DragunR2, I understand that a movie does not have to be shot on 70mm film for it to be extant in that format (it can be converted from 35mm); the issue is, was
Sholay shot on 70mm film, or not? Based on what I've heard, I believe that it was. Now, it never occurred to me that the movie might have been shot on 35mm film,
as well, but, looking at the Eros DVD — which is in the 4:3/1.33:1 aspect ratio, and appears to have nothing "missing at the sides" — it seems that, indeed, it may have been. Of course, there is the
possibility that the Eros DVD
is mastered from the 70mm version of the film (and, further, that that is the only format onto which it was shot), and that the sides
are "cut off"; the framing throughout the DVD, however, makes this dubious. As for the DEI DVD, it's obvious that it shows less picture than the Eros release. Also, some scenes actually seem to be "lacking" as a result of "not enough picture." It, too, then, doesn't seem to be mastered from the maybe-it-exists-maybe-it-doesn't 70mm film (which, of course, would be in the 2.2:1 aspect ratio), but instead to be taken from the originally-shot 35mm print of the film (which, again, might or might not exist).
If the "70mm" print of
Sholay is, in fact, nothing more than a conversion of the 35mm film onto which it was allegedly shot, the DEI DVD still does not come near reflecting that presentation. From all the shots that have been posted, it seems that the DEI DVD of the movie crops not only from the top and the bottom (doing so until an aspect ratio of 2.2:1 is achieved), but goes
further, chopping off picture from the
sides, as well, to the point at which the aspect ratio reaches approximately 1.85:1. Here is roughly what that shot (with Kaalia) would look like were it cropped from Eros's DVD down to 2.2:1 (70mm) aspect ratio:
Now, I can't say anything so cavalier as this is how it
should look, but — at the least, to me — this really doesn't look bad. I don't know that the result would be pleasing in every shot with which this were done, but my point is simply that the DEI DVD can't be used, exclusively, to say that the 2.2:1 aspect-ratio version of
Sholay is "inferior" to Eros's presentation of it. (Of course, all this is moot if Eros's, itself, crops from the original 70mm version, or if an altogether different 70mm version exists.)
NewDeep, I'm writing this as I read through two pages of responses. I just got to your link to "DVD Times," and, I have to say, that's some pretty clear, convincing evidence. Of course, I don't know that it's fully reliable, but, it's third-party, and I see no reason that they would lie.
As for the "line"...oh, my god! I'm so confused. At the Walter Reade Theater, it was "haan, yeh to James Bind ke bhatije [or "potay"; I forget] hain." I don't recall the "Tatiya Tope" line, there. Nonetheless, thinking back on it, it is the "Tatiye Tope" one that I remember from when I was a child (I don't recall whether or not the VHS I saw of it also had the "James Bond). I recall asking someone, immediately, who the hell "Tatiya Tope" was. ...Hmmm...
I don't understand one thing, though: Why shoot everything twice (if, indeed, the movie was shot on both 35mm, and 70mm, film)? Couldn't the two cameras (at least for a significant number of scenes) be close enough to not interfere with each other and still record an image that suits the director/cinematographer? Frames wouldn't be "identical," but they wouldn't be "identical" even if the second camera were placed in exactly the spot as the first (actors, after all, aren't robots). Also, I think it's possible that, if a "true" 70mm version exists, only
some scenes were shot on 70mm film (those that needed "big impact"), whereas others were "borrowed" (converted) from the 35mm version. This might also help explain why some shots really do look identical across versions of the film. (Also, all the DVDs we have seem to have been mastered from the 35mm print of the film; so there's no way to suggest that the DEI DVD's matching the Eros one proves that the 70mm version looked identical to the 35mm one.)
By the way, I don't think that we can look to the Censor Certificate to show us much of anything. This is India, people... paper is never reliable.
OK, so, in conclusion (for now), I, too, recall hearing that
Sholay was
filmed in the 70mm format. Of course, I admit that it's possible that I heard wrong (VijayDinanathChavan's post of the poster makes me wonder as to just
exactly what I heard); I even admit that it's possible that the people from whom I heard it heard wrong, or that the people spreading the news originally (perhaps even the filmmakers) were being dishonest (or "misleading"). That said, if I did hear correctly (and it what I heard was the truth), then Eros's DVD simply is not the only acceptable (as far as visible-image is concerned) presentation of
Sholay.