Beauty & the Beast original colors - in upcoming platinu

[drfsupercenter]

Well yeah I agree, most people just weren't bothered.

And I'm not saying nobody should have bought the DVD - I just wish Disney cared about the people who actually respect the value of the OTV. It seems like more and more they're messing up their releases, even with a lot of the old live action movies that should be one aspect ratio but are released in another... etc.

And given that CAPS is digital, it's not even that much effort to just slap that on a disc!

[ajmrowland]

Well yeah I agree, most people just weren't bothered.

And I'm not saying nobody should have bought the DVD - I just wish Disney cared about the people who actually respect the value of the OTV. It seems like more and more they're messing up their releases, even with a lot of the old live action movies that should be one aspect ratio but are released in another... etc.

And given that CAPS is digital, it's not even that much effort to just slap that on a disc!

Yeah, well, the DVD is the only copy of the movie that I've got, seeing as we sold the VHS. Sometimes we gotta just suck it up and enjoy what we have, and every time I watch this movie, I do. As fore the Aspect Ratio, The only reason I could think that Disney is changing some of the ARs is because of those ppl who only have 4:3 tvs and lament the SEs not being available in fullscreen. That sounds the least stupid to me.

And with the CAPS, I pretty much said the same thing, and got corrected almost instantly. It takes a bit of effort to make sure that the compression looks as good as the uncompressed CAPS files, or at least as good as the format could handle, and that no shortcuts are taken(edge enhancement, DNR,etc). 5 star video quality can't be the easiest to achieve.

[drfsupercenter]

If I can take a digital master source (I'm talking 720p streams I record off TV, or 1080p from Blu-Ray) and make great-looking DVDs, so can Disney.

It doesn't really take 6 months for the studios to make a DVD, it probably takes them a week or so. They just delay it to boost their sales or whatever.

[ajmrowland]

If I can take a digital master source (I'm talking 720p streams I record off TV, or 1080p from Blu-Ray) and make great-looking DVDs, so can Disney.

It doesn't really take 6 months for the studios to make a DVD, it probably takes them a week or so. They just delay it to boost their sales or whatever.

Try telling that to half the reviews posted on Hidefdigest.com Evan Almighty did not have that good of a picture, and had lots of edge enhancement, among other flaws with the ENCODE. Source material can be pristine, but there may be more to encoding a professional DVD than meets the eye. Blu-ray's meant to look like 35 mm film, and the 35 mm is probably the truly unmodified transfer. Blu-ray has the effort put in to replicate it for the home. It HAS to have effort, otherwise all the critique of video quality is pointless.

And we're not just talking one DVD that can be made within an hour. All of the contents have to be mass produced in the millions so they can be shipped to all these places by street date.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, if it was shot in 35mm then there's telecining and scanning each frame to worry about.

If it's digital - it's only a matter of encoding.

And dude... if you make a DVD in an hour, you can just make thousands of copies of that one. Unlike VHS, all you need is one master image file and you can press hundreds of thousands of identical products.

And even as far as Blu-Ray is concerned... CAPS has a larger resolution than Blu-Ray. It shouldn't take too much work to get a 1080p master encode.

[KubrickFan]

Look at the Blade Runner box set. The Final Cut was color timed differently, but every other cut was left alone, color wise. So you'd still have the original version. I don't know why other directors and artists still aren't able to do this.

You've supplied your own answer by citing Blade Runner as an example: it took Ridley Scott 20 years to get to release that Final Cut. The previously released "Director's Cut" simply wasn't what it's designation claims (and incidentally looked like crap on DVD). Historically, studios' film production and home media divisions have operated with a disconnect and filmmakers have generally had little contractual authority over home media releases.

(There is a sea change at work here: now that the home media market generates greater revenue than the box office and there exists a format capable of delivering authenticity to the theatrical presentation down to the visible grain structure, filmmakers are becoming more intimately involved with home media production.)

How am I supplying my own answer here? I was asking why Ridley Scott (or the studio for that matter) coud add the original version, and others couldn't? I know it's been twenty years since he finally got his cut, and yet we still have the several original versions of the film.

And drfsupercenter, it actually takes a year or more to produce a dvd, not a week. If you did it in a week, the results would be terrible (probably even worse in this case).

