Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Mar 2, 2009.
Yes, I have heard of it; and I have heard it is optional as well.
Does this mean that the movie will be encoded at 16:9 (with black bars that will be overlaid) instead of 4:3? Seems like a potential waste of disc space...
No, the defeatable side pictures are just that--still pictures that aren't part of the movie.
I believe everything in HD is encoded at 16x9. 4x3 sourced material contains black bars on the sides that are encoded as part of the image.
Really? That seems like a poor design decision. Okay, it more-or-less ends the practice of foolscreen editions, but there's still quite a bit of 4x3 content out there (old movies and TV) that could have benefited...
It'll be interesting to see what Star Trek looks like if I set my DVD player to a 4:3 display--if it ends up fullscreen or windowboxed.
I sincerely doubt the SD-DVD has black bars. Such a move would be nearly unprecedented. My take is a slight bit of confusion ensued when they were discussing the BD and switched to a mention of the SD-DVD.
And the reluctance of certain tv owners for not turning down the color knobs when viewing garish dvds has also become epidemic--and should be mocked and ridiculed by those of us who have lives.
My comments about doing a comparison above were not to cry foul if the disc doesn't match, but merely for my own education. The reproductions of the Pinocchio cels in the book are gorgeous.
Edit: Just went over and looked at the comparisons on DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...io_blu-ray.htm. I know Gary's had problems with accurate colourspace on his captures in the past, but if these captures are accurate in terms of colour, I don't think there's an issue. The old DVD looks really boosted and artificial by comparison.
The 1999 DVD comparison shots weren't on the review initially, but... damn. Night and day. The reds were REALLY bad on that old disc.
No, but it'll use less disc space if the bars aren't there (which should lead to either a higher-quality video encode, or additional content on each disc).
I would guess it should look pretty good I think the film uses up about 23GBs of space on the disc... and to give you an idea WB's released the 1:33:1 Casablanca at about 16GB of space and it has a near 2 hour running time Pin. is at about 72-75 min ish
SO it should still be good... I don't get the border thing myself though seems like a waste for purists like ourselves.
The amount of space saved would be negligible. Better to have a standardized 16x9 image for 1920x1080p HD video no matter what the film's AR than to mess around with both 16x9 and 4x3. No messing with player firmware, or TV display, etc. (Besides, I don't even know if it's technically possible to do a HD image in the 4x3 ratio).
And to make sure we're all on the same page here, the sidebars can either be black or the specifically designed artwork on this title.
The optional art bordering isn't meant for purists. It is meant to appeal to people who do not like vertical black bars. In other words, the same people who don't like horizontal black bars.
I don't get the whole to-do about the colorful bars. I'm not so sure that "purists" need to have black bars alongside their academy ratio films. Do they?
One post removed for an unnecessary general jab at other posters.
It should be possible to keep a discussion like this civil, couldn't we?
In tomorrow's Toys R Us ad, the Pinocchio Blu-ray is listed for $21.99.
If you guys complain about Pinocchio, you better not watch the Blu Ray of Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels.....
Now THAT's a Blu Ray I would LOVE to have reviewed by Mr. Harris....