Seamless Branching versus Locked Out Angles (1 Viewer)

[John Leaning]

I see that the Platinum Edition of Beauty and the Beast uses locked out angles to switch between the different versions of the film, and a number of studios appear to be using this method to show different language titles and credits.

What are the benefits of this over seamless branching?

Is it just that there are less problems with players handling angles as opposed to seamless branching?

I personally prefer seamless branching because my player has no problems with any of the branching titles, but always displays an angle symbol whenever there is more than one angle on a disk and it gets a bit irritating as there is no way to make it go away.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I've never seen a player that won't let you turn off the onscreen angle indicator, though it is a bit strange that they'd assume you'd want it to be on as most come with it default-set to on. My player's on-player display also has an angle indicator that lights up without ruining the picture onscreen.
These titles use the angle function probably because the audio stays the same, and the running times are identical. Branching can add to or take away from the running time as needed. It is possible though for the audio to change along with the camera angles, though I'll admit I don't get how that works.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

see that the Platinum Edition of Beauty and the Beast uses locked out angles to switch between the different versions of the film

That isn't how it works. It simply branches at the layer change to the appropriate track for yoru selection. The angles are for the titles and such

 

[Christian Preischl]

Hi,

The angles are for the titles and such

Nope, in the case of Beauty and the Beast the angles are for the work in progress version. There are no alternate French title cards on this disc.

Actually, I wonder if they stopped doing that for their animated 2 discers altogether, because there haven't been any on Atlantis and Monster's Inc either. Of the one's I own, Emperor's New Groove was the last to have them. But I digress...

Chris

 

[John Leaning]

Jeff, How does that fit with the statement from Disney that they have not used branching?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

John, they didn't use branching in the traditional sense. Basically it branches to a completely seperate file on the disc depending on which version of the movie you're watching

 

[John Leaning]

So, for Beauty and the Beast does it work like this?

From the Start to the layer change.
All three versions are on a common branch with a different angle to show the uncompleted sections of the work in progress.

From the layer change on.
Theatrical and work in progress use a common branch with the uncompleted sections of the work in progress on a different angle. Special edition continues on a seperate branch.

Now back to my original question, why use angles rather than seamless branching?
Is there a technical benefit of one over the other?
Are angles easier to author?
Do less players have problems with angles versus seamless branching?

 

[Lyle_JP]

John,

Your understanding of the technical layout of the BATB DVD is correct.

One advantage of angles over branching is that you can use the same audio and subtitle streams for both. You don't have to duplicate all the audio and subtitle tracks for all the different video branches.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[John Leaning]

Thanks Lyle,

It sort of begs the question then as to why so many reviews refer to artifacts caused by over compression, due to 3 separate versions of the movie being on the disk.

There is maybe only 2.5 hours of real content on the disk and 20% unused space on the disk. Are these artifacts caused by over compression or something else?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Over compression. You still can only fit so much in the bitstream at one time.

 

[John Leaning]

Jeff, it just confuses me a bit when people talk of over compression
1. a decision made to over compress or a requirement to over compress to fit within the disk capacity. (too much content)
2. subject matter that cannot be compressed without artifacts with the DVD format bitrate budget.

You would think/hope that with plenty of spare space on the disk that the over compression was a result of hitting the bitrate ceiling. Out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the bitrate?