[Flanger-Hanger]

To throw another curveball, what about the OTV of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, 1776, or The Happiest Millionaire. They were clearly not what the director's wanted and not released to DVD, but if anyone fell in love with the OTV that justifies it's release? In the case of 1776, the director re-cut the laserdisc run-time to get what he wanted. Is he wrong to do that and deprive the public of the OTV in order to get the cut he always wanted? What about the first two examples in which the OTV was created as a compromise and a cut down version of what was intended originally, is it wrong to deprive the public of viewing those too?

[drfsupercenter]

And drfsupercenter, it actually takes a year or more to produce a dvd, not a week. If you did it in a week, the results would be terrible (probably even worse in this case).

What?! Are you kidding? I've seen movies come out on DVD exactly 3 months from when they were in theaters... look at most newer DreamWorks films. And those DVDs are actually excellent compared to a lot of them now where they're slacking on DVD to promote Blu-Ray.
It may take that long to *release* a DVD, but you really think the entire time between the film is finished shooting to the time it comes out on DVD, they're actually working on putting it in digital form? That's ridiculous! Now that some films are actually being made in digital format (and the CAPS films all were, hence my point), it WOULD only take a day or two.

Now, you can have different "trials" and such to make sure it's the best looking it can be, but it seriously does not take that long to make mpeg-2 files. If I can do it, why can't they? And I'm only using commercial software (such as TMPGEnc), I'm sure the professionals have something better.

What about the first two examples in which the OTV was created as a compromise and a cut down version of what was intended originally, is it wrong to deprive the public of viewing those too?

I don't know anything about those examples you stated but that sounds a lot like today's "Unrated" movies. Where they make these lame, stupid, PG-13 films in order to not get an R (Or even NC-17!) rating on them... then release this "unrated" version on DVD. Which truly sickens me. Most of those unrated versions are just completely unnecessary and uncalled for (I don't mean the occasional swear word, I mean they're saying 20 f-words a minute to where it's just UNNATURAL)... Some people may find that funny but I don't. I miss the days where they'd make a GOOD R-rated film for theaters and that was it. None of this watering down and then adding un-called for crap back into it.
Now I realize that's not the case with a Disney film, or a historical movie like 1776. I was merely commenting on the act of cutting a film down for theaters. Most of these DVDs already have "deleted scenes" where you can see the scenes that were cut out before it hit theaters (sometimes they're not even fully processed!) And you notice that a good number of these "unrated" movies offer the OTV as well? (If not a separate disc where you can choose to buy the OTV or the unrated)

[Flanger-Hanger]

In the 3 examples I gave the OTV were severely cut down against or unknown to the director's wishes to please other people who wanted them shorter for whatever reason. Their OTVs have never been released to DVD in an attempt to preserve what was intended, but should they be punished for that? In the case of 1776 the director didn't like either the 141 min OTV or the 180 min laserdisc cut so he made his own 165 min version that was released to DVD. It might be a nice novelty to include more than one edit through seemless branching but if there isn't enough disc space or the director doesn't want people to see it any other way he has the right to do so, because the film should be preserved the way he or she wanted it first and then if possible include something else for the fans.

[drfsupercenter]

Well if it was only an issue of cutting, it SHOULD be possible to include both via seamless branching.

Look at Independence Day - just about every DVD I've ever seen of it has both the OTV and the director's cut (And honestly, I actually prefer the director's cut because some of the scenes removed for the OTV have a part of the story). (And I suppose the fullscreen version is the exception - but then again that's pan-and-scan so that doesn't count )

I mean, legally, a director (more like who holds the copyright) has the right to do whatever they want. But it may not be a popular decision...
If it were up to me, I would have one disc of the OTV and another disc of the director's cut (or whatever name they give to what the director wanted). Or if it's possible, I'd seamlessly branch them, like a lot of newer movies are doing.

As for Bedknobs and Broomsticks, hasn't there also been controversy over some other stuff with it too? Like the aspect ratio, and the runtime... etc.

I just think directors that try to wipe the OTV off the face of the earth by only releasing their preferred version are missing the point. And especially with Beauty and the Beast... when it's literally very easy for them to put the true OTV on a DVD. Not like an older film that actually NEEDS restoration. (Or something like Fantasia, where they lost part of the film )

[KubrickFan]

And drfsupercenter, it actually takes a year or more to produce a dvd, not a week. If you did it in a week, the results would be terrible (probably even worse in this case).

What?! Are you kidding? I've seen movies come out on DVD exactly 3 months from when they were in theaters... look at most newer DreamWorks films. And those DVDs are actually excellent compared to a lot of them now where they're slacking on DVD to promote Blu-Ray.
It may take that long to *release* a DVD, but you really think the entire time between the film is finished shooting to the time it comes out on DVD, they're actually working on putting it in digital form? That's ridiculous! Now that some films are actually being made in digital format (and the CAPS films all were, hence my point), it WOULD only take a day or two.

