It is currently Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:13 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: excel
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2740
Location: I N D I A
Out of sheer hope, I wrote to Excel Home Videos some days back that they should try to come out with Sholay box set housing:

Original 70mm theatrical with original stereo sound
Original 35mm theatrical version
Matted version
Director's cut in which Gabbar dies
Re-released Dolby Digital cut (released in Mumbai a couple of years ago)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 2:38 pm
Posts: 277
Location: New York
I was sitting in the first row so maybe it looked like a full frame ratio from where I was seated. This new print of "Sholay" was screened a few years back at Loews Lincoln Square on the IMAX screen. It was some kind of free charity event and Saif Ali Khan/Preity Zinta were there to present. Everyone had to wait like half an hour before all the sponsors finished their speeches before it rolled. I had to leave unfortunately due to no subs. But I did see the first 5 min. and can confirm the 35mm/scope/5.1 mix. It looked great.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:59 pm
Posts: 715
Location: Scotland
Commando303 wrote:
I feel that a certain "epic quality" is missing from the very-close-to-square picture format.


To me, the framing on Sholay's open-matte print doesn't look any different from any other 4:3 film that was made at the time - and certainly none of them were meant to be cropped to 2:20:1.

There really can be no argument anymore about if Sholay was shot on 70mm - just compare any frame from the 4:3 Eros DVD to the Carlotta 16:9 DVD and you'll see that it was not. If any kind of proper restoration is to be done, it can only be using the original 35mm print.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
ajy1 wrote:
I was sitting in the first row so maybe it looked like a full frame ratio from where I was seated. This new print of "Sholay" was screened a few years back at Loews Lincoln Square on the IMAX screen. It was some kind of free charity event and Saif Ali Khan/Preity Zinta were there to present. Everyone had to wait like half an hour before all the sponsors finished their speeches before it rolled. I had to leave unfortunately due to no subs. But I did see the first 5 min. and can confirm the 35mm/scope/5.1 mix. It looked great.


That "Loews Lincoln Square" did it for me: I remember! I was actually going to go to that screeninhg, but because I couldn't get out of work, was unable to do so. (Damn!)

Stephen wrote:
There really can be no argument anymore about if Sholay was shot on 70mm - just compare any frame from the 4:3 Eros DVD to the Carlotta 16:9 DVD and you'll see that it was not. If any kind of proper restoration is to be done, it can only be using the original 35mm print.


I think this is incorrect. I haven't seen the Carlotta DVD myself, but, if it was mastered from the 35mm version of the film, we can assume that the picture it shows is different from the 70mm (if it exists) version. Also, though I prefer Eros's DVD to DEI's, here, there are scenes on Eros's where I do feel that a bit too mcuh open space is seen. The scenery just looked great at Walter Reade's 2.2:1... albeit old and scratched, because of a dilapidated print.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6098
sweetfriend wrote:
Rana Wrote
Quote:
1) Sholay was never shot in 70 mm frame. Instead it was shot on some 35 mm film (Sanjay). Later it was blown up (cheated) on to 70 mm film. It happens all the time for Hollywood films, for optimum picture quality, that thay make special 70 mm prints from a 35 mm cinemascope print if the film is to be screened on a giant 70 mm format. Only thing is they don't make much fuss about it, like Sholay did

Is this for real or what.If so can you name yoru source. Or should we just accept your word for it.


Commando303 wrote:
Rana, are you certain that Sholay was never shot onto 70mm film? From what I've heard (I'll post sources if I find them), the movie was, indeed, shot onto the larger format, and not merely "converted" from 35mm for the sake of better quality. .


I may not be able to propduce a smoking gun, but am giving a few quotes from a few zulmies, some are cinematography experts. There are lot lot and lots more if search thru tons of zulm posts where sholay has been mentioned, including zulm review, ali posts etc:

viewtopic.php?t=3638&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

DragunR2 wrote:
Sanjay wrote:
Sholay, Shalimar, The Burning Train, Shaan, Kranti, Alibaba Aur Chalis Chor, Razia Sultan, Saagar & Karma were all shot in 70MM and with 6 track stereophonic sound.

