Search results

Michael St. Clair wrote: There are a couple of examples in a message I posted last week, one for video and the other for audio: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...06#post1024706 As you can see, the message also has a mini-guide to DVD directory contents, which may offer us a clue about...

Trace Downing wrote: Or it was a ploy to get attention. Some people like to be indignant--feeling as though they're being personally wronged all the time can become a strangely addictive habit. Of course, by no means am I saying that real prejudice and bigotry do not exist--there's always more...

Mark_vdH wrote:

Javier_Huerta wrote: That's not seamless branching--it's the multi-angle feature. You can see this in action if your DVD player's display shows the number of the angle you're playing, like some do. The idea is similar in some ways, but they're not the same feature.

Nicely done, Ron, as usual. :emoji_thumbsup: I'd better refrain from making judgmental comments about the DVD until I've examined it myself, but at least someone has finally asserted that the picture looks great. I sure hope that I'll see it the same way! :) Ronald Epstein wrote: This is just...

Neil Joseph wrote: No, even The Rescuers Down Under--released a year earlier--was done entirely on CAPS. They did a short test on one scene in The Little Mermaid, I've been told, but after that, they completely switched over.

James Reader wrote: I agree, and I think that it could be made much more practical if they were losslessly compressed in the PNG format, which most web browsers would be able to decode and display, I would think. However, if anyone does this, it would be a good idea to post links to the files...

Ken_McAlinden wrote: I don't have the DVD yet, of course, but I think that it would be difficult to tell on most TV sets, because the DVD is (should be) both 1.66 and "16:9 enhanced," with windowboxing bars that are narrow enough to be hidden by overscan, whether the TV itself is 16:9 or 4:3...

Dan Brecher wrote: You may be surprised at how small a production Beauty and the Beast was. Of course, smallness in this case is a relative measure, but they definitely had to cut corners, and I don't think that this hurts the movie in any meaningful way. In fact, this might have been a good...

Russell_Lengthorn wrote: Yes, please do! :)

Jeff Kleist wrote:

John_Berger wrote: Tarzan's aspect ratio on DVD is 1.66 (to be precise, it's 678x480 pixels, yielding an aspect ratio of 1.674), windowboxed within a 16:9 frame. If you didn't notice a difference between this and 1.85, I guarantee that the typical "full screen" aficionado would not be able to...

Seth Paxton wrote:

AaronMK wrote:

I think I've found the perfect solution to this issue, thanks to the American WideScreen Museum. It's an amazing new digital recomposition technology called FlikFX. Check it out--page 6 specifically addresses IMAX. Our worries are all behind us now! :wink:

Peter Kline wrote: That's different. The issues of the Beauty and the Beast DVD are not based on any rumors that any of us have heard from anywhere. It's based on the simple fact that there is way too much video for one DVD-9, without doing something unusual and complicated. I've given valid...

Michael St. Clair wrote: Seriously, there are many differences between the Original Theatrical and Special Edition versions aside from the extra scene.

oscar_merkx wrote: You got that right! I don't see why this association even exists. I don't have children, but if I did, I'd buy these titles for myself, and if they don't want to watch them, it's their loss. :wink:

Peter Kline wrote:

I wonder how that digital photography in Attack of the Clones is going to hold up on IMAX....

Jeff Kleist wrote:

James Reader wrote: This is very troubling. If they didn't use branching, the encoding quality would suck big-time, and if they did, there would be reason to doubt that all three versions will truly be intact.

Richard Waller wrote: If it's going to be "16x9 enhanced" (which is the case in R1), it'll be windowboxed within the frame, and have basically the same black bars at the top and bottom as a 1.85 release, so it's not as if widescreen haters would benefit.

Thomas T wrote: If there's enough space and bandwidth to spare, I'd support that. Otherwise, Dolby Digital at 192 kbit/s should be enough for mono, and 256 kbit/s would be nice for stereo or Dolby Stereo, although 192 kbit/s would be okay, in a pinch. In the practical world, sometimes we have...

This is so sad. :frowning: He's been one of my favorite actors since before I can remember, and he always will be, whether his characters are performing mystical deeds of literally Biblical proportions, or cracking me up as cameos on sitcoms. I think I feel worse right now than if he had...

Jonathan Perregaux wrote: Well, I think that they fundamentally changed what there was of the story, not that this negatively affects my opinion of the movie--in fact, I think it's better than the version of the fairy tale it's based on (it's easy to not be a purist when there is no official...

Anthony Liz wrote: Yep, that's what I meant about expectations. The TV series, in and of itself, is pretty likable--I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but I can see why some people are; some of the added characters, like Dumont and Queen La, are pretty interesting, as well. The series should not...

First of all, the information in this thread--including one or more of the corrections--seems very suspect to me. Anyone who is concerned about a DVD they may be interested in should call Disney (800-723-4763) and ask for information before filing a complaint with them. Secondly, the dollar...

Colin Jacobson wrote: Yes, that's an interesting observation. I guess that none of the actors had wanted to commit to a TV series, which is not too surprising. If there had not been a series, then Disney probably could have gotten most of them to do a sequel. Not that this is a bad thing, from...

LukeB wrote: I agree, and on a more general note, this would set the appropriate expectations, as well. Expectations can have such a profound effect on perception, even if most people aren't always consciously aware of this. I figure that when we see lists and discussions of movies that are...