I thought "seemless branching" was a good thing? (1 Viewer)

[Lanny_B]

I thought "seemless branching" meant that it allowed you to watch the movie, with optional scenes seemlessly inserted without having to waste space on an entire second version of the film. But after reading the Beauty and the Beast DVD review on DVDfile:

(As soon as their website comes back up, I'll try and edit in the quote here. I can't seem to get through to it right now.) Paraphrasing from memory: Thanks to seemless branching we have 3 different versions of the film, but it's too bad they're all on one disk because now the quality of all three goes down.

This just brought to the front a question I've had of what seemless branching actually is. So, if Beauty and the Beast used seemless branching to insert the extra musical number, for example, why did they have to take up so much space by including one version of the film with it, and one version without? Why couldn't they just have the main movie tracks, branch over to the new scene, then reconnect with the original film?

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think you misread the review. DVD File's point is that the disc could not take full advantage of seamless branching:

However, due to the extensive changes made to the IMAX upgrade and an almost completely different "Work in Progress" version, this disc cannot not fully exploit the seamless branching capabilities of the format; instead, each version of the film is encoded in its entirety as a separate "title" save for some minimal branching cues. Thus, over four hours of material is squeezed onto a single dual-layer disc, plus extras, two audio tracks each, and a commentary.

M.

 

[Lanny_B]

Ah, thank you for that quote. So, do I have the right idea of what seamless branching is?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yes, you've got the right idea.

M.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Unfortunately, there are many players for whom seamless branching is a bit of a problem, and tend to choke and stutter, so instead Disney put three separate 90 minute features on the same disc, spreading far too few bits over too large an area.

To their credit though, it apparently still looks pretty amazing.

 

[Vic_T]

I've never seen seamlees branching look "seamless". Since it never really took off, I'm assuming it never did work real well. Has anyone ever had seamless branching actually look "seamles"?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I only have The Abyss and T-2: UE for s-b...and both are totally seamless on my Toshiba SD-1600.

I don't experiment much, though... I really prefer the extended editions of both T-2 and The Abyss. (But not the 3rd edition of T-2...the 2nd ending is bad.)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Unfortunately, there are many players for whom seamless branching is a bit of a problem, and tend to choke and stutter, so instead Disney put three separate 90 minute features on the same disc, spreading far too few bits over too large an area.

DVD Angle's review says they did use seamless branching for the extended IMAX release and the original theatrical version.

 

[Lanny_B]

Hmmm, is DVD Angle's information correct? It seems to be in direct contrast with what other reviews have said (DVDfile, IGNDVD). I've watched it, and to my eyes it didn't seem that great.

 

[Ken Seeber]

Has anyone ever had seamless branching actually look "seamles"?

Yes, every seamless branching DVD I've ever played on my second-generation Sony DVP-S300 has played perfectly.

 

[Tom_Bechet]

Has anyone ever had seamless branching actually look "seamless"?

the only seamless branching titles I have are Beauty and the beast UKR2 and ID4 belgiumR2.Both work fine on my old tosh SD100 not tested on new tosh220.
HTH

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I have several seamless DVD's and they all play fine. I don't notice anything unusual that might be caused by the branching.

Bruce