It is currently Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:23 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Mr_Khiladi
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:39 am
Posts: 873
rana wrote:
Did you see it in the theatre or was it Home Video?? What was the AR, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1??

Rana

I saw it at Cinema, Cineworld Feltham, UK.

I'm not sure about the aspect ratio, but it certainly didn't look as cropped as it was in the 2nd pic. I think it was more like 1.85:1. I didn't notice anything unusual about the aspect ratio...I usually notice if a film is 2.35:1.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Oops.



Edited By rana on 1045514334
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
ali wrote:
Image

DragunR2 pointed one time that normally you have too much wasted space at the top of most of the old or new 4:3 frames, 1.85:1 seems to be the correct AR for Bollywood Hollywood.

Consider the above frame. Out of the 4:3 shot, you can still get a decent composition for a 1.85:1 (cut top and bottom).
Try to get a 2.35:1 frame from this shot (cut top and bottom) and you will see a nonsense frame.

Rana


Edited By rana on 1045514563
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
Consider the above frame. Out of the 4:3 shot, you can still get a decent composition for a 1.85:1 (cut top and bottom).
Try to get a 2.35:1 frame from this shot (cut top and bottom) and you will see a nonsense frame.

Image

The whole thing is 1.85:1, while the green lines demarcate 2.35:1. A real CinemaScope frame is around 2.39:1, I think.

This is only one frame from one shot, but just considering this frame, the 2.35:1 looks okay, though the man holding the camcorder is missing in that aspect ratio. Whether this matters, I don't know. Maybe in the scene, he was filming them standing up, then crouched down so we can see what's going on.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1045529097
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
As a general rule of thumb, the eyes of the main subject should be in the top 1/3 of the frame. As such, the 2.35 and 1.85 frames would both look nice and the 4:3 shot looks quite badly framed conventionally.



Edited By Aryan on 1045544619
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 4:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
DragunR2 wrote:
rana wrote:
Consider the above frame. Out of the 4:3 shot, you can still get a decent composition for a 1.85:1 (cut top and bottom).
Try to get a 2.35:1 frame from this shot (cut top and bottom) and you will see a nonsense frame.

Image

The whole thing is 1.85:1, while the green lines demarcate 2.35:1. A real CinemaScope frame is around 2.39:1, I think.

This is only one frame from one shot, but just considering this frame, the 2.35:1 looks okay, though the man holding the camcorder is missing in that aspect ratio. Whether this matters, I don't know. Maybe in the scene, he was filming them standing up, then crouched down so we can see what's going on.

Good work DragunR2.

Let's see what was director trying to show??

As soon as a Bollywood star enters, every body flocks him. Autographs, video shoot, drinks etc.

In 4:3 all is depicted clearly.

In 1.85:1, its still fine.

In 2.35:1, Video camera and video photographers are gone. It becomes a regular party scene. It doesn't show Bollywood star craze. Moreover, in this 2.35:1 frame, a tip of the camera is sticking in the frame. It looks like a mike or a boom left erroneously in the frame.

Rana

Aryan you mentioned general rule of thumb:
"As a general rule of thumb, the eyes of the main subject should be in the top 1/3 of the frame."

Yes, this is what is possible for this AR. It does not mean that this is what was required for the shot.

2.35:1 AR is fine for the Cinema screens. If picture at top and bottom is available, I want to see that in a 1.85:1 anamorphic frame instead of black bars. i.e. if extra picture at top and bottom exists. Why does it exist if it has no value?? I am 100% sure, this extra picture at top and bottom has more info than the black bars.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
BTW, I wonder what the camcorder man is filming at that position, Akshaye's chest??? :hmm:
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
DragunR2 wrote:
BTW, I wonder what the camcorder man is filming at that position, Akshaye's chest??? :hmm:

Only director can tell.

I remember the scene. They showed that a Bollywood star enters the party; they made it a point to show that every body flocks to him for photographs, video and Autographs.

I agree, if I was to take a video of a celebrety, camera will have to be much higher. I guess, the director wanted to get cameraman out of the way, but wanted to show the star being photographed.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Posted on Feb. 19 2003,00:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (DragunR2 @ Feb. 19 2003,00:13)
BTW, I wonder what the camcorder man is filming at that position, Akshaye's chest???

Only director can tell.

I remember the scene. They showed that a Bollywood star enters the party; they made it a point to show that every body flocks to him for photographs, video and Autographs.

I agree, if I was to take a video of a celebrety, camera will have to be much higher. I guess, the director wanted to get cameraman out of the way, but wanted to show the star being photographed.

Rana

You want the camera to be higher just cause he's a celebrity? What's the motivation? Photographers/videographers take shots from many strange angles - there is absolutely no issue here. Furthermore, the crouching cameraman quite obviously taking a face shot. How do you know if he hasn't zoomed in? Incidentally, if you wanted someone to appear larger than life, you might want to take a shot from below using a lens with short focal length - just like the person in that picture...
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Aryan wrote:
Quote:
Posted on Feb. 19 2003,00:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (DragunR2 @ Feb. 19 2003,00:13)
BTW, I wonder what the camcorder man is filming at that position, Akshaye's chest???

Only director can tell.

I remember the scene. They showed that a Bollywood star enters the party; they made it a point to show that every body flocks to him for photographs, video and Autographs.

I agree, if I was to take a video of a celebrety, camera will have to be much higher. I guess, the director wanted to get cameraman out of the way, but wanted to show the star being photographed.

Rana

You want the camera to be higher just cause he's a celebrity? What's the motivation? Photographers/videographers take shots from many strange angles - there is absolutely no issue here. Furthermore, the crouching cameraman quite obviously taking a face shot. How do you know if he hasn't zoomed in? Incidentally, if you wanted someone to appear larger than life, you might want to take a shot from below using a lens with short focal length - just like the person in that picture...

Good explanation Aryan.
So, no difference of opinion that Videgrapher was part of the shot and is missing in 2.35:1 frame. They wanted to show 3 things. Bollywood star, Drinks hospitality and Videographer. 4:3 and 1.85:1 frames capture that intent. 2.35:1 frame misses capturing 1/3 rd of the plot (videographer).

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Good explanation Aryan.
So, no difference of opinion that Videgrapher was part of the shot and is missing in 2.35:1 frame. They wanted to show 3 things. Bollywood star, Drinks hospitality and Videographer. 4:3 and 1.85:1 frames capture that intent. 2.35:1 frame misses capturing 1/3 rd of the plot (videographer).

I'll have to see that in both versions of the film. What we can do here is make mere conjectures. It is a possibility that the camera is in the midst of a tilt movement (up-down) and this frame was captured midway...
Top
 Profile  
 
youullu
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
that "videographer" is the kid in the family. He's always playing with his camera in the movie, so that angle of shooting is perfectly understandable.
unless you KNOW what the director intended, all these talk is never going to get past mere speculation.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
If anyone has lots of hard drive space, you could capture the whole film and add 2.35:1 mattes in Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Pro and tell us what it looks like :)
Top
 Profile  
 
theon
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2002 11:21 pm
Posts: 540
DragunR2 wrote:
If anyone has lots of hard drive space, you could capture the whole film and add 2.35:1 mattes in Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Pro and tell us what it looks like :)

and don't forget to rip the extras from the k3g special edition dvd and share them with the rest of us. :)
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Ad/specs for the upcoming Mongrel DVD of Bollywood Hollywood - thanks to SnakeEye for sending this in :thumbs:

Image

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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