It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:44 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
I'm not disputing that there were 70mm prints. I'm disputing that it was shot in 70mm.

Aspect Ratios and Usable Image Areas of 35mm and 70mm Motion Picture Prints

In this case it is the Todd-AO/Super Panavision 70/Super Technirama 70 format that applies. The common 70mm formats, by definition, are no narrower than 2.21:1. Which means that if Sholay was shot in 70mm, the 4:3 caps we see would be heavily cropped on the sides instead of having more vertical information than the widescreen version.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=58178

Quote:
Sholay was India's first 70mm widescreen film and also boasted stereophonic sound. However, since actual 70mm cameras were deemed too expensive to be used to shoot the epic actioner, the movie instead was shot on traditional 35mm film and the 4:3 picture was subsequently blown up, cropped and matted to a 2.20:1 frame. This also proved cost-effective in that separate 35mm prints would be needed anyway since few theatres in India were equipped to show widescreen films.


This is the only way to get the results as shown in the screenshots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
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:

Image

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.


Last edited by Commando303 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Hey, why didn't my image show up, the way that DragunR2's did?
I hit "Img," typed "http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sholay2kz5.jpg," and hit "Img*." :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Hmmm...never mind: I — somehow — just got it. (Yay -- :D !)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: I N D I A
Commando303 wrote:
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 suited 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).


This has been done in the past for Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (the movie that inspired Satte Pe Satta). Check the framing of the same shot for different scopes at
viewtopic.php?p=74621

Gary Tooze @ DVDBeaver.com wrote:
The 2-disc SE DVD contains two versions of the film.

First the 2.55:1 cinemascope version...
The second is the "notorious" flat version, shot side by side with the scope version, and was a studio back-up, in case scope turned out to be a fad. The OAR was 1.85:1, but here its been cropped into 1.78:1 (16x9)...


commando303 wrote:
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.
Actually, the Indian Certifications are pretty accurate in terms of telling you the gauge as well as whether cinemascope or not. Till date, I haven't seen any error on a certificate in terms of gauge and cinemascope info -- I am not talking abt DVDs per se, but theatrical screenings :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
NewDeep wrote:
Till date, I haven't seen any error on a certificate in terms of gauge and cinemascope info -- I am not talking abt DVDs per se, but theatrical screenings :wink:


Exactly.

Director's Cut (EROS DVD) that was never passed by censors has Censors Certificate. :?

And, DEI-EROS DVD that's the theatrical version that WAS passed by Indian Censors has no Censors Certificate. :?

---------------------

BTW, of course, Tantya Tope Ke Pote (Tantya Topay Kay Potay) (Tantya Tope's Grand Son/ Sons) rhymes much better and is more humorous than 'James Bond Ke Pote' option.

Moreover, Tantya Tope character is more suited for that comment instead of James Bond. Tantya Tope is a well known super hero in Indian 19th century history where as James Bond character is a modern famous super hero.

Quote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/tantya-tope

Tantya Tope (1814 - 1859)(pronounced Toh-pey), also known as Ram Chandra Pandurang, was an Indian leader in the Indian rebellion of 1857.

Born in at village Yeola in Maharashtra, he was the son of Pandurang Rao Tope, an important noble at the court of the Maratha Peshwa Baji Rao II. His father shifted his family with the ill-fated Peshwa to Bithur where his son became the most intimate friend of the Peshwa's adopted son, Nana Dhondu Pant (known as Nana Sahib) and Maharaja Madhav Singhji.

In 1851, when Lord Dalhousie deprived Nana Sahib of his father's pension, Tantya Tope also became a sworn enemy of the British. In May 1857, when the political storm was gaining momentum, he won over the Indian troops of the East India Company, stationed at Kanpur (Cawnpore), established Nana Sahib's authority and became the Commander-in-Chief of his forces.