[color=#000000]The prints might have been 70mm, but not necessarily the negative. Blowups from 35mm anamorphic or the Sholay method of cropping to 2.20:1 (70mm aspect ratio) could have been done. In Hollywood, before 35/70 blowups, shooting on 65mm and printing onto 70mm was the common method of producing 70mm films. 35/70 was probably cheaper. I haven't seen any of these films besides Sholay, so I don't know if they show any of the tell tale signs of spherical non-anamorphic shooting.


Sanjay wrote:
[color=#000000]Actually I did make a mistake with the listing of Sholay


arsh wrote:
[color=#000000]I saw this statement on a review on startrek, dvd:

At the time of its release, some 70mm blow up prints were made for premier engagements and these featured the 6 channel magnetic sound format. Decades later, fashioned into a new 5.1 Dolby Digital mix, what we have is likely very close to what audiences heard in 1986.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1 ... -2003.html

So, 70mm, blow up prints are factual..


congress wrote:
arsh wrote:
So, 70mm, blow up prints are factual..

Duh! Sholay was one of them... :stupid:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

http://www.zulm.net/modules.php?op=modl ... e=&order=0

Sholay was filmed at a 4:3 aspect ratio but was released for the cinema in a matted 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 70mm film format.

Presented at a zoomed 1.85:1 aspect ratio from the original 2.35:1 matted version of Sholay you can tell from the screen shots below exactly how much of the picture is missing compared to the full frame version of Sholay.

(TO SEE PIC, GO TO LINK:
http://www.zulm.net/modules.php?op=modl ... e=&order=0
full frame view of Sholay scene - Eros/B4U DVD


zoomed wide screen scene - DEI/Eros DVD


covered parts show how much of the frame is missing from the DEI/Eros DVD

It's not as bad I've made out though. In reality this version is only cropped from the left and right as it been taken from the 70mm version of Sholay - it's a surprising common practice to shoot a movie at full frame and them later present it in a matted wide screen format, which was the case with Sholay.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
None of these posts really confirms that Sholay was not — or could not have been — shot on 70mm film; if anything, most seem to rely on hearsay to reach their conclusions. I, too, can't be certain that the movie was shot onto 70mm, and I agree that the Eros DVD (which is 4:3/1.33:1) doesn't seem to have much "missing." That said, the Walter Reade Theater's (I believe) 2.2:1 aspect-ratio presentation also looked as though it should be seen "no other way." Now, I don't think that the Theater would have a 70mm film projector; maybe, then, they showed a 70mm (2.2:1) version, converted onto 35mm film. This is how, I imagine, the film was shown at most theaters in India during the 1970s. I guess we'll just have to hunt down Ramesh Sippy and beat the truth out of him...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Commando303 wrote:
None of these posts really confirms that Sholay was not — or could not have been — shot on 70mm film; if anything, most seem to rely on hearsay to reach their conclusions.


Look at the comparison shots in this link. More picture on top and bottom in the director's cut. Unless they shot Sholay in IMAX format, shooting in 70mm would not yield this result. If it was shot in 70mm, then the 4:3 version would be cropped on the sides instead of having additional picture information on top and bottom.

Anyone know why the director's cut is presented in 4:3 and not matted to widescreen? Is it supposed to be matted?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6098
Commando303 wrote:
I guess we'll just have to hunt down Ramesh Sippy and beat the truth out of him...


Didn't someone also comment in the past, on zulm, that Sholay cinematographer, who could have solved this mystery is dead ??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6098
DragunR2 wrote:
comparison shots in this link.


For Ali:

This, link still states Director's cut Sholay to be 16 min longer than orig release. We know now, as I have posted earlier a 'second by second' comparison of the two versions, that it's ony 3 - 4 min difference.
May be, it should be fixed or refer to my post for the detailed list of differences, second by second.

(I'll search and post that link later on, as I find some time)
http://www.zulm.net/of/showthread.php?threadid=503


Last edited by rana on Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6098
rana wrote:
DragunR2 wrote:
comparison shots in this link.


For Ali:

This, link still states Director's cut Sholay to be 16 min longer than orig release. We know now, as I have posted earlier a 'second by second' comparison of the two versions, that it's ony 6 min difference.
May be, it should be fixed or refer to my post for the detailed list of differences, second by second.

