It is currently Fri Sep 26, 2025 4:10 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Others » Movie, TV, Music and Box-office

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 6
  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Zoran009
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
rana wrote:
Saw Delhi 6 at Cineplex. Distinct Directional audio was used throughout the film. Film Run Time was 143 min. End credits showed both DD and DTS logos.

AR: 1.8:1 (1.78:1 as theatre manger told me) flat Lens used.
(As I mentioned earlier as well, In most North American theatres, you get Max size projection when AR is aprox 1.8:1. 2.35:1 projections are shorter in height. )

Delhi 6 situation is same as Bollywood Hollywood. I saw Bollywood Hollywood in Cineplex (Canada) where it was 1.8:1 and the same film was presented in 2.35:1 in India, Singapore etc. I deduced from zulm discussions and posted screen shots that 1.8:1 AR was the max picture area from which 4:3 (cut sides), 1.8:1 and 2.35:1 (cut top & bottom) versions were made to suit market. Same seems to be the case for Delhi-6.


If you remember SADMA was 1.78:1 too?
Top
 Profile  
 
sengh_15
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:39 pm
Posts: 2130
rana wrote:
AR: 1.8:1 (1.78:1 as theatre manger told me) flat Lens used.
(As I mentioned earlier as well, In most North American theatres, you get Max size projection when AR is aprox 1.8:1. 2.35:1 projections are shorter in height. )

Delhi 6 situation is same as Bollywood Hollywood. I saw Bollywood Hollywood in Cineplex (Canada) where it was 1.8:1 and the same film was presented in 2.35:1 in India, Singapore etc. I deduced from zulm discussions and posted screen shots that 1.8:1 AR was the max picture area from which 4:3 (cut sides), 1.8:1 and 2.35:1 (cut top & bottom) versions were made to suit market. Same seems to be the case for Delhi-6.


I rest my case!
Top
 Profile  
 
youullu
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:06 am
Posts: 112
I think it's safe to say the film was shot in Super35 then.
I don't know how in the world it was exhibited in 4:3. I honestly believe whoever saw it that way, might be mistaking 1:1.85 for 4:3.

At least the flat and scope prints make sense.
Top
 Profile  
 
DVD Collector
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 11:01 pm
Posts: 2070
Location: Toronto, Canada
It's hard for me to digest that the same imagination that made Rang De Basanti, also produced Delhi-6. I adore the former for it's open-ended outlook, it's acknowledgement and understanding (at the very least, an attempt to understanding) the complexities of it's core conflict. The latter film presents a poor understanding of it's central theme, it debases it's screenplay with cliched/preachy dialogues, pseudo-intellect philosophy, and the misemployment of Rahman's excellent score into the narrative. Delhi-6 had alot going for itself, the cast notably is surrounded with some of the most talented actors working today, sadly, I feel, everything about this film falls flat on it's face. Ultimately, shame on Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra for making something that is quite-frankly, garbage.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
rana wrote:
AR: 1.8:1 (1.78:1 as theatre manger told me) flat Lens used.
(As I mentioned earlier as well, In most North American theatres, you get Max size projection when AR is aprox 1.8:1. 2.35:1 projections are shorter in height. )

Delhi 6 situation is same as Bollywood Hollywood. I saw Bollywood Hollywood in Cineplex (Canada) where it was 1.8:1 and the same film was presented in 2.35:1 in India, Singapore etc. I deduced from zulm discussions and posted screen shots that 1.8:1 AR was the max picture area from which 4:3 (cut sides), 1.8:1 and 2.35:1 (cut top & bottom) versions were made to suit market. Same seems to be the case for Delhi-6.

Related links:
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... rmats.html
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... ormat.html
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... ormat.html
Quote:
Flat Widescreen (1.85:1):
This format achieves a wider image than the academy format by wasting part of the image area of the film by cropping the image during projection, while increasing the magnification as necessary to fill a wider screen. It was the format of choice to those who did not want to film with anamorphic attachments. This technique is very popular today and the aspect ratio of such films in the United States is 1.85:1
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
rana wrote:
AR: 1.8:1 (1.78:1 as theatre manger told me) flat Lens used.
(As I mentioned earlier as well, In most North American theatres, you get Max size projection when AR is aprox 1.8:1. 2.35:1 projections are shorter in height. )

Delhi 6 situation is same as Bollywood Hollywood. I saw Bollywood Hollywood in Cineplex (Canada) where it was 1.8:1 and the same film was presented in 2.35:1 in India, Singapore etc. I deduced from zulm discussions and posted screen shots that 1.8:1 AR was the max picture area from which 4:3 (cut sides), 1.8:1 and 2.35:1 (cut top & bottom) versions were made to suit market. Same seems to be the case for Delhi-6.

Related links:

Summary of all film formats:
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... rmats.html

Super35 format:
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... ormat.html

Flat Widescreen (1.85:1):
http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/fo ... ormat.html
Quote:
Flat Widescreen (1.85:1):
This format achieves a wider image than the academy format by wasting part of the image area of the film by cropping the image during projection, while increasing the magnification as necessary to fill a wider screen. It was the format of choice to those who did not want to film with anamorphic attachments. This technique is very popular today and the aspect ratio of such films in the United States is 1.85:1
Top
 Profile  
 
sengh_15
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:39 pm
Posts: 2130
Short take on it. I managed to get a viewing of this in the cinema not in the usual of course. The film was neat. I was very impressed with the story and the acting, the supporting cast was good too. Something that did piss me off was Abhishek's fake accent but otherwise it wasn't a bad watch. I would not really watch it with my family. The AR is 1.85:1 where its looks near enough 4:3 just with the black borders on the top.

Rating: 3.5 out 5
Top
 Profile  
 
newDEEP [go-green]
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2776
Location: I N D I A
saw at satyam theatre, nehru place, new delhi.

some scenes ended rather abruptly -- as if forcibly cut, especially in the second half -- editing decisions?
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 6
  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Board index » Others » Movie, TV, Music and Box-office

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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