Now, you can have different "trials" and such to make sure it's the best looking it can be, but it seriously does not take that long to make mpeg-2 files. If I can do it, why can't they? And I'm only using commercial software (such as TMPGEnc), I'm sure the professionals have something better.

They still need to be transferred (probably 2K, in this example), it's only data to begin with. Then the tranferring begins. They need to relay back and forth to the company, the directors, etc. etc. Also a mix needs to be done, and perhaps again. And bonus material and so forth. You very often hear of people delivering audio commentary when they haven't even been to the premiere yet, so what does that tell you?
And wouldn't you think that the professionals did have something better, but that they would also take their time to do it? They're not going to rush it if they don't have to.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I mean, legally, a director (more like who holds the copyright) has the right to do whatever they want. But it may not be a popular decision...

Is there anything in the form of $ or statistics to prove it wasn't for BatB?

I just think directors that try to wipe the OTV off the face of the earth by only releasing their preferred version are missing the point. And especially with Beauty and the Beast... when it's literally very easy for them to put the true OTV on a DVD.

Was it really that easy? There is only so much disc space on a DVD and Disney only limited the tile to a 2-disc set. They did the best they could with the three cuts on one disc (They could have just tried giving the one you know). I don't honestly believe they are trying to wipe the OTV off the face of the earth. In reality they probably didn't have the room to properly include all so they picked the one they personally liked best to include in full, and they have every right to do so. Even with larger movie files the amount of space on a 50-G Blu-ray disc should properly contain all 3 versions in HD (or they could scale down the Work in Progress version).

[drfsupercenter]

They still need to be transferred (probably 2K, in this example), it's only data to begin with. Then the tranferring begins. They need to relay back and forth to the company, the directors, etc. etc. Also a mix needs to be done, and perhaps again. And bonus material and so forth. You very often hear of people delivering audio commentary when they haven't even been to the premiere yet, so what does that tell you?
And wouldn't you think that the professionals did have something better, but that they would also take their time to do it? They're not going to rush it if they don't have to.

I realize it isn't a one-day job but it certainly doesn't take a year like you're describing either. And really, I just started that discussion to say that it would have been just as easy for them to compress the CAPS files into a DVD as it was for them to compress the IMAX files into a DVD.

Is there anything in the form of $ or statistics to prove it wasn't for BatB?

No, but popularity isn't always in the form of money. For BatB, maybe most people didn't mind. But there's an entire forum of Star Wars fans who want their OTVs of the OT.

Was it really that easy? There is only so much disc space on a DVD and Disney only limited the tile to a 2-disc set. They did the best they could with the three cuts on one disc (They could have just tried giving the one you know). I don't honestly believe they are trying to wipe the OTV off the face of the earth. In reality they probably didn't have the room to properly include all so they picked the one they personally liked best to include in full, and they have every right to do so. Even with larger movie files the amount of space on a 50-G Blu-ray disc should properly contain all 3 versions in HD (or they could scale down the Work in Progress version).

Well, did they really need all the cheesy menu games? Those things are big hogs of space and I don't know anyone over the age of 5 who actually uses those. Plus, the first disc was pretty shoddily-assembled to begin with - the "work in progress" version is seamlessly branching in and out of the IMAX print tons of times, it's actually pretty messed up if you look at how it was authored. Given that it was 2002 and DVD was still a new medium, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But they could have also put the IMAX print and some special features on disc 1, then the OTV and possibly the WIP on disc 2...

And like I said, I don't have a problem with them marketing it as a "Special edition." What I do have a problem with is them trying to also market this "original theatrical version" that actually isn't. Same with The Lion King. And I'd be willing to bet that come the Blu-Ray release, it will still have the modified OTV, and we'll be right back to square one. So in essence they are trying to wipe the OTV off the face of the earth by not giving it a proper digital release. They gave the first Chronicles of Narnia a four-disc release, why can't they do it for BatB?!

And with the Blu-ray, it could probably store two full versions on one disc, but I doubt all 3 would fit (in HD anyway). Most Blu-Ray movies I've seen have 15-20GB just for the movie proper, times that by two and most of your space is used up for a dual-layer disc. Hopefully they'll be wise and put either the WIP or OTV on disc 2, so they actually CAN do it properly and not give us one of those shoddy releases like the 2002 