(I'll search and post that link later on, as I find some time)


Here is the link and the details of run time differences:
Quote:

http://www.zulm.net/of/showthread.php?threadid=503

SECOND BY SECOND account of DIFFERENCES (Total difference is 6min. 35 sec.) between Director's Cut (EROS-B4U) and previously released (EROS-DEI; theatrical release) version of SHOLAY:

1) Directors cut has 15 sec. extra (i.e. the movie stars from 15 sec earlier) at the beginning (not counting the Censors cert for about 10 sec. and another 10 sec. for EROS logo)
(both versions are identical for next 78 min)
2) Director's cut has 7 sec. extra for 'a village person on fire during a raid by Gabar'.
3) Director's cut has 108 sec. extra for 'pre-torture footage of a young village boy, Sachin (showing Gabar's ruthlessness)'.
4) Director's cut has 43 sec. extra for 'Ramlal fitting metal-spiked studs on Thakur's shoes'.
5) Director's cut has 82 sec. extra for, 'Hema Malini kidnapping and Dharaminder reaching Gabbar hide-out'. This scene is aprox 8 min long, mostly horse riding. The sequence of events in the two versions is different. In the Directors cut, Dharminder is in hot pursuit of the dacoits before Hema is captured. In Director's cut Dharminder appears after Hema has been captured and hence has to look for hints where to go. This gives extra intensity to the situation. In the theatrical version, as we are shown that Hema is being chased by the dacoits and the dacoits are being chased by Dharminder, the seriousness of the situation is a little bit less intense.
6) Director's cut has 45 sec. extra for, 'Veeru (Dharminder) dragging a bandit with a neck-noose galluping on horse- back'. The beginning of this shot, after Amitabh dies, is different. In Director's cut, Dharminder is shown, taking the rope along for his horse-back. In the theatrical version, he goes on the horse without the rope.
7) Director's cut has 95 sec. extra for, more graphic footage of the fight between Gabar and Thakur and for Dharminder consoling Thakur in the film's ending.


FURTHER COMMENTS:
Theatrical release is by no means incomplete. It was redundant to show the metal studs being installed as they were not used in that version ending. Similarly the remaining scene differences are appropriate for the intensity of the version being presented.

It is odd that Uncensored version (Director's cut)has censor cert. attached and the censored version (EROS-DEI) has no censor cert.


16 min time difference is deduced from run times as posted on DVD covers, of which DEI-EROS version had posted an erroneous run time. Actual run time on DEI-EROS DVD is longer than printed on its cover (error originating from 4% speed shift in some earlier video version).


Last edited by rana on Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 6:44 pm
Posts: 205
Location: Rolla, MO, USA
We are still discussing the same Old story.
Gimme some good news about sholay like its going to be released by Criterian and as said earlier its a two DVD version :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
DragunR2, there's only one "comparison shot" on that page. Also, my point isn't addressed if, indeed, DEI made its DVD from the 35mm version of the film. If that is the case, then, certainly, their picture will have things "missing" in comparison with the Eros version. If, however, Sholay was shot onto 70mm film, as well, then the point stands: Might anyone make a DVD from that version?

Rana, I think you're right: someone did mention that. Nonetheless, as the director, I'd imagine that Ramesh Sippy would know what his cinematographer was up to.

By the way, Rana, your "second-by-second comparison" was pretty great; thanks for it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
sweetfriend wrote:
Are you saying that the dvd format was taken from the questionable 70 mm original print.It coudl very well be taken from the 35 mm ..The movie was shot in 70mm for the theatre screening as that is what 70mm was meant to be -to give what television could not.


The DEI DVD is either taken from a 70mm print or a 35mm reduction of the 70mm version and cropped from ~2.20:1 down to ~1.82:1. I'm saying that the film was shot in 35mm 1.37:1, and that frame was cropped on top and bottom to create the widescreen 70mm version. A film does not have to be shot on 70mm (or 65mm) film to have 70mm prints.

My point is that if Sholay was shot on 70mm, any 4:3 version would be cropped on the sides in comparison to the widescreen version, and would not show additional information on top and bottom, as is the case.

