HTF REVIEW: "Beauty and the Beast" (Highly Recommended) (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[todd stone]

everythings good except celine dion argggggggggggg!

 

[Christian Preischl]

Hi,
I got my Canadian edition today and was quite surprised that, even though it does have a French language track, it doesn't say "version française incluse" on the front cover.
Anyway, one thing I was wondering about: What's with the little Roman numeral "I" on the cover's spine?

Chris

 

[James Reader]

Anyway, one thing I was wondering about : What's with the little Roman numeral "I" on the cover's spine?

I have heard on an IRC chat that B&TB:The Enchanted Christmas (which is being re-released this year) will have a number II on the spine, indicating it is the second film in the Beauty and the Beast 'franchise' (God, how I hate that word).

 

[Kenneth Cummings]

Since the Encharted Christmas takes place mid-movie, I rather consider it a gaiden, a side story to the movie. If it was to happen after the events at the end (not spoiling it), then it would be a sequel, but nah.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

From the review at The Digital Bits:

 

[LukeB]

My biggest disappointment with the Beauty and the Beast set is the fact that the 'Making of Beauty and the Beast' is noting more than a number of existing segments strung together. Couldn't Disney put the original 'making of' onto the disc instead (which I think was hosted by David Ogden Stiers).

I sure hope they include the Making of The Lion King that was hosted by Robert Guillaume that aired on The Disney Channel, in addition to whatever new supplemental material they add. That was a great little making-of special, and would be a better inclusion than some pop band doing "I Just Can't Wait To Be King."

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Sorry, but I trust Ron over that Greenlee guy! Whoever he is?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Don't always trust my opinion.

Different systems will show different results.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I dragged my wife to the IMAX theater yesterday to see B&tB again. The film still brings tears to my eyes; once, for the sheer wonder of the film and twice, for seeing how far Discney animation has fallen since its release. Oh well. They came back from the brink once. Who's to say they won't do so again?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Afraid the the bits are correct regarding compression artifacts.
here are some screen-captures from early-release DVD converted to JPEG...however the mosquito noise you're seeing looks IDENTICAL to the uncompressed originals (REALLY)...the JPEG compression was applied with great care not to introduce any additional artifacts to compound the effect. In particular, the blow-up/zooms are magnifying the original MPEG2 compression artifacts and are clearly not from the conversion to JPEG (as the size of the mosquito-noise blocks should make obvious) so please don't post something like "these images don't show anything because they are compressed jpgs":

 

[Michael St. Clair]

 

[MikeAlletto]

Hmmm...so a highly zoomed in screen cap shows some artifacts, but a non-zoomed in shot (at least to me) looks fine...do you watch your movies highly zoomed in? I'm not saying its not there, I'm just saying that blowing it up to make it look worse than it might be is not very constructive.

I got this yesterday but I only went through some of the extra stuff. I'll have to put it in tonight on my normal 27" tv and see how it looks.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

In a "home theater" forum like this one really shouldn't have to explain, but I will.
If one is satisfied with "home video" then watch one can watch his DVDs on a 27" TV and not ask for anything better. Disney is serving him well.
But, if you're interested in home *theater* then your goal would be for your DVDs to look as close to a *real* theatrical experience on a large screen as possible. If you haven't experienced a well-mastered DVD on a good (and reasonably priced) projection system then you're in for a surprise...DVDs can look SHOCKINGLY good on a 100" screen not any farther away from your couch than where your TV probably is right now. In the movies you typically acheive a 30 degree angle of viewing, and it is at this angle that the transition from video to "movie" status happens (when your peripherial vision actually starts to capture part of the action).
There are hundreds of papers and articles written about the diffences in viewing images on various sized screens etc, and I'm just going to accept it as a given that if we're all "home theater" enthusiasts here then, whether or not we can afford the big-screen of our dreams, at least we know and care about how our DVDs are rendered since one day we *will* be able to afford displays that provide this experience.
Now...on a large screen display or projection system capable of delivering a home "theater" experience...the zoomed in image is giving you a very good idea of how visible these artifacts would appear. With the current DVD, the only way to achevie this is to spend $14K on a Miranda DT-4101: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0&pagenumber=1
I don't consider a DVD on a 27" TV to be a reference point for evaluation of quality, just like I wouldn't consider small TV speakers or a boom-box to be worthy of evaluating the quality of a 5.1 DTS soundtrack.
It's not to knock anyone's equipment...I have a 34" TV myself. But I'm not pretending that my system should set the standard. Instead I'm eagerly waiting for an affordable 16x9 digital projector to come my way to make my "home video" system with surround sound into a boni-fide "home theater".
-dave

