Different Aspect Ratio Versions - Hollywood Bollywood Movies - General - zulm.net forums archive

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC

Different Aspect Ratio Versions - Hollywood Bollywood Movies

Moderators: Sanjay, newDEEP [go-green], ali, urbanlegend, bhaskar, sengh_15

Page 3 of 4

[ 56 posts ]

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

rana

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:54 pm

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148

youullu wrote:

I personally hate not seeing films in their OAR.

This is what I am trying to figure out.

Is there such a thing as 'Original Aspect Ratio'??

If so, how come we have a 1.85:1 film print for Mann and many other films and we also have 2.35:1 prints obtained by cutting at top and bottom of the picture. They both can not be the Original Aspect Ratio.

In the case of Mann above, it is obvious 2.35:1 frame (obtained by cutting top and bottom of the 1.85:1 frame), which many call OAR, results in a weird shot.

Rana

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:20 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

rana wrote:

Is there such a thing as 'Original Aspect Ratio'??

If so, how come we have a 1.85:1 film print for Mann and many other films and we also have 2.35:1 prints obtained by cutting at top and bottom of the picture. They both can not be the Original Aspect Ratio.

Yes, but it isn't perfectly clear for some films, such as Dr. Strangelove.

Major Indian films are shot with anamorphic lenses, so there is no matte to open up.

Mann is most likely 2.35:1. What major film with major stars these days in India would be shot flat 1.85:1? Super 35 is not even used in India, so that is not currently an option for 2.35:1.

Top

rana

Post subject:

Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:57 pm

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148

DragunR2, in the Mann thread, You and I said:

----------------------------------------
Quote (rana @ Feb. 27 2003,06:55)
Sorry DragunR2, I don't think these screen caps are cropped from the sides that you are assuming. Looks like, you are pre-assuming that 2.35:1 is the OAR and 1.85:1 print is made by cropping the sides of the 2.35:1 print.

Actually, EROS's Anamorphic 2.35:1 print is the result of Matting, mostly at the top, of the 1.85:1 print. Try it and see how weird shots you get. That is how bad EROS's Mann anamorphic DVD is.

Rana

Then perhaps Eros f-ed up and made a faux 2.35:1 from the already cropped 1.85:1 transfer.

DragunR2.
--------------------------------

Is there any indication that EROS made a faux 2.35:1 from the already cropped 1.85:1??

I don't think even a stupid will do that. It might be done to cheat, though?? Why cheat?? Is 2.35:1 AR more saleable for home viewing??

If you say that 2.35:1 is the OAR and, if in fact, EROS Mann is a faux 2.35:1 from the already cropped 1.85:1 then EROS print still is Original Aspect Ratio even if it includes only 1/2 or even 1/4th of the original picture area.

In that case, shouldn't we be asking for Original Picture Area (OPA) instead of asking for Original Aspect Ratio (OAR)??

Anyway, whether deliberate, stupid , erroneous or for whatever reason, this is seen in many video prints. It is for this reason that I want to see the extra picture, if available, instead of the black bars.

Rana

BTW, DragunR2, I wopnder if you could add two lines in the shot above, just like you did before. These lines will show what is included in the EROS Anamorphic 2.35:1 DVD.

Top line:At the top of Aamir Khans Ear.
Bottom Line: Only one finger tip of Manisha visible.

If you wish, you could do the same for all other shots from Mann in the Mann thread. Resulting picture is equally weird in all of them.

Edited By rana on 1046445183

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:47 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

rana wrote:

Is there any indication that EROS made a faux 2.35:1 from the already cropped 1.85:1??

Rana

I do not know for sure, as I have not seen the 2.35:1 DVD of Mann.

Quote:

I don't think even a stupid will do that. It might be done to cheat, though?? Why cheat?? Is 2.35:1 AR more saleable for home viewing??

All the big budget films in India are shot with anamorphic lenses, so they're all 2.35:1. You're not likely to see a big budget film starring Aamir Khan and Manisha Koirala shot flat and framed for 1.85:1.

