New Ever After, P&S and Anamorphic? (1 Viewer)

[Joel C]

I saw the re-release of Ever After at Target the other day. I noticed that in addition to the new full screen transfer it indicates on the back an anamorphic widescreen transfer. The old, $35 disc (which I've had since 1999) was non-anamorphic. Did the re-release correct the oversight, or is this another case of Fox's tricky labeling (Abyss=anamorphic because it had 16:9 menus)?

 

[James_Garner]

I'm pretty sure the new version of "Ever After" is indeed anamorphic, because I picked up the new combo widescreen/pan&scan DVD of "Never Been Kissed" (another original non-anamorphic Fox title) and watched the first few minutes & could tell INSTANTLY (after selecting Widescreen from the Wide/P&S menu) the new version was Anamorphic. Fox is on the level with these new reissues. Shame that Fox hasnt done any publicity about this, though

 

[rutger_s]

The new Ever After DVD with widescreen and pan & scan versions of the film does indeed have a new anamorphic transfer.

 

[Deane Johnson]

What am I missing here? I check DVD Price Search and find only the old 1999 non-anamorphic version. I check DVD Empire and Lasers Edge and the same thing.

Why don't I find the new 16:9 version anywhere? We're talking the movie with Drew Barrymore, right?

Deane

 

[Ron-P]

Deane, BB.com has it listed. I didn't even know this was re-released. I'll be picking it up today.

http://www.bestbuy.com/movies/Produc...270&cat=&scat=


Peace Out~

 

[GlennH]

Looks like DeepDiscountDVD.com has this newer dual version for $14.64, if the product description is to be believed:

http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=FXD005761

 

[Deane Johnson]

Thanks guys. I don't how this one slipped under the radar. I watch the new releases pretty close and completely missed it.

Deane

 

[Deane Johnson]

A couple of interesting follow-ups. Clicking on it to order at DeepDiscount shows is not available. Clicking on it at Best Buy indicates it's available, but not for in-store pickup.

Deane

 

[Craig W]

I bought the new version (16:9 WS and P&S) at Best Buy back in February for my wife as part of her Valentine's Day gift.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

I wonder if there will be a trade-off however?

While the old disc was non-anamophic, the transfer was spread out over two layers with nothing much in the way of extras. This new transfer, while it is anamorphic, is being squeezed into the same amount of disc space, along with an entire seperate Pan & Scan version. This would most likely cut the average bit-rate, right in half.

 

[Craig W]

Actually Brian, it's a dual sided release and I believe its a single layer per side so it may have been compressed more to fit on one layer. I was wondering when I purchased this if the original non-anamorphic disc was a dual layer release.

 

[GlennH]

The product information at DVDEmpire (for the old version) says SS-SL (single-side, single-layer).

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=3933

I think this one slipped under a lot of radars. Probably everyone thought that it was just a reissue of the original disc. As noted, it isn't listed on DVD Price Search, for example. I don't recall seeing any news items about it on the usual sites.

Fox should publicize these things a little more and they would no doubt sell more to the non-anamorphic hold-outs.

We should keep an eye out for other potential rereleases of non-anamorphic titles like French Kiss and Waking Ned Devine.

 

[Craig W]

Glenn,

Its definately a dual sided release. I have it my hand right now. Side A is WS, Side B; P&S.

 

[Oswald Pascual]

So does it look any better?

How is the transfer?

 

[rutger_s]

The previous DVD was dual-layer. However it was presented in 4x3 letterbox and as such would have looked somewhat bad squeezed onto a DVD-5. So to maximize the bit-rate and get better video, the film was spread across a DVD-9.

Since the 16x9 widescreen transfer looks much better and as such does not require as high a bit-rate...the film can comfortably fit on a DVD-5 without picture degradation.

 

[Martin Jeeves]

Anyone know what other titles Fox have re-ssued like this?

 

[Todd Hochard]

The previous DVD was dual-layer. However it was presented in 4x3 letterbox and as such would have looked somewhat bad squeezed onto a DVD-5. So to maximize the bit-rate and get better video, the film was spread across a DVD-9.
Since the 16x9 widescreen transfer looks much better and as such does not require as high a bit-rate...the film can comfortably fit on a DVD-5 without picture degradation.

You're going to have to explain your logic to me on this one.

I have to wonder if these "under the radar" re-releases in 16x9 are true 16x9. Or, did they go back and create a faux-anamorphic transfer, by simply 16x9 encoding from the old master that they had?

Todd

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Also glad to hear about the new 16x9 version.

I'm one of the animorphiatic "hold outs".

Anyone who would like to do a critical comparison of the 2 versions (widescreen to widescreen) please post an in-depth review!

dave

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Since the 16x9 widescreen transfer looks much better and as such does not require as high a bit-rate...the film can comfortably fit on a DVD-5 without picture degradation.

I am confused here, How does a transfer that uses more of it's image for static black bars require more bits then a transfer that has a higher number of pixels being used for the active image?

 

[Doug Schiller]

I think Fox did this with One Fine Day. I can't be sure if it is now 16x9 but I had the original version and now the box says it includes both full screen and widescreen.


Doug