It is currently Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:04 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
Here is another movie topic:

I'm sure you know about V.Shantaram classic Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baaje. It was made in the early 50s. At that time, I'm sure nobody must have thought of it being screening on Widescreen.

In the 80s when Cinemascope, Widescreen, 70mm etc became craze, V. Shantaram reframed and blewup the 35mm film print to make a 70mm print (stereophonic sound or perhaps multichannel sound). 70 mm print implies widescreen??. I remember about this 70mm print, as the news item clearly stated that he (V.Shantaram) released this print in his own newly renovated top theatre, Maratha Mandir. This will be another example where Director re-selected the picture area to fit the scvreen AR.

Rana

MGM did the same thing with Gone with the Wind in the late 60s. A purist's nightmare. While JJPB didn't have as good cinematography as GWTW, it's a shame that the director did this at all, and to his own work too. Was Shantaram in any financial trouble at this time?

I have an audio cassette, probably from the 80s, which has the JJPB songs in stereo. It didn't sound like fake stereo to me, but I will have to give it another listen. It also has the songs from Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi. It sounds like they did some cleaning up of the sound, because it doesn't have all the pops and crackles of the typical tape made from an LP, though there is some hiss. The tape was not made by EMI, but rather by some company called Apple Records, and their logo is two red apples. I have several of their tapes and none have contact information, implying that they are a pirate company, but they have a sticker saying "Made in Singapore" and the sound quality and the quality of the tapes themselves is quite good.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Quote:
Spike, I thought Speed was shot in Super 35?


I am pretty sure Speed was shot using anamorphic lenses. I have the special edition DVD, this film exhibit lots of the characteristics of anamorphic lenses I mentioned in my previous post.

And IMDB seem to think so too, but I wouldn't trust them 100% since the technical specs are provided by other IMDB users.
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
spike86 wrote:
Quote:
Spike, I thought Speed was shot in Super 35?


I am pretty sure Speed was shot using anamorphic lenses. I have the special edition DVD, this film exhibit lots of the characteristics of anamorphic lenses I mentioned in my previous post.

And IMDB seem to think so too, but I wouldn't trust them 100% since the technical specs are provided by other IMDB users.

I'm sure you're right. Don't know why I thought it was Super 35...

Rana, here's a good example of the oval lights in the background of a film shot with anamorphic lenses:

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I think those lights are kinda candelabras, naturally OVAL!?? ??? What u say dragun?
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
arsh wrote:
I think those lights are kinda candelabras, naturally OVAL!?? ??? What u say dragun?

Not having seen the film, I can't make a definite statement, but if the candelabra was in focus, it would be slightly less oval. If anyone has a better example than this, for example, one where the focus is on round lights, then racks onto something into the foreground, please post it.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
This weekend I saw another beautifully framed song sequence from Babbu Mann's forthcoming movie HAWAAEIN. It was framed at 2.35:1.
I have no objection to this kind of framing where Cinematographer knows what he is shooting and what will be visible on the screen.

Problematic framing is noticed when Cinematographer or Cameraman goes his own way shooting whatever seems right to him and through sequence of decision makers a frame is projected on the screen. When a picture seems to be cut from sides or from the top and bottom, then most likely there is no relation to what Cameraman thinks will be shown on the screen and what actually gets shown on the screen. Somehow, I notice this mis-framing in most of the Indian 2.35:1 movies.

HAWAAEIN does not seem to suffer from this problem.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I thought, it would be MOST APPROPRIATE SPOT:

DVD and the Cinematographer
By Laszlo Kovacs, ASC


Laszlo Kovacs, ASC
Mark Twain once wrote that “the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.” I can’t think of a better way to explain why it is important to preserve the intentions of cinematographers when movies are converted to DVDs and other home video formats. The public deserves nothing less than lightning.

I recently collaborated on a film called Two Weeks Notice. Hugh Grant portrays a high-powered entrepreneur, and Sandra Bullock is his legal aide. As the story evolves, the audience realizes the characters are falling in love.

It isn’t obvious in the dialogue or body language. It’s much more subtle. Sandra’s character begins looking more and more attractive from his viewpoint. Mainly, it’s their performances and the way they steal sly glances at each other. Her makeup and hair are important. We helped by putting very subtle highlights in her hair to make her seem more glamorous as the story develops. The audience doesn’t notice that detail on a conscious level, but they feel it.

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/cgi-bin....203.htm
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
arsh wrote:
We helped by putting very subtle highlights in her hair to make her seem more glamorous as the story develops. The audience doesn’t notice that detail on a conscious level, but they feel it.

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/cgi-bin....203.htm

Very nice and informative link, Arsh.

If it was an Indian 2.35:1 DVD, all the hard work to give that subtle feeling will be of no use as they most likely will cut the picture from above the forehead. Its normal in Indian 2.35:1.

Rana



Edited By rana on 1048534610
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2774
Location: I N D I A
youullu wrote:
the most unforgivable instance to me is apocalypse now. they released redux in theatres, ins 1:2.35, and yet the dvd has that mangled 1:2.10 AR. that i don't get.


DragunR2 wrote:
Vittorio Storaro, the DP of Apocalypse Now, is a proponent of the Univisium format, which has a 2:1 aspect ratio. Now I can understand framing a film for 2:1 now, but it is obvious from seeing the 2.35:1 version of AN in theaters that it was not framed for 2:1 back then. Coppola's "Tucker" DVD, also DPed by Storaro, is also cropped to 2:1. Maybe it is 1.90:1. It is ridiculous to crop a 'scope film that much. It's what the Indian DVD companies do![/color]


Apocalypse Now has is releasing in August 2006 as the "Complete Dossier" Edition -- with both the original theatrical and the latter redux versions in the box. However, the AR is still cropped!!

And here is why... (continuing from where DragunR2 began):
Scroll down to "The Video: How Does The Disc Look?" at
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option ... 9&Itemid=3

I find this reasoning not very appealing :-(
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2774
Location: I N D I A
"the director's intention" becomes debatable with i-max versions out there of frames that are also otherwise available as matted 2.35:1...
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
NewDeep wrote:
"the director's intention" becomes debatable with i-max versions out there of frames that are also otherwise available as matted 2.35:1...

These days, all big Hollywood releases release on up-converted I-Max print as well. In same multiplex, they show both regular and I-max versions. (Extra ticket for I-max and still it's the I-max that gets majority of the audiences).

All the films that I did check, so far, AR doesn't change between I-Max and regular screening. Of course, 1:2.35 films are shown on I-Max screen where top and bottom of the full I-Max screen is not used.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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