Sholay DEI/B4U comparison shots

DEI is the smaller rectangle inside the B4U frame.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6098
DragunR2, stretch the small triangle till the ends.

Without the bottom of the picture, it's not possible to know whether Dharminder is on a horse back or on foot.
Therefore, I'd prefer the bottom portion of the pic included.

Without the top, hill peak and skyscape is not visible. Otherwise, not much info lost. So, may be in this frame top of the pic is not needed but it could be a different case in other frames. But, can you imagine what will happen to all 60s, 70s Sadhna and Saira Bano films, if those films were converted to widescreen ?? Sadhna and Saira's beautiful, claim to fame and craze in those days, hairdos will be lost for ever.

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

Commando303 wrote:
there's only one "comparison shot" on that page.


All frames are like this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: some previous writeups
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2740
Location: I N D I A
The following may help:

NewDeep wrote:
Just received my Carlotta copy --

The best part is a statement by Ramesh Sippy in an extra feature -- He clearly is seen stating that he shot Sholay with Gabbar dying but the censors would not allow it... That's straight from the horse's mouth!

I do believe there is slightly more picture information on the left and right edges compared to Ultra DVD. If true, this is the "widest" Sholay DVD so far, though yes, there's a little cropping horizontally (compared to DEI-Eros).

Sholay was re-released in India in 35-cinemascope (I think) in 2003/2004. Perhaps the Eros-Carlotta transfer is from that master...

= = = = = = =

Sanjay wrote:
NewDeep wrote:
The other side of the coin is when the director shoots (with matting) with an intention to show both in cinemas as well as on TV. In that case, the open-matte is actually intended to be shown on TV screenings! I'm not sure what Ramesh Sippy had in mind.

I would'nt give Ramesh Sippy so much credit, that he would have thought of the framing for television. It should be safe to say that Sholay was only intended to be seen widescreen.


Just compare the Hema-in-mandir-and-Dharam-fooling-her-with-a-"megaphone" shots of the full-frame Eros-B4U with the matted-widescreen of Eros-Carlotta, and then tell me if you still think Sholay was never intended to be seen in full-frame. This is just one example where the open-matte has very creative composing that "all fits in." Look at Dharam's legwork as he fools her---those postures etc are all very very sensible.

There's not a single shot in open-matte Sholay that appears to have any edges worth "chopping off" or having "unnecessary info" to be matted out.
Every bit & piece in the full-frame is carefully composed. Matting out, in my opinion, only ruins the picture. Compare this to movies that were shot for later matting-out of unnecessary info... an example already discussed is below:

NewDeep wrote:
Take a look at this example. See the section which has movie stills from "Forever Young." One is widescreen still generated by matting (as intended by director) and the other is the same scene in open-matte. See how the open-matte ruins the shot. This ruining happens because the director intended to show this movie only in a matted form. This is the link:
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/W ... imer2.html


Can you really find any such shot in open-matte Sholay? I couldn't.


And...
newdeep wrote:
...even the EROS-204-minute version appears to be lacking some image from the right-hand side. On the EROS-204-minute-version (which appears to be "fullframe"), check the scene where Amitabh and Dharam are shown back-to-back -- guns in hand, shooting the dacoits who'd come to collect their bodies (after Sachin's killing and the village gathering scene) -- you'll see (even on the EROS-204-minute version) that though Dharam is fully visible, Amitabh is not---he appears to be cropped, his arms are not entirely visible. Since Amitabh is facing the right and shooting in that direction, and since this is the scene that appears "cut" on the right-hand-side, it may be that the entire EROS-204-minutes transfer is framed in such a way that some portion from the right-hand side is cut.

rana wrote:

...We all have been wondering whether there really is even more picture width available in any version as the film (SHOLAY) was reportedly shot on 1.45:1 or 1.66:1.

The Gold VHS have a very minimum black bar area on top and bottom of the movie. Such a small area is possible only when the aspect ratio is 1.66:1 or lesser but greater than 1.33:1. So it could be possible that Gold VHS have the same aspect ratio as the on the original negatives... Also, if the film was actually shot on 1.66:1 or 1.45:1 then there is no way that EROS-204-minute-DVD would have the entire image in its 4:3 frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group