Quote:

If you say that 2.35:1 is the OAR and, if in fact, EROS Mann is a faux 2.35:1 from the already cropped 1.85:1 then EROS print still is Original Aspect Ratio even if it includes only 1/2 or even 1/4th of the original picture area.

Technically this would be true, even if what we're seeing is cropped to bits. The Fox DVD of "Patton' has this problem, where the ASPECT RATIO is correct, but we're not seeing the entire image area. Go
here to see what I'm talking about.

Quote:

In that case, shouldn't we be asking for Original Picture Area (OPA) instead of asking for Original Aspect Ratio (OAR)??

We usually assume that if the video transfer is OAR, then we are seeing OPA as well. This is probably true most of the time.

Quote:

Anyway, whether deliberate, stupid , erroneous or for whatever reason, this is seen in many video prints. It is for this reason that I want to see the extra picture, if available, instead of the black bars.

As evidenced by Leela, Bollywood Hollywood, Bas Yun Hi, Bombay Boys, Chandni Bar, Terrorist, etc., it looks like flat (spherical) widescreen filming is slowly being done more and more for Indian-produced films. Whereas in the past, the aspect ratio was pretty much either 1.37:1 spherical or 2.35:1 CinemaScope.

Quote:

BTW, DragunR2, I wopnder if you could add two lines in the shot above, just like you did before. These lines will show what is included in the EROS Anamorphic 2.35:1 DVD.

Top line:At the top of Aamir Khans Ear.
Bottom Line: Only one finger tip of Manisha visible.

If you wish, you could do the same for all other shots from Mann in the Mann thread. Resulting picture is equally weird in all of them.

Will do that ASAP.

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:21 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

I didn't know whether or not to crop that black space on the left, so I just kept it in.

And as a pure curiosity, the original image squashed down to ~1.77:1.

Top

sknath

Post subject:

Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:44 pm

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada

Dragun without the black bars.. I would have framed this screen-cap as

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:34 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

Okay, I see what you did. I didn't bother to reframe it and just put the 2:35:1 area in the center.

Top

Aryan

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:20 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore

Seriously guys, there is nothing to discuss here. What we are discussing here is the work of ppl with the intellect of a 5-year old. Anybody who crops a 2.35 film by first squeezing it to 1.85 and then cropping it to 2.35 again is completely retarded - in this case EROS. There's nothing very complicated about it. Commercial films, especially ultra-commercial films like Mann are DEFINITELY shot in Cinemascope with anamorphic lenses that WILL squeeze the picture for a 2.35 screening. As for Super 35, Rajiv Rai shoots all his films using a similar process called Technovision. It still amounts to 2.35:1. Rana, please note that the issue of cropping does not even arise in commercial Indian films.

Edited By Aryan on 1046492493

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:49 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

Aryan, you must have better eyes than me, does that original 4:3 shot look stretched up vertically to you? If so, does the same shot squeezed down to 16:9 look okay to you? The lamppost bulbs to the right of Aamir are near-perfect circles in the 16:9 shot, but they are ovals in the original. Also, the lens on the camera of the guy on the right is circular on the 16:9 shot.

Top

Aryan

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 6:47 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore

Yeah...of course that 'original' shot looks vertically stretched. No, the 16:9 shot has been 'unstretched' too much. Sknaths's post has the picture just like how it should be.

Top

rana

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:36 am

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148

Aryan wrote:

Seriously guys, there is nothing to discuss here.

I re-started all this to clarify what I was asked that why I want to see more Picture.

Here, in this discussion, we don't have the same opinion, how the shot should have been framed. Also various AR and framing is seen in different prints. Is every version Director's OAR?? Can't be.

I repeat what I said before, "Anyway, whether deliberate, stupid , erroneous or for whatever reason, this is seen in many video prints. It is for this reason that I want to see the extra picture, if available, instead of the black bars".

I guess everyone here is missing the point that there exists extra picture at the top and at the bottom which is not seen in the 2.35:1 frame, no matter how they made up the 2.35:1 frame.

