It is currently Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:42 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:55 pm 
Offline

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

Arsh, consider this beautiful shot.

Cut some from top and bottom to make a 1.85:1 frame. Framing is acceptable, but not as good as original complete picture.

Now cut a little more to make a 2.35:1 frame and you will see annoying frame due to chopped heads etc.

Why should a frame be annoying (2.35:1) when extra picture at top and bottom is available to be screened instead of the black bars??

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I UNDERSTOOD it completely, Rana! Now, If MONGREAL MEDIA is presenting it as 2.35:1 widescreen, anamorphic enhanced, that should give u extra picture on TOP AND BOTTOM instead of black bars? So would it become EQUIVALENT to 1.85:1, or?

I think, this analagy could be applied to BTF too, I did speak with customer service of UNIVERSAL for SWAPING discs, they insisted, it does not effect pictureon WIDESCREEN display, but does on 4:3 display, I am swapping anyways!

BTW! Do u know what part(4 minutes on BTF3 are misframed?)

BTW! I do see a tiny bit picture added to the left or on the back of GRANNY's HEAD in REFRAMED WS version of BH!



Edited By arsh on 1044985348
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
ali wrote:
theon wrote:
has anyone ever dreamed that with all the film knowledge we have from people like aryan, dragunr2, and countless others, we could shoot our own zulm.net movie?

now THAT would be fun! and likely impossible...

Not a bad idea! I have a movie idea if you guys want to implement it :oops: Do Micheal Moore style film - paying surprise visits to these Indian DVD companies, shops that pirate, DVD authors etc. And start battering them questions about quality of DVDs :laugh: and be sarcastic as possible :ohyeh:

Camcoders at the ready and go! :bash:

[I can just imagine some chach dressing up as Ali-G and doing this – and getting battered by the first shop he visits :laugh: it'll make great entertainment]

Ali

So what would be the name of his film?

Lulla and Me (Roger and Me
Bowling for Video Sound (Bowling for Columbine)
The Awful DVDs (The Awful Truth)

And we could write a book about the whole thing called Stupid Indian Men (Stupid White Men)
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Rana, for that shot you just posted, I cropped it to 2.35:1 using Photoshop and it is a weird composition. The guy's head is chopped off a little, which is normal for closer shots, but not for a shot when the camera is looking up at the subjects.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
arsh wrote:
I UNDERSTOOD it completely, Rana! Now, If MONGREAL MEDIA is presenting it as 2.35:1 widescreen, anamorphic enhanced, that should give u extra picture on TOP AND BOTTOM instead of black bars? So would it become EQUIVALENT to 1.85:1, or?

BTW! I do see a tiny bit picture added to the left or on the back of GRANNY's HEAD in REFRAMED WS version of BH!

I don't think we are at the same wave length, Arsh.

Assuming a 16:9 TV/ screen, 1.85:1 frame will have more picture at the top and bottom (no black bars) as compared to 2.35:1 frame (will have black bars). Anamorphic or not, is not relevant. In the case of 4:3 TV, the same thing, but you will have black bars at top and bottom for a 1.85:1 AR and even bigger black bars for a 2.35:1 AR.


Your second comment:

"BTW! I do see a tiny bit picture added to the left or on the back of GRANNY's HEAD in REFRAMED WS version of BH!"

Added to the Left AND exactly the same amount is taken away from the Right. Left Right framing is just shifted slightly, not cropped.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
bhaskar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:26 pm
Posts: 2253
Location: Birmingham
By the way, just to say that Bollywood Hollywood is releasing in UK cinemas tomorrow (14th Feb).
Top
 Profile  
 
faddy
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 7:25 pm
Posts: 1799
Location: Sunny Manchester..............
i watched this movie in the cinema today... and it was 16x9... so looks as though it was cropped to the max!!
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
PQ, on Cinabella 4:3 DVD is pretty good(interlaced)!
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
faddy wrote:
i watched this movie in the cinema today... and it was 16x9... so looks as though it was cropped to the max!!

(Bollywood Hollywood)
On the contrary, 16x9 picture shows more at the top and bottom than the 2.35:1 picture. Nothing is cropped from the sides for the 16x9 picture.

4:3 picture has even more at the top and at the bottom. Nothing is cropped from the sides for a 4:3 print.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Well, rana ji! lets wait for aapka mongreal! then we will settle it MAN IS TO MAN!ha ha!
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
ali wrote:
These two screen shots show how the movie was filmed (~4:3, ) and how it was shown in cinemas (matted widescreen);

Image

Image

Ali :baaa:

Arsh, the proof is already here.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Is bottom shot is letterboxed or anamorphically enhanced?
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
arsh wrote:
Is bottom shot is letterboxed or anamorphically enhanced?

Obviously, it is letterboxed in a 4:3 frame. Anamorphic or not has no bearing on what gets into a frame.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Mr_Khiladi
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:39 am
Posts: 873
I saw this film on Saturday, it was in WS, but only now do I realise it could've been cropped!

The film was OK, but I couldn't help feel there was something missing from it...maybe it was just the Canadian humour!
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Mr_Khiladi wrote:
I saw this film on Saturday, it was in WS, but only now do I realise it could've been cropped!

The film was OK, but I couldn't help feel there was something missing from it...maybe it was just the Canadian humour!

Did you see it in the theatre or was it Home Video?? What was the AR, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1??

Rana



Edited By rana on 1045501722
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 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