It is currently Sat Dec 06, 2025 12:27 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
izzy
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:11 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: vancouver, canada
i also forgot to tell u that on the main menu if u click on the big bollywood hollywood sighn it shows u a match of killer kalsa but it has bad print and sound
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
izzy wrote:
i also forgot to tell u that on the main menu if u click on the big bollywood hollywood sighn it shows u a match of killer kalsa but it has bad print and sound

First Easter egg on an Indian DVD?
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Is the official Mongrel DVD really that bad??
Are we better off with the Cinebella DVD??

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
izzy
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:11 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: vancouver, canada
its up 2 u i never saw the cinebella version but i rather prefer theis for the extra features
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
izzy wrote:
i dont know how 2 if it is prog or not

I posted a simple method to check if Prog or not:
http://www.zulm.net/cgi-bin....9;st=40

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Well, izzy!Dude!! now u have 2 jobs(requests) to do:

1. compare apna platinum dvds with chacha ji's non plat, for AUDIO/VIDEO:

2. Let's know on Mongreal Media Bollywood Hollywood, Sound, Video(prog or not) Full screen or anamorphic widescreen...??

We will wait for ur answers!! Time to SHINE for u!!Dude! :cool:
Top
 Profile  
 
izzy
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:11 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: vancouver, canada
for the platinum thing i have 2 go 2 his house and check that 2morrow and the b/h dvd is not prog and is in letterbox but if you go to the song gallery than only the songs are in full screen
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
But u initially, claimed it was ANAMORPHIC, LOL???? :baaa: ???

yaar, I am extremely, sincere to u, thats this forum is all about, EDUCATIONAL, for QUALITY and AWARENESS!!

We dont want any of our VALUABLE COLLEGUE should be cheated with inferior products in the name of SUPERIOR!! I hope u understand? my point, yaar??? :baaa: :cool:



Edited By arsh on 1049502403
Top
 Profile  
 
izzy
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 10:11 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: vancouver, canada
i was trying 2 say that in the back of the cover it says 16*9 meaning anamorphic but its letter box no matter what mode it is :ffs: :ffs: :ffs: :ffs: :ffs:
i am going to e-mail mongreal if my dvd is faulty i phoned them but the idiot never new head and tail what anamorphic is
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2003 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
I saw Bollywood/Hollywood today, as it is running in the Asian Film Festival of Dallas, and the print was 2.35:1. The shot with Akshaye Khanna had a little more headroom than I had indicated with the green lines. All the compositions looked good. I wasn't too keen on the film itself (or Rahul Khanna), but I liked how in the songs, even in a slightly cramped space, the camera moved quite a bit, providing an energetic atmosphere. 2.35:1 makes sense, since the film uses Hindi movie cliches.

I knew what the film was like before going in, but I was disappointed when the film wasn't more outrageous in its parody of the cliches, but there are a few funny moments. I wish we'd seen more of Ranjit Chowdhury. Some of his few moments on screen were funny and others showed potential to be funny. But the thing with the maid was just pointless and dumb. She shoves his head into her chest, har har. Same goes for the cross-dressing Lisa Ray was very charismatic, but Rahul Khanna brought no spark to his role.

The kid who played Govind was a horrible actor. And do normal people actually refer to Hindi cinema as "Bollywood"?

In The Name Of Buddha will also be playing in the AFFD, as well as Bollywood Bound, which I've seen, Bhavum, and some Indian shorts.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1053745142
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
rana wrote:
DragunR2 wrote:
Image

The whole thing is 1.85:1, while the green lines demarcate 2.35:1. A real CinemaScope frame is around 2.39:1, I think.

This is only one frame from one shot, but just considering this frame, the 2.35:1 looks okay, though the man holding the camcorder is missing in that aspect ratio. Whether this matters, I don't know. Maybe in the scene, he was filming them standing up, then crouched down so we can see what's going on.

DragunR2, you were talking of this shot, I guess.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Must have missed this last year but noticed there's another Bollywood Hollywood DVD out now in the UK from the same people who did the Asoka DVD - Momentum Pictures. Play.com has the specs as Widescreen 16:9 Anamorphic and Hindi - Dolby Digital (5.1) - PAL DVD - with only the trailer as an extra.

