any beauty and the beast reviews yet? (1 Viewer)

[Neil Joseph]

The DVD File Review quotes...

In my only real qualm with these transfers - all presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen - are noticeable compression artifacts due to the ....

I was not aware that this title was 1.85:1. Is it not 1.66:1?

 

[James Reader]

This film is a true american classic and deserved to be treated better. But I bet Disney's marketing perceives (maybe correctly, unfortunately) the quantity of material on a release is more important to the american consumer than the quality.

Well I am happy with the 'content' of the set - I am especially pleased that the original Theratrical version is available (for reasons I've stated in a post above).

The real reason for a 2 disc set is Money - if quantity was important Disney would *want* to release a 3 disc set and would promote it as such.

It's just sad that, excellent as the set is, Pearl Harbor managed to get a 4 disc set. Like you say the content of this set demanded a 3 disc release.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I was not aware that this title was 1.85:1. Is it not 1.66:1?

I'm guessing that DVD File made a mistake. Disney's press materials state that the film will be 1.66, as all of their recent 'flat' animated films have been presented on DVD.

 

[Claus Nielsen]

Well, the packaging states "Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio (1.85:1) - Enhanced For 16x9 Televisions" but it could be a typo.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Well I am happy with the 'content' of the set - I am especially pleased that the original Theratrical version is available (for reasons I've stated in a post above).

I'm not unhappy with the content, but the first priority of any release should always be acceptable picture and sound quality.
If Disney felt the market wouldn't support a 3-disc set, I would much rather they cut supplements instead of CRAMMING 3 versions of the film onto the first disc.
The 'Work In Progress' should have been on Disc 2, along with whatever other supplements could reasonably fit. OR make a 3 disc set.
Anything but what they actually did...

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Well, the packaging states "Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio (1.85:1) - Enhanced For 16x9 Televisions" but it could be a typo.

Thanks for the correction. This is interesting as Disney's own business-to-business website states 1.66 as being the aspect ratio.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Actually, although the film may be animated in the 1.66:1 ratio, it was shown in theaters at 1.85:1. So, technically, it is in the OTR if not OAR.

I'm not too thrilled with the content. It seems a little padded. Why have two versions of the documentary? Kids won't be watching either of them, most likely. Just give me one good one and I'm happy.

I'll be happy to own the films, but I'm still upset over the picture quality.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

post edited.

please note...I'll repost the images at a future date...server issues!...

 

[AaronMK]

Besides the Star Wars Trilogy, this was my most wanted release on DVD.

I'll reserve final judgement for when I have seen the actual disc, but right now, I'm not thrilled with decision to sacrifice quality for the sake of storing all three versions on a single disc. I also wonder why they are willing to give crap like Pearl Harbor a four disc release, but won't give Beauty and the Beast a three disc release, which it would have greatly benefited from.

The original theatrical cut is what I care about most, and I am frustrated to hear that this cut is the biggest victim of the over stuffing.

I am hoping this isn't as bad as people are making it to be.

 

[Robert Cook]

James Reader wrote:

Quote:

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 instead of displaying them inline, as they would still be much larger than the JPEGs.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

For the record, my comment about Monsters Inc. looking pretty good was in reference to Michael's specififc comment lumping it in with BatB as far as an example of too much content on one disc. I know that hand drawn animation is more difficult to compress, but that was not the issue I was addressing.

Regards,

 

[Michael St. Clair]

And to restate my point, while I do think that 'Monsters Inc' did "lump too much content on one disc", the end result was at least satisfactory (but should have been oustanding). So, let's drop that and stick with BatB.

 

[David Illingworth II]

I see no good reason why the Work in Progress wasn't on the 2nd disc. From the review, it sounds as if too many of the supplements aren't really worth getting excited about in the first place. This would have fit perfectly under the West Wing supplements. I don't get it, it just sounds like common sense to me.

 

[Jon Robertson]

If our current view of what's going on is true, then it's absolutely disgusting and deplorable that Disney would spend so much effort on things like extras and animated menus, while taking the easy way out with the presentation of the movie itself.