After the reoccupation of Kanpur and separation from Nana Sahib, Tantya Tope shifted his headquarters to Kalpi to join hands with the Rani Lakshmi Bai and led a revolt in Bundelkhand. He was routed at Betwa, Koonch, and Kalpi, but reached Gwalior and declared Nana Sahib as Peshwa with the support of the Gwalior contingent. Before he could consolidate his position he was defeated by Hugh Henry Rose, 1st Baron Strathnairn in a memorable battle in which Rani Lakshmi Bai was killed leading her forces against the British assault on Gwailor.

After losing Gwalior to the British, he launched a successful guerrilla campaign in the Sagar and Narmada regions and in Khandesh and Rajasthan. The British forces failed to subdue him for over a year. He was, however, betrayed into the hands of the British by his trusted friend Man Singh, Chief of Narwar, while asleep in his camp in the Paron forest. He was captured and taken to Shivpuri where he was tried by a military court and executed at the gallows on April 18, 1859. There is a statue of Tantya Tope at the site of his execution near present collectorate in Shivpuri town in Madhya Pradesh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Commando303 wrote:
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.


Correct. Here are the steps through which the image went then.

-Shot 1.37:1 on 35mm

-Cropped vertically to 2.21:1 for 70mm

-70mm widescreen version possibly converted to 35mm CinemaScope prints (don't know if 35mm theaters got this kind of print or simply an open matte 35mm print)

-DEI takes a 70mm print or theoretical 35mm CinemaScope print and crops the sides to ~1.85:1, hence the result of the DEI being cropped on left, right, top, bottom.

sweetfriend wrote:
Are you saying that the above is actually taken from the questionable 70mm prints or are you using dvd or vhs for your source..


I'm looking at the images as presented on the DVDs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 35mm never cinemascoped
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: I N D I A
DragunR2 wrote:
-70mm widescreen version possibly converted to 35mm CinemaScope prints (don't know if 35mm theaters got this kind of print or simply an open matte 35mm print)
One thing's for sure... never did any 70mm print of Sholay get converted to 35mm cinemascope in the 1970s for theatre...

-The widescreen theatrical print in the 1970s was the 70mm print.
-All other 1970s theatrical prints were non-cinemascope 35mm normal prints. I have always seen open matte Sholay in Indian theatres... always :-)

In 2004, a 70mm print was leased by the Sippys to Rehmat Enterprises to convert to a 35mm cinemascope (for theatrical screening in Mumbai http://www.indiafm.com/scoop/04/jul/290 ... big~screen )... but this happened only in 2004. IMO, this has not yet been used as a source by any DVD author, except, perhaps Carlotta -- Doesn't the DEI date earlier to 2004?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
sweetfriend wrote:
Quote:
I'm looking at the images as presented on the DVDs

Then that is no way to argue about the film being shot in 70 mm or 35 mm.


You don't need to see the film itself. All you need is to do is compare the image areas on the various versions of the DVD and know about the usable film areas of the film gauges. To reiterate, normal non-IMAX 70mm is hardcoded to widescreen, so if it was shot in 70mm, the 4:3 version absolutely would not show extra image area compared to the widescreen. No film shot in 70mm shows more in the 4:3 version than in the widescreen version. If that was the case, we'd see open matte versions of Lawrence of Arabia, Sound of Music, etc.

NewDeep, thanks for confirming the nature of the 35mm prints.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
NewDeep, I was just kidding about the certificate thing — :) .

Rana, thanks: I never thought I'd learn so much about Tantya Tope from a discussion regarding a good DVD release of Sholay — :lol: .

DragunR2, I think you're a tad too confident in presenting the "steps" taken to achieve the DEI DVD. It could be either,

1. They took a 35mm print of the film (4:3/1.33 [or, to be more precise, 1.37:1]), and — for some strange-ass reason — used only the middle of the frames (perhaps the edges were worn and unusable).

2. They took a 70mm print of the film (though, for some reason, I very much doubt that they did this) and — in somewhat typical "DEI fashion" — decided to crop off the sides, presenting a slightly larger image for the person with the miniscule television screen.

