
I hope they get cheaper ASAP!
Some people missed out on the last edition. And I'm one of those who isn't going to pay 50 or 60 bucks for one on the internet. But I do want Pinocchio as a PE. One of my favs.xxhplinkxx wrote:I think it's silly that this is being released as a Platinum when there's already a perfectly good 2 disc edition out there. It takes up the slot of something that hasnt had a proper release yet, such as Pinocchio.
I agree. I'm not against releasing a film from the Disney Vault, but SB will have been in the Vault for only 5 years, and it has previously had a 2-disc DVD, whereas "Pinocchio" has only had a crappish release in the US, and it's been in the vault since early 2002- if "Pinocchio" comes out in March 2009, then it would've been in the Vault for over 7 years...*sigh*xxhplinkxx wrote:I think it's silly that this is being released as a Platinum when there's already a perfectly good 2 disc edition out there. It takes up the slot of something that hasnt had a proper release yet, such as Pinocchio.
I think that with the higher space capacity that offers the blu ray technology (25 GB per disc) you don't necessarily need a second BR disc to put the same hours of bonus features that on a regular 2-disc DVD set. What I mean is that, on Blu Ray, the movie and all the bonus features (same as DVD) would fit onto one BR disc, mainly because at the moment, the bonus features are rarely proposed in HD but only in SD, so they would all fit in there.singerguy04 wrote:I'm begining to ger worried over the fact that since it's going to be on Blu-Ray whether or not it'll actually have 2-discs. I mean the trailer doesn't say 2-discs at all. Is there anything anywhere that says it will be?
First Answer:PatrickvD wrote:The 2003 SE, from what I recall, was not the correct aspect ratio. Well it was presented as such but I clearly remember images popping up online that compared it to a laserdisc transfer (?) that showed the dvd transfer was cutting off some animation on the bottom and top of the frame.
first question, I'm not crazy right? this was the case?
second, will the Blu-Ray disc fix this problem? will we get to see everything of Sleeping Beauty and not a "cropped" original aspect ratio?
I did a few searches of deathie's posts which is where I found the info about SB. He also provided a still in a thread comparing the 1995 VHS P&S transfer to the 2003 VHS P&S transfer (showing material on the top that was missing), as well as the 2003 DVD transfer:PatrickvD wrote:if this question has already been answered somewhere or if I'm wrong please let me know
You're right about the aspect ratio, but the Technirama negative is actually 35 mm, not 70mm. The trick is that by running the film horizontally through the camera, each frame can be twice as large as that of a regular 35mm negative, and almost as large as a 65mm negative. (The negative format for 70mm film is actually 65mm since there are no soundtracks on the negative!)Escapay wrote:The 2003 DVD was derived from a 35mm print and not the original Technirama negatives, resulting in a 2.35:1 AR (Technirama is 70mm with an AR of about 2.25:1). So there is a certain percentage of image lost on all sides as the 35mm is "zoomed in" from the 70mm negatives.
Thank you for the kind words Ariel'sPrince. I will send you a PM about the wallpaper.Ariel'sprince wrote:That's a good idea,Disney Villain! it makes a lot of sense now.
By the way,Disney Villain-can you make a Malificent wallpaper? (i wanted a new one,you can make it with shining cliparts? like the Cruela clipart in the Christmas wallpaper or something like the Giselle wallpaper you made? (i loved it by the way) her dragon form has a shining clipart) thanks if you can.