Ha!!!

You mean a totally digital high-definition frame-by-frame restoration of the negative is the cheapskate option?

Alright, there's a lot on the disc, but since when was four-and-a-half out of five for image considered a poor rating?

 

[LukeB]

4.5 out of 5 on Video? Are you guys overreacting or is the Video Score on the DVD File Review wrong?

 

[Jon Robertson]

Take a guess, Luke.
I can't wait to hear people describe the transfer as "terrible".

 

[Claus Nielsen]

Robert Cook whote:

"However, with that said, the apparent poor quality of the video would seem to indicate that the three versions of the movie probably are encoded separately. If this is correct, then I was stupid to assume that quality is important to Disney. It was for a while...."

I don't know if this has something to do with seamless branching but the three versions are encoded as three different "titles", but the layer change is placed at the exact same spot for all three versions.

 

[James Reader]

I don't know if this has something to do with seamless branching but the three versions are encoded as three different "titles", but the layer change is placed at the exact same spot for all three versions.

Surely if they were three separate titles, there would only be one with a layer change? But then again even if seemlessley branched I would still expect the work in progress to be a separate title. Very strange.

I look forward to hearing the definitive statement on the coding on these discs.

 

[PeterB]

Howdy

This reply is for Mr. Cook above. Just wanted to add a few words about my review. In terms of comparing Beauty and the Beast to Snow White, I wasn't stating that Snow White also used the CAP system, but rather they shared the general process of scanning the entire film digitally and then making the transfer from that. I think such a comparison is valid in principal, as both involve "restoring" and/or tinkering with a film entirely in the digital realm, instead of actually restoring the original film elements. This is a big bone of contention for some, as thus the original film elements (such as with SNow White) really haven't been "restored."

Also, just because Beauty and the Beast was completed using the CAP system doesn't mean there was no cel animation involved. As documented in some of the DVD's supplements, and like you pointed out, the film featured much hand drawn material, backgrounds, traditional cel animation, etc., scanned into the computer. I felt it was important to point out for those not that familiar with the processes that Beauty and the Beast is not a "CGI movie" at all, even if it was completed in the digital realm. Hope this makes sense?

BTW, all told, the Beauty and the Beast DVD does not look *terrible*. I do feel they squeezed too much stuff on a single disc, but I've seen worse. It is more disappointing because, well, I think we all expect perfection with a Disney Platinum title. I'll bet most "average joes" with small TVs won't even notice. However, as we all know, we are not average joes! So it is still disappointing...

Well, I'm rambling...

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I've seen and read material on CAPS in action, and I've never seen nor heard of an actual cel involved. Thousands of pencil drawings on traditional animators paper, yes. Background art on various stock depending on the type of paint used, yes. Cels, no. The whole point of cels is to trace (or more often since the late 60s, photocopy) pencil drawings, ink them, and paint them; all of which is done in the computer with CAPS.
I'm not saying cels weren't used on BatB, but I'm surprised if that is the case. The only reason I can think of for them to use cels is if they started the film using the traditional photographic process, then switched to CAPS in mid stream.
Also, scanning in a finished film is very different from going back to digital source elements. The former will require cleaning up dirt, scratches, correcting color, and so on (and killing all the grain, the merits of which we can debate endlessly). The latter should require absolutely none of that, and no 'restoration' work should have been necessary for BatB (except for maybe the WiP).
I'll reserve my absolute final judgement until I've seen the final product, but I know what overcompressed animation looks like. It can absolutely destroy any chance of the image looking film-like on a properly calibrated large screen. If that has happened here, I'd say the word "terrible" is the correct one to use in some context.
Is this Phase II of dumbing down the format for the masses?
Remember how, as VHS became more popular, you could actually find "over compressed" EP tapes sitting on the store shelves? The 'Twin Peaks' television series was released on EP tape in the US! But hey, most people looked at it, saw how much material was on the tape for the price, and said "what a good value!"