Also found a review of the Mongrel Media DVD which is according to review Anamorphic 2.35:1 Widescreen with Dolby Digital 5.1 & Dolby Digital 2.0 audio tracks;

dvdangle.com review of Bollywood/Hollywood

Quote:
This film is presented by way of an anamorphic 2.35:1 transfer, but the image is unfortunately very underwhelming. Overall picture quality is very soft, and the colors seem to bleed a bit in some scenes. There is some edge-enhancement in places, as well as a fair bit of sloppy compression, including noticeable pixelation in several scenes. On the plus side, there is almost no noticeable dirt or debris on the print, and contrast levels are quite good. Fleshtones are as good as the overall image quality can allow them to be.

Even taking into account the fact that this is a very dialogue-driven film, the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio is far from exciting. It is very front-heavy, with the dialogue spread across the front soundstage, and very little use of the surround channels. As far as the LFE channel is concerned, it primarily comes into play during the musical numbers, and is a tad underused even there. There is also an English Dolby Digital 2.0 track, along with a French Dolby Digital 2.0 track. Both these tracks are of very similar quality, and are fairly clear and consistent.


Finally, there also another German PAL DVD out - 3 reviews here;

digital-movie.de review

dvd-inside.de review

areadvd.de review

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Thanks yaar! I'll here! so any one with input on 2.35:1 anamorphic, pal or ntsc version..canada or uk?
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
I want to see 4:3 on DVD. Why?? Because I want to see full picture.

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

rana wrote:
ali wrote:
Image




DragunR2 pointed one time that normally you have too much wasted space at the top of most of the old or new 4:3 frames, 1.85:1 seems to be the correct AR for Bollywood Hollywood.

Consider the above frame. Out of the 4:3 shot, you can still get a decent composition for a 1.85:1 (cut top and bottom).
Try to get a 2.35:1 frame from this shot (cut top and bottom) and you will see a nonsense frame.

Rana



rana wrote:
Aryan wrote:
Quote:
Posted on Feb. 19 2003,00:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (DragunR2 @ Feb. 19 2003,00:13)
BTW, I wonder what the camcorder man is filming at that position, Akshaye's chest???

Only director can tell.

I remember the scene. They showed that a Bollywood star enters the party; they made it a point to show that every body flocks to him for photographs, video and Autographs.

I agree, if I was to take a video of a celebrety, camera will have to be much higher. I guess, the director wanted to get cameraman out of the way, but wanted to show the star being photographed.

Rana

You want the camera to be higher just cause he's a celebrity? What's the motivation? Photographers/videographers take shots from many strange angles - there is absolutely no issue here. Furthermore, the crouching cameraman quite obviously taking a face shot. How do you know if he hasn't zoomed in? Incidentally, if you wanted someone to appear larger than life, you might want to take a shot from below using a lens with short focal length - just like the person in that picture...

Good explanation Aryan.
So, no difference of opinion that Videgrapher was part of the shot and is missing in 2.35:1 frame. They wanted to show 3 things. Bollywood star, Drinks hospitality and Videographer. 4:3 and 1.85:1 frames capture that intent. 2.35:1 frame misses capturing 1/3 rd of the plot (videographer).

Rana


youullu wrote:
that "videographer" is the kid in the family. He's always playing with his camera in the movie, so that angle of shooting is perfectly understandable.
.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Well, what did you find? in mongreal media video? :lol: :?: :idea: :roll:

I very much doubt that Deepa Mehta in 21st century will shot an an international film in standard aspect ratio :shock:

Seconday imdb also refutes that claim, and lists it as super 35.

I saw non anamorphic ws version on tv, possibly same as mongreal media version..I dont have any reservations that it looked bad as per framing!

I dont think it will be any problem for rana, legend or any one else in canada to rent mongreal media version and update us with screen shots that are comprable to orig version(cinabella) screen shots!

or some one from UK can provide us with anamorphic widescreen version screen shots from pal r2 edition.. :?:
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 7 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