I got to say the disc is pretty excellent, even being the rental disc.. once we get the fully sell through disc i got a feeling were gonna have a classic on our hands.. excellent stuff...



























Edited By ali on May 22 2002 at 05:12

Good old Faddy!
Wasn't this movie shot with a Sony Handycam or something? I remember thinking the backgrounds were pretty grainy when I saw it in the cinema. So can we expect a 'movie quality' DVD as it was not lensed with 'proper' movie cameras? Gotta say, the screenshots measure up pretty good though!

the movie was initially "grainy" when i watched it at the cinema... and it shows through on DVD... therefore we cant call it a authoring problem... However the 5.1 is very good and is sharp and clear... FilmFour DVDs are normally excellent.. im just looking forward to the salaam bombay disc which hopefully will be just as good!!! Anyone know of any cheap places on the net where they are selling monsoon wedding and salaam bombay cheap!!

Man! faddy!! pls. excuse me for being hard core stubborn kind!! but my apologies, this transfer sucks big time for me!!!

i saw pirated and atleast i was able to see photos!! and people, this one i can not or hardly can see?? Is it onlyme, I am checking my monitor settings?? come on GUYS!! Am I loosing my VISION???
I am glad this is RENTAL COPY only, and I hope u did not buy it yet?????? :vsneaky:
Come on, Any body? give me a break! Am i seeing what every body else is???damn!!
Again, sorry! for my post faddy, but bhaii, i could not stop my self!!! chahe jitni marzi gali do ab! banda hazar hai??
but bottom line, i could not believe my eyes seeing an original dvd release by an hollywood comp, not damn devil eros!!

trust me arsh seeing this dvd will put a smile on ure face i reckon this dvd is something for a film of this claibre

Monsoon Wedding was shot in Super 16 because the cameras are smaller and therefore can be carried into the action more easily and more compactly than 35mm cameras.

Does that explain the picture qualityof shots we are seeing here, shot in super 16 :vsneaky: ???

I have unfortunately not seen this film yet, but bear in mind that the picture quality can be intentional. The handycam, close shots with a little bit of grain lend a certain reality and personal feeling to the film. That's what I gather they may be going for here. A good example of the technique would be the way Robert Muller shot Von Trier's Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. Tight closeups on important scenes, unsteady camera angles, grain to the point of overexposure. It just made the films seem so much more intimate and real, and lent both movies a lot of their dramatic punch. When done correctly, taking away the steadiness and polish of films removes some of the dramatic bounderies and helps the audience identify with the characters on a more personal level. Hopefully that's the sort of thing Declan Quinn was going for when he shot Monsoon Wedding.

Of course, I'm probably totally off-base and it's just cruddy film.

As gendo has written.. the movie was actually film intentionally to have that washed out grainy look!! The DVD really is excellent, and really hope that the sell through disc will be better... Arsh, u shouldnt judge a DVD by the screenshots to some extent, especially a movie like monsoon wedding.. this DVD will really be a classic!!

I AGREE with u 100% film is really good, and the way it is shot, did not give me feeling watching a movie made as homemade or by camcorder, when i saw it.

IMO it was just a good/sincere/natural/cute film!! good indeed!
and it deserve a Good worthy transfer also, esp when A* eros did not get to do it!
If shots dont speak for the exact picture quality of dvd,I have to take ur word for that!
Believe me, i did not mean, just to differ from u for difference sake! I was concerned as I liked film too!It was out of goodwill as shots were pretty much comprable to pirated version, i saw! but then pirated might be good too!
I can send shots from pirated version to u or Ali, and u guys can compare..how abt that man? :vsneaky:

You are right Gendo but I think Declan Quinn knew what he was doing. I don't what everyone is talking about a sony handy cam because MW was shot in Super 16.

Actually Mira Nair was suppose to shoot it in the digital format but in the end chose film. The funny thing is they lost a major part of the film in the x ray machine at the airport which caused a lot of money. The rain scene was later reshot again digitally. I think they should have shot the whole film in digital in the first place.

Since the director was aiming for "camcorder quality" for the big screen (for an authentic look) then super 16 was a wise choice. Digital looks waek on the big screen, as the DV format has yet to perfected when being transfered onto a negative to play on cinema. Bamboozle (shot on Dv) is a perfect example where the picture looked too soft and too bland in places when New Line transfered it back onto 35mm negative. Nair chose wise to shoot the film in super 16.

Hopefully a much better tranfer process is found for putting DV pictures onto a 35mm nagative, as many newbie film-makers prefer using DV format (including me!).

Faddy vs Arsh :p









..top shot is from the rental PAL and bottom is from pirate.

Ali

And here's the rest, thanks to Arsh;

















Ali



Edited By ali on May 22 2002 at 10:56

A few more..





















Ali