The theatre where I saw Devdas has an excellent projection equipment. I find its picture better than the so-called "Big Screen Big Sound" theatres where the picture gets grainy due to very large screens. In this theatre where I saw Devdas, I think the projection lamp current must have been set very high as the burnt-in subtitles were bleeding out. Any more brightness and the subtitles would have been totally un-readable. It definitely was the bad film print.

Rana

P.S.
1) I might be able to make a trip to Toronto I-max where the projection for Devdas has been reported to be perfect. If I get there, I will be able to see the difference. I will keep you posted.

2) The dark print was much darker than COMPANY. COMPANY was supposed to be dark and still the picture was sharp as well as clear. Dark picture may be OK for an average film, but, for a 500 crore rupee film, hyped for its sets and then the sets are not visible, is totally un-acceptable.



Edited By rana on July 15 2002 at 17:42

the print i saw at woodside (toronto) was terrible even for woodside standards. it always seemed like night time and the colours were not vivid. the sound was just crap; i should've brought my walkman and played the songs on them when they were showing on the big screen. i was listening to the music on my way to the theater and back in my car so i could compare the two sound experiences accurately. all i could hear during the songs in the theater was the voices of the singers; the background music was almost absent. i'm going to the imax.

Either that or it was processed at lower light level than it should have been. Who made the prints and what is that lab's reputation?

Adlabs did the processing..

You are probably speaking about Kodak Vision which was first used in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam by Anil Mehta. Nowadays most of expensive Hindi movies to use this anyway. It is all a matter of choice actually since Kodak has warmer tones than Fuji, the DP, Binod Prdhan probably wanted that look for the Devdas. And since probably very slow film was used I was expecting grain free and sharp print.
Indian film maker should realise that they should do the following

1)Get their prints done in the UK or U.S like Pyar Ishq Mohabbat done by Deluxe and not Adlabs in India.

2)Replace their WWII cameras and lenses and get Panavision (not Panama american ) or Arriflex (some DP's in India have already bought some Arri e.g Lagaan, DCH)

3)Not sell their expensive films to unprofessional companies like Eros,Adlabs & HMV.





Edited By congress on July 16 2002 at 13:01

Faster shooting stockshould be used with lower light levels, no?

Apocalypse Now Redux looked amazing last year in its 35mm dye transfer print done by Technicolor. I'd like to see a Hindi film released with at least a few dye transfer prints someday. Heck, as long as I'm talking about pipe dreams, bring back 65/70 shooting and projection!

Even a thought of it is certainly laughable. When I wrote this remote pssibility, it really was only a suspicion.

Now, after watching EROS Devdas Curtain Raiser DVD, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it really was a DVD screening that I saw in the theatre. Devdas Curtain Raiser DVD (on my PC) has none of the problems that I mentioned in our local, supposed to be a 35mm, theatrical (large screen) projection (we all know the standards of EROS DVDs).

Rana



Edited By rana on July 17 2002 at 08:19

Ok! rana Ji!! after some research, I concur with your opinion ,unanimously that DEVDS screening that you were in! with dark scenes, and brownish green dress of Madhuri, "kiss ne hara rang daala! Allah Maar Daala! was done from EROS dvd!!! I agree, with scientific proof! But I have seen much better, but sound was not good either ways, sound on curtain raiser was better!!
A crook name eros! rules!

Ab aap kiya bolta rana ji!? arshaad farmaeey!? :vsneaky: