Generally, for any re-release, the makers release whatever format is available. If the sound design is 5.1, they may upscale it to Atmos. For Baahubali, when they began work in 2013, 4K cameras weren’t available. 2.8K was the highest resolution they had. They opted for Alexa, a slightly higher-res camera. In those days, we had limitations.

We were not open to doing multiple formats. There were no 4k theatres. While Baahubali 1 was finished with 2.8K cameras, they had 3.2K cameras for Baahubali: The Conclusion. Then, for the IMAX release, we upscaled it to 4K and released it. Arka Media, fortunately, archived every piece of material. Today, they are editing two films into one for the re-release, so we had to treat the visuals again. Also, SS Rajamouli sir doesn’t want to change the colour tone. So, to get the same look again with new technology, we had to upgrade the pipeline to latest version of ACES. ACES pipeline can handle multiple cameras and brings them all into same timeline so the color grade can be made even and VFX work becomes easier.

The process began three months ago, and we spent ten weeks on it overall. Working on a new film is easy. Reworking an existing film is complicated; you have a reference in hand.

Most screens in India have the Cinemascope ratio, which is 2.39:1. Meanwhile, the mother aspect ratio for IMAX is 1.43:1. All standard screens in the US follow the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which is the flat or wide format. We refer to it as ‘Full Container Frame,’ from which we can derive multiple formats. The production has to decide if they want to shoot on wide format. If they do, they must shoot additional information. The VFX team has to then work on that, which makes up for 20 percent of the VFX cost. Besides the cost factor, some DOPs think Cinemascope is creatively better. But if you want to release the film globally, 1.9:1 is the preferred shooting format. IMAX prefers it too.

Credit goes to producer Shobu Yarlagadda, who made the decision in 2011 to shoot Baahubali in wide format. Shobu had a vision to take his film to a global scale and was willing to spend more money.

For each shot, they first decide the lens, and they know what the full frame looks like. The director, then, has to monitor both the wide frame and the scope frame while shooting. When you go to cinemascope, you can cut either way — you can do pan-and-scan, where you can cut the image on either side. For the first few days, the Baahubali team would’ve been a bit confused about how to go about framing. But if the producer has the vision, a full container is the only option.

Pushpa 2 was shot in anamorphic and was still released in all formats. It made more than $12  million in IMAX alone. Prabhas’ next film, Fauzi, is shot in a Full-Container Frame, though. IMAX specialises in full frames. But today, IMAX will re-release a film in any format. They are not putting any restrictions.

Basically, we haven’t touched the aesthetics. We have tried to stick to the original score, sound, and dialogue. However, we had only mono tracks from the source movie. If you play that in the theatre now, nobody will be interested. So we recreated all the tracks for Dolby Atmos.

With the help of AI tools, we separated the dialogue track from the main track. When we took out the dialogue track, there was some noise in it. Thanks to AI, we have converted those into stereo files and cleaned them up. For sound effects and music, we have completely recreated them, keeping the original as a reference. We have also done a fresh sound mix for Dolby Atmos. When you see it, you feel like you are watching a contemporary film.  It took almost six months for the process.

That’s the reason why we’ve spent a lot of time on this. Now I am getting a few inquiries about the process from producers. We are hoping to get another stream of revenue. The moment Nagarjuna told me about the re-release, I said it’s a great opportunity for a new stream of business.

I watched Varsham last year in theatre, and I thought it could have been a lot better. For Shiva, we are happy with the outcome because the producer hasn’t compromised on anything.

AI is like a plugin for your basic needs. I see it that way, the only difference being you don’t have to do it manually to get certain effects. Earlier, if you wanted a storyboard, the artist had to draw every shot; today, give the prompt, and you will get the block within seconds. In ten hours, you get the entire storyboard with colour schemes. Today, any production team hires 3-4 people who are good with current technology.

This is stage one. Stage two will be about all these new-age filmmakers who will make the entire film sitting in their room, merely by taking royalties from the stars.

By next year, you will begin seeing fully AI-made films, featuring big stars. The filmmaking process is going to change tremendously.

For Mahavatar Narsimha, Ashwin Kumar’s idea was to make that film with a star. When he didn’t get one, he said, ‘okay, let me create a star.’ A day before the film was released, he was sitting with me, worrying about the film’s box office potential. He asked me, ‘Will anyone come to theatres?’ I told him, ‘You made your film. Forget everything else. Audience will decide now.’  Even the content will play a major role, but the technology for filmmakers will be at the next level going forward.

AI will help you to create more content, but it also depends on how fast your decision-making process is.  People think AI is cheap. It’s not; you still need manpower to make it right. If some audience members get to know we used AI, they will instantly say it’s not good; there is that mindset. AI is not going to kill anyone. It’s actually helping everyone. It will reduce the amount of labour-intensive work. Let this same labour do something else.