 

[Scott Shanks]

Would it have made more sense for Disney to put the Work-In-Progress version on the second disc?

 

[Mark-W]

Based on what I am reading, it sounds like the new extended
cut looks the best, but if Disney is going to call these
"Platinum" titles, they need to treat the materials contained therin...well, like platinum.
Based on what I just read in the Washington Post article,
to add a third disc to the set probably would've added
cost to the production about $1.00, meaning the mark up
to consumers would be another $2.50.
Now, for me that is a no-brainer. The Work In Progress
version (which I find I watch as often, if not more than,
as the finished film), should've been placed on a third
disc.
But paying an additional $2.50 for this title may make
"mom & pop" not so eager to buy. I don't know. $19.99
sounds great...an impulse buy (to refer to WB's prez),
but $22.49 sounds more like a "I'll think about it"
purchase to those people who still don't get what is
so fantasic about DVD: the image and sound quality.
Mark

 

[John_Berger]

Sorry, Dave, but I need to put my two cents in.
Yes, there is some artifacting; yes, they've crunched over four hours onto a single DVD. It's still better than VHS by a long shot, and the only ones who are going to notice any problems are those who intentionally look for problems rather than just sit back, relax, and enjoy a movie that I feel should have won the AA for Best Picture.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Okay...I just took a short break from work so that I could buy this disc and watch the first ten minutes at home. (For the record, I watched the new "Special Edition".) I compared what I saw on my Toshiba 42-inch widescreen with the screen shot in question and I did not see the mosquito noise. Now, there could be several explanations for this, so I'm not saying that David's screen shot is invalid by any means. I'm just saying that I wasn't able to see the same thing on my system.
Link Removed

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mark,

thanks for your impressions. I have yet to bring the disc over to my friend's house and test this on the projector. I'm really curious to see how visible the MPEG artifacts are. Anyway...I know what they look like on my computer screen but I'll reserve judgement until I see it "big".

thanks.

 

[James Reader]

Does anyone have a definitive list of changes made for the 'Special Edition' from the 'Original Theratrical' release?

I am 95% certain that seamless branching is used to show the 'Original' cut and the 'Special Edition' while angles are used to show the 'Work In Progress' version. I say this because both the 'Original' and 'Special Edition' versions show a display of '1/2' when I press my angle button (but the functionality to switch between angles in disabled). The 'Work In Progress' version shows angle '2/2'.

Why would two separate titles both have 2 angles encoded unless seamless branching was used?

I don't know whether to laugh or not when I read reviews which state the 'Special Edition' has a higher bit-rate or that the 'Special Edition' has more detail on the animation. I have looked and looked and I'm sure all of the scenes apart from the new musical number and the immediate following sequences with the altered castle backgrounds are the same.

While those changes are the most publicized, many other smaller changes were made throughout the feature.

Does anyone know of a definitive list of changes on the web I could look at?

 

[Mark_vdH]

I agree with your post James.
And besides, there is a layer change on all three versions and - of course - they* occur at the same place. Surely nobody could explain that without using the seamless branching/multi angle feature(s)?
* EDIT: I know they cannot refer to a single layer change....so I know it's terrible English, I just don't know any better....