to be lacking some image from the right-hand side. On the EROS-204-minute-version (which appears to be "fullframe"), check the scene where Amitabh and Dharam are shown back-to-back -- guns in hand, shooting the dacoits who'd come to collect their bodies (after Sachin's killing and the village gathering scene) -- you'll see (even on the EROS-204-minute version) that though Dharam is fully visible, Amitabh is not---he appears to be cropped, his arms are not entirely visible. Since Amitabh is facing the right and shooting in that direction, and since this is the scene that appears "cut" on the right-hand-side, it may be that the entire EROS-204-minutes transfer is framed in such a way that some portion from the right-hand side is cut.


The Gold VHS have a very minimum black bar area on top and bottom of the movie. Such a small area is possible only when the aspect ratio is 1.66:1 or lesser but greater than 1.33:1. So it could be possible that Gold VHS have the same aspect ratio as the on the original negatives... Also, if the film was actually shot on 1.66:1 or 1.45:1 then there is no way that EROS-204-minute-DVD would have the entire image in its 4:3 frame.