THE WAY DRAGUNR2 DREW THE LINES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIGGER PICTURE IS NOT HOW EROS DVD is. Selected area is at the bottom and everything above Aamir Khan's ear is missing in EROS 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD. If you matte the frame that way, the resulting picture, throughout the movie is much worst.

Rana

BTW, I'm totally lost, when you mention Super 35, Flat 35, Spherical Lens etc. I don't know what process is or was used. What I do know, in the case of MANN and many other movies, is that 2.35:1 frame is obtained by cutting picture from top and from bottom of a more squarish picture. Moreover, this cutting or you may call it matteing, is not always the same.

Top

Aryan

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:11 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore

Quote:

BTW, I'm totally lost, when you mention Super 35, Flat 35, Spherical Lens etc. I don't know what process is or was used. What I do know, in the case of MANN and many other movies, is that 2.35:1 frame is obtained by cutting picture from top and from bottom of a more squarish picture. Moreover, this cutting or you may call it matteing, is not always the same.

Rana, 2.35:1 for the film Mann, and 99% of Hindi films is NOT obtained by cutting picture from the top and bottom. Please note Rana, that this a fact and not an opinion. It is obtained by squeezing the picture laterally on a 4:3 area and unsqueezing in cinemas. It would help to understand this before discussing the issue any further.

Top

spike86

Post subject:

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:24 pm

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY

Films shot through Anamorphic process or Super 35, ends looking the same on the theater print. They are both unsqueezed at the theater.

The way to distinguish them:

Anamorphic: Lots of distortions, oval shape on out of focus background lights, streaks of lights(like a blue line across the screen, when light is pointed directly at the camera).
ex: majority of all Indian films, Gods and Generals, lethal weapon, Speed etc.

Super35: Frames can look like they are not composed right. No distortions.

ex: SE7EN, panic room, lord of the rings movies, matrix movies etc.

note: Some directors like David Fincher who only shoot his movies on Super35, add streaks of lights and other anamorphic characters to the film using computers, to achieve that 'authentic' scope feel.

Top

DragunR2

Post subject:

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:49 am

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259

Rana, this site explains the major shooting processes:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

Widescreen Museum also explains in GREAT detail other widescreen processes and variations of them. It also has a ton of info on sound and color processes.

On anamorphically shot films, when a light is pointed directly into the camera, the lens flare spans the width of the screen, but on 1.85:1 or Super 35 films, the flare is not horizontal. Also, when focus is racked, or changed from foreground to background, background to foreground, etc., you see "breathing" of the image, a slight decompression of the plane that is being brought into focus. An example is in Rushmore when we first see a closed curtain, then when the curtain opens to reveal the scene, the "breathing" is there.

Anamorphic lenses require more light than spherical lenses, which is one reason for using Super 35 if 2.35:1 is desired. The ability to make an open matte video transfer is another. (FYI, when you see a film that says "Filmed in Panavision," that usually means anamorphic lenses were used, though there are exceptions, such as Titanic and Seinfeld)

Spike, I thought Speed was shot in Super 35?

Top

rana

Post subject:

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:26 pm

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6148

Thanks DragunR2 for the link and for the info.

BTW I assume, you read my remark that you selected the middle of the picture to get 2.35:1 frame where as EROS 2.35:1 DVD's selected area is at the bottom, cutting off exactly at Aamir Khan's ear.

Here is another movie topic:

I'm sure you know about V.Shantaram classic Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baaje. It was made in the early 50s. At that time, I'm sure nobody must have thought of it being screening on Widescreen.

In the 80s when Cinemascope, Widescreen, 70mm etc became craze, V. Shantaram reframed and blewup the 35mm film print to make a 70mm print (stereophonic sound or perhaps multichannel sound). 70 mm print implies widescreen??. I remember about this 70mm print, as the news item clearly stated that he (V.Shantaram) released this print in his own newly renovated top theatre, Maratha Mandir. This will be another example where Director re-selected the picture area to fit the scvreen AR.

Rana

Top

Page 3 of 4

[ 56 posts ]

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC