DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Brother Bear (1 Viewer)

[Reagan]

Reminds me of the Phantom Meanace EE discussions. Only substitute the word "trailer" for "documentary".

-Reagan

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Reagan,

That's EXACTLY the situation that came to my mind.

 

[TonyD]

david said in your review...


so does this mean the first 24 minutes were NOT 16x9 enhanced with the side bars being part of the enhanced image?

also on my just calibrated mits 73713 it doesnt look hd like but it doesnt seem as soft as some have said here.
are you guys refering to the actual animated parts or the static backrounds?

because the "moving" parts look far from blurry or soft to me, but the backrounds do appear to be slightly out of focus. but this seems to look to me like the effect of what focus would look like on an image in the foreground being in focus and the backround being not in the focus.

btw there is a funny disclaimer at the end after all the credits have rolled.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No. The whole thing's 16X9. It means the 1.85:1 moments are windowboxed - to maximize the resolution, they'd have had to be BIGGER than the 2.35:1 material on your TV.

 

[Tom Tsai]

The colour-banding was very obvious on my setup. I tried it on two different players and they're equally distracting. And I agree with the "soft" look of the film. :frowning: Very disappointed.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If any of you have seen The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course or the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment of Fantasia 2000, you'll have a better idea of what to expect as far as the windowboxing of the opening of this movie goes.

 

[Sebastien S]

Just watched it and REALLY loved it!

I don't undertsand why this one didn't come with a cardboard sleeve packaging like so many other Disney animated movies did when released on DVD?

No big deal though...

 

[RudolphT]

DaViD,

You may have partially addressed this already. Did one of your favs on the BenQ (something like 5th Element Superbit) look as good as it did on your old setup for comparitive purposes?

Tim

 

[Neil Joseph]

Hmmm, the amazing thing is that when I viewed this on DVD (the second time around I am seeing the film, I enjoyed it.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Tim,

good question.

Everything (except absolute black level) is better on the BenQ. for those of you who haven't seen a well set-up digital front projection system...it's astonishing. The image actually has more aparent sharpness and detail than what you see on a direct-view or rear-projection system (assuming you're seated about 1.75:1 screen widths back). Some DVDs look positively near hi-def (the super-bit fifth element being one, the Animatrix is another, along with Toy Story and Finding Nemo). Others look almost VHS-like. One thing about a 100" image...mastering differences really come through.

Once I get a chance I plan to post a full review (of the PJ)...

-dave

 

[AaronMK]

I'll second the irritations about the color banding. It was very distracting in the few scenes I have gotten to sample.

As far as the movie, this may not have been a buy for me, except that this will probably be one of the last cell animated titles, an art I will truly miss, and one that CGI will not replace. The movie really has its moments, however, as a whole, it is good but not great.

Concerning the AR change, I think they handled it the best they could have handled it on DVD. The effect would have been completely lost (or even reversed) if they had enlarged 1.85:1 segment to fill the width of the 16:9 frame.

 

[Chris]

Just bought today, watched with the kids. Not too bad.

But:

FAMILY FRIENDLY FORMAT? Instead of just saying "Pan & Scan!" ?!?!?!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Just picked this up today and after viewing on my computer monitor (the only progressive scan device I have, being a poor student and all), I can honestly say that this transfer is an accurate representation of what theatrical prints looked like. The edges were very soft on the theatrical prints and sometimes made this difficult to focus when in the projection booth. By way of comparison, Teacher's Pet, which was flat (and flat prints always tend to look softer because less film real estate is being used) was sharp as a tack. I would not be surprised to learn that digital softening had been applied to the animation before scanning out to film.
That being said, my kids and I really enjoyed the film.

 

[David Stone]

Yes, that new term that Disney is using REALLY offends me!

If Pan & Scan Format is friendly and suitable for the whole family, then Disney is strongly implying that films presented in OAR are neither friendly nor suitable for your family to watch. So, if I choose to force my family to watch the OAR disc, am I a fanatic?

 

[Tony Whalen]

Rented this one last night.

Not bad. Had some good moments in it.

Being a Canuck, the mooses stole the show. "Trample off, eh?"

Didn't know about the moose-commentary...I'll have to give that a shot. I probably wouldn't even have GLANCED at the "family friendly" disk otherwise. (And yes, that IS a VERY annoying way of labeling the disks. Family friendly...grrr..)

Not top-notch...but not bad.

 

[Al (alweho)]

Actually we should all be glad the "marketeers" at Disney came up with this little catch-phrase.

The number one complaint they *still* get at Disney is about those black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. Face it, the vast majority of consumers for this product (kids and less than full-bore home theater fans) still don't *get* the concept behind widescreen transfers at all.

Rumor had it that Eisner at one point, in all his micromanaging glory, demanded that all DVD releases be full frame no matter what the OAR was. Thankfully the home video folks who knew better came up with the "family friendly" gambit (usually by offering two versions of the movie on each set) and he was satisfied.

Disney started out on DVD along with Fox as one of the worst labels for getting it right, but has since (again along with Fox) moved to the forefront in the quality of what they offer.

Faced with the alternative of no widescreen at all on animated (or other kids) product I think we should thank those folks behind the scene who finessed this issue with a boss that has truly earned the many negative assessments he has gotten.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Al,

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I concur. Even though I do shudder at the "family friendly" phrase, I can hardly fault the studio when they've gone through such trouble to include a 16x9 OAR version of the film...consistent with most of their high-profile titles.

Additionally, I think folks should focus on the fact that even this "family friendly" P/S version is *STILL* 16x9 WS! I guess the idea is that folks won't have to see "the black bars" on their 16x9 HDTVs

I know I'll get flamed for this, and I'm not suggesting that this changes the "OAR" cause that we all support, but personally having watched the film in the 1.66:1 "family friendly" format to hear the commentary, I found the framing much more comfortable to my eyes. That's more of an artistic opinion in this particular case...I haven't fallen off the wagon...

 

[Lyle_JP]

The color banding on this DVD is the worst I've seen since the very first IMAX DVDs that came out at the format's birth more than 6 years ago. Yes folks, it's [rant]that bad![/rant]

It's not just the occasional brown of the bears' fur, it's every outfit worn by the humans. If there's a human onscreen, chances are his animal skins are 12 shades of brown with very clear dividing stripes all the way down!

This is [rant]far more distracting[/rant] than the heavy mosquito noise on then Beauty and the Beast DVD! This DVD of a new release has no excuse for looking worse than some of Disney's most mediocre discs (Pinocchio, Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Sword and the Stone, etc.). In fact, I'd put the picture quality of their non-anamorphic widescreen discs (Little Mermaid, Mulan, Lady and the Tramp, etc.) up against Brother Bear any day, on any system, and they'd destroy it.

Sad Disney, sad.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[David Podjasek]

Interesting... the DVD File review goes on and on about the near perfection of the transfer. "near reference quality transfer"

 

[Mark-W]

DaViD-

I agree with you on the 1.66:1 looking more composed than the 2.35:1 version. While I 100% support the OAR presentation of films on DVD and have even gone to the length of making mattes for my television so I can watch The Sting in its OAR, I have to say this is one of three films I own on DVD where I think the MAR version looks better.

Now if someone told me the studio was only going to put out one AR version, I would tell them the MUST put out the OAR, but in this case, I am glad they gave me a choice.

Oh, btw, thanks for the review!


Mark