Sanjay is right. I belive currently UTV are going this problem with cinemas all over.

Official website: http://www.delhi6.co.in/
I have a feeling that the film may have been shot 4:3 but it is not going to be presented that way. If you look at the Videos on the official site, none of them are in 4:3 ratio. But what is even more confusing is that the 'Theatrical trailer' seems to be in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio whereas the other promos seem to be in a less wider aspect ratio. I think Rakyesh Mehra has screwed up big time and the theaters are going to end up making a mess projecting them at all sorts of aspect ratios along with a few projecting it with a squished picture.

Personally my excitement level to see the movie had already been deflated after seeing the trailer in the theater, but now after hearing that the film is shot in 4:3 I really am not in any hurry to see the film. Shooting im 4:3 is regressive and please don't give me the speech on 'artistic vision'. Sorry but the world is widescreen and the human eye sees far more material side to side than we do top to bottom, thus a 4:3 picture is simply unnatural.

that happens with adverts because they forget to remove the anamorphic/reverse-anamorphic lens when showing 4x3 ads -- as also noted by sanjay -- so sengh_15, both sanjay and i are saying the same thing -- and there's no need of any special lens for projecting normal 4x3.

it actually is a matter of how near or far you are from the 4x3 or 2.35:1 picture...
interestingly, imax, at the end of the day, is closer to 4x3 than to 2.35:1

A seprate lens for 2:35.1 (Cinemascope) n seprate for 1:33.1 (4:3)

Actually as is the case with Imax, once the picture is large enough, the aspect ratio does not matter as much, since the 'side to side' vision of the human eye(s), although more than the 'top to bottom' vision, still has it's own limit. Thus, beyond that point the aspect ratio becomes irrelevant and one simply sees only a limited amount of the picture, be it 'side to side' or 'top to bottom'.

Most single screen theaters in India, that are equiped for anamorphic/widescreen movies, have a seperate projector for 4:3 material (documentaries and commercials). Thus they don't have to worry about changing/removing lenses. The issue of squished picture and incorrect aspect ratio is generally a phenomenon that one faces only in the new multiplexes that don't have seperate projectors for 4:3 material. Interestingly, the projector reserved for 4:3 materials are old and worn out projectors which are not as well maintained as the one's reserved for the feature film. Even the bulbs are rarely replaced on these old projectors and which is the reason why the picture quality of these are generally very dim.

Rediff review:

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2009/feb/1 ... review.htm

Another good review for the film, 'Moron Adarsh gives it only 1.5 stars and a Thumbs Down. http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/review/12980/index.html
Say's, "On the whole, DELHI 6 has a terribly boring beginning [first hour], an absorbing middle [second half] and a weak end [climax]. At the box-office, the business is bound to be divided."

Where is the evidence for the film being shot in 4:3? I can't imagine any director or even cinematographer accepting such a ratio for theatrical viewing. As Sanjay said, it is totally and completely regressive.

I especially don't see this as being true in an industry that has accepted 'scope as a standard for decades.

All teasers & trailers showing on TV are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio with no signs of any squished picture. I seriously doubt the movie has been shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio.

and same fighter pilot story!!!!!!

The film currently has been removed from my local cinema due to this problem

Yes, I can confirm it was 4:3 aspect ratio. For those in Toronto, watch it at the Cineplex Sheppard Grande as they show it in its correct framing and on a HUGE screen.

On to the film, it's the first in ages which I have wanted to go and see again immediately after watching it the first time. There's a beautiful tapestry of characters, colours and coincidence interwoven together. But it's not a film for everyone. Like I had planned, I dragged my family to it too, and my dad hated it, while my mom found it depressing. My wife thought it was pretty good as did my mom-in-law, which is a lot coming from SRK devotees, and the kids were scared to bits.

It's the type of film you have to pay significant attention to in order to enjoy it. And you really should not bring along kids under the age of eight to it, unless they can tolerate realistic violence. (My bad.)

Songs were also well used in the tale, though there really needn't have been that many. (Guess Mehra didn't want to waste any of Rahman's hard work.) The brilliant juxtaposition of east meets west in "Dil Gira Dafataan" has alone got to be worth the price of admission.

I must admit I didn't like the preachy climax, but I find South East Asians often don't grasp concepts unless you beat them over the head with it. So all is forgiven.

That's three films Rakesh OmPrakash Mehra has made, and I must say, I've loved all three of them. Dare I say, he's a directorial genius not seen since Mani Ratnam. It'll be tough for him to live up to my expectations again, but he seems like a guy ready to deliver.

9.7/10 (exact same rating I remember giving Aks and RDB when I first saw each of them)

and I think, both of them OVER THE BOARD VIOLENT too!