It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:56 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
I love the almost tangible texture of that second one. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: full frame flaw
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2708
Location: I N D I A
newdeep wrote:
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.
Actually there is... one shot -- Sanjeev chasing Amjad -- Here, the horse dummy can be clearly made out from the bottom of the screenshot -- this indeed should have been matted out. There's also the appearance of road in the bottom right corner, which should also have been matted out.
Image

==
As far as the line "James Bond kay potey hai" versus "Tantiya Tope kay potey hai", Ultra DVD, Carlotta DVD, DEI - all have the "James Bond..." version. Eros-B4U has "Tantiya Tope." I wonder what the Gold VHS has...

Carlotta DVD
Image

Ultra DVD
Image

DEI DVD
Image

Eros B4U DVD
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: full frame flaw
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:59 pm
Posts: 713
Location: Scotland
NewDeep wrote:
one shot -- Sanjeev chasing Amjad -- Here, the horse dummy can be clearly made out from the bottom of the screenshot -- this indeed should have been matted out. There's also the appearance of road in the bottom right corner, which should also have been matted out.


I'm sure that can be chalked up to just typical 1970s continuity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14976
excellent contribution newdeep 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Hasn't anyone figured out a way to contact Ramesh Sippy? I'm sure there's a way... :?: .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: full frame flaw
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5941
NewDeep wrote:
newdeep wrote:
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.
Actually there is... one shot -- Sanjeev chasing Amjad -- Here, the horse dummy can be clearly made out from the bottom of the screenshot -- this indeed should have been matted out. There's also the appearance of road in the bottom right corner, which should also have been matted out.
Image


This one shot sure shows that it was composed for wide screen with extra info that was supposed to be blanked out. But, what about other shots, where 4:3, with extra info at the top and at the bottom, seems to be more complete composition.

Anyway, assuming that SHOLAY was meant for widescreen and also assuming that it was shot using 70 mm film, question arises why shoot on larger film area of 70 mm where useful info is only one half of it, easily captured on a 35 mm scope with almost same (film area) quality. May be, for 4 ch sound ?? Also, what's 70mm film's unstretched AR ??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
I'm not quite sure what you mean, Rana. 70mm film's "default" aspect ratio is 2.2:1, whereas 35mm's is 1.33:1. With the former, not only does one gain much more resolution (meaning, the movie can be projected larger, with less grain and more crispness), but the ability to (as you stated) use 4-track surround sound.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5941
Commando303 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean, Rana. 70mm film's "default" aspect ratio is 2.2:1, whereas 35mm's is 1.33:1. With the former, not only does one gain much more resolution (meaning, the movie can be projected larger, with less grain and more crispness), but the ability to (as you stated) use 4-track surround sound.


As you said, 70mm default AR is 2.2:1 and we know that there is extra picture at top and bottom as compared to 2.2:1, then SHOLAY must have been shot in anything but 70 mm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Rana, I think you misunderstand: Again, it's possible that Sholay was shot onto 70mm film, and only onto 70mm film. If this is the case, then it had to be converted to 35mm film, as 70mm projectors were not widely available in India in 1975 (nor have they ever been so anywhere, at any time). In converting the movie, it is possible either that the sides were cut off; that the 2.2:1 aspect ratio was maintained; or the a bit was cut off from the top and the bottom, the movie's being projected in a matted 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

It is also possible that Sholay was shot only onto 35mm film, and that copies were then converted to 70mm film, to be shown in theaters that could support the format. In this case, it is possible either that it was shot onto the 35mm film in 1.33:1 aspect ratio; or 2.35:1 aspect ratio, either open- or closed-matte. If it was shot 1.33:1, in converting to 70mm, a bit would have to have been cut off from the top and the bottom; if 2.35:1, a bit would have to have been cut off from the sides.

Third, it is possible that Sholay was shot onto both 70mm film and 35mm film. If this is the case, different versions were shown at different theaters. Further, we don't know whether the 35mm version was shot 1.33:1 or 2.35:1. Even if the 35mm version was shot 1.33:1, we don't know if this was "open-matte," meaning whether or not is was ever meant to be shown "full-frame."

Last, we have no idea which sources were used to master which DVDs currently on the market. It's possible that the Eros version shows "all there is to see"; meaning, it might be showing "everything we should see," or "more than we were ever meant to" (we can really only guess to this). It is also possible that the Eros version was mastered from a "70mm" (originally shot onto) print of the film, meaning we are missing information from the sides. It is also possible that different parts of the Eros DVD are mastered from different sources (which, of course, would only add to our consternation).

So, to conclude, we can not say that, "Sholay must have been shot in anything but 70mm."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
Another comparison of how Eros's 4:3/1.33:1 picture would look in comparison with a matted 2.2:1 aspect-ratio one:

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: full frame flaw
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5941
rana wrote:
NewDeep wrote:
newdeep wrote:
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.
Actually there is... one shot -- Sanjeev chasing Amjad -- Here, the horse dummy can be clearly made out from the bottom of the screenshot -- this indeed should have been matted out. There's also the appearance of road in the bottom right corner, which should also have been matted out.
Image


This one shot sure shows that it was composed for wide screen with extra info that was supposed to be blanked out. But, what about other shots, where 4:3, with extra info at the top and at the bottom, seems to be more complete composition.

Anyway, assuming that SHOLAY was meant for widescreen and also assuming that it was shot using 70 mm film, question arises why shoot on larger film area of 70 mm where useful info is only one half of it, easily captured on a 35 mm scope with almost same (film area) quality. May be, for 4 ch sound ?? Also, what's 70mm film's unstretched AR ??


The above ss shows studio artifacts at the bottom and hence implying that bottom and perhaps top too director intended to matt it out.
But, consider another shot (any volunteers to post it ??) in the song Yeh Dosti where Amitabh just starts his lines, the full frame (4:3) is a perfect frame and in 2.35:1, Dharmender's face and facial expressions are totally cut off.

So, what was the director's intention ?? I say, Director intended nothing. Just whatever available for whatever AR demanded by the customer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 1.66
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 2708
Location: I N D I A
Probably 1.66 was the intended ratio for Sholay widescreen, with just a little bit of matting top and bottom. (That would take care of the Sanjeev chasing Amjad shot as well as the one Rana talks abt. in the post above.)

Stanley Kubrik was a director who disliked scope and shot all his movies full-frame, some of which were slightly matted to 1.66...

It is said that the best and the most obvious widescreen possible from 35mm open matte is 1.66...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1.66
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
NewDeep wrote:
Stanley Kubrik was a director who disliked scope and shot all his movies full-frame, some of which were slightly matted to 1.66...


I believe that Kubrick was a (still-) photographer, using 35mm film, before he got into movie-making. Thus, his visual taste was likely influenced by the eye he had developed for still pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
I don't know if that shot was part of a tilt or some other moving shot, but if it was not framed to be later cropped to ~2.20:1, then cinematographer Dwarka Divecha must not have heard of the rule of thirds!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 am
Posts: 978
The "rule of thirds," first of all, is simply a heuristic, understood to often result in more interesting shots. When needed, it is certainly to be "broken." Also, the "rule" doesn't apply to motion picture quite the same way, quite so pertinently, as it does to still photography. A still picture is one image, which one looks at for as long as one wishes, analyzing it, contemplating it, being or not being absorbed be it. A movie, on the other hand, is a series of images, one very quickly appearing after another: I don't think that the "rule," then, applies quite so strongly there.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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