I don't think the movie would have been shot onto 35mm film (1.33:), converted onto 70mm film (cutting off the top and the bottom, giving 2.2:1); and that then the "70mm version" would have been converted to 35mm film, so to present the "wide" aspect ratio in most theaters. I can imagine, instead, that, if the movie was shot only on 35mm film, it was "converted" to 70mm for the theaters that could support the format (there, it was shown 2.2:1), and presented in matted "cinemascope" (2.35:1 [i.e., with even more missing at the top and the bottom]) in theaters equipped only to handle the smaller medium. (I think it would have upset people — who'd heard of the "wide-screen, '70mm' experience," to walk into a theater and witness a rather "square" image.) If it was shot only on 70mm film, then I can only imagine that the Eros version is missing the sides, and that the DEI one is just a fragment of what it should be (though, I admit, this seems unlikely [why would DEI take so small a portion of the film?]).

...This is a hell of a discussion, but I think very little has been (or even might be) resolved — 8) .

*I wish we could be a bit more precise with our terminology, here: It seems that some people are writing "cinemascope" when they mean to write "2.2:1." I might be wrong, but, as far as I know, "cinemascope" strictly means "2.35:1" (though, nowadays, that is extended to cover "2.39:1").


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: one point
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: I N D I A
Commando303 wrote:
it was "converted" to 70mm for the theaters that could support the format (there, it was shown 2.2:1), and presented in matted "cinemascope" (2.35:1 [i.e., with even more missing at the top and the bottom]) in theaters equipped only to handle the smaller medium.
One quick note here -- I have watched Sholay in theatres several times -- and all times, I have seen the full frame 35 mm version -- always -- the 35mm was never matted in theatres into 2.35:1 -- never in the theatres I saw Sholay in ;-)

So, as far as my knowledge goes, the only widescreen version in theatres was the 70mm print (in the 1970s), and theatres that could not handle 70mm, all showed the unmatted full-frame 35mm.

I guess, Sholay was meant to be shown unmatted in non-widescreen theatres because, in those days, very few theatres were actually widescreen or cinemascope-compatible -- most of the screens in those days (in India) were 4x3 types -- and therefore, 35mm was shown in exactly 4x3 on these screens... This same unmatted 4x3-type 35mm transfer was then used by Gold VHS for a 2-VHS-special set of Sholay, a craze in VCR days :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: one point
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6140
NewDeep wrote:
Commando303 wrote:
it was "converted" to 70mm for the theaters that could support the format (there, it was shown 2.2:1), and presented in matted "cinemascope" (2.35:1 [i.e., with even more missing at the top and the bottom]) in theaters equipped only to handle the smaller medium.
One quick note here -- I have watched Sholay in theatres several times -- and all times, I have seen the full frame 35 mm version -- always -- the 35mm was never matted in theatres into 2.35:1 -- never in the theatres I saw Sholay in ;-)


Sure, SHOLAY must have been screened using 35 mm mono print for over 80% of the audiences. But it always always always was advertized as 70 mm with stereophonic sound. :twisted:

What more, even now, for prestige, they use the phrase '70 mm screen' even though they are talking of any regular 35 mm scope films. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: some shots
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: I N D I A
Here's that shot from my Malaysian VCD that makes me believe some more image may have been on the right hand side (where Amitabh is cropped) -- but I could be wrong -- but Divecha being such a perfectionist, it could just be true -- and if true, then that may mean that the EROS-B4U even though showing more picture info than any other DVD, is still cropped -- the question is, if it is cropped, then what was it cropped from? Questions... questions... :lol:
Image

And here are two extended scenes from the same VCD -- please forgive the quality.
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Ugh! More to think about, NewDeep... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: for the fans
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: I N D I A
The Dharam Amjad climax in special FX by yours truly... looks good as wallpaper (centered, not stretched)
Image

And just minutes before, Amitabh blowing up the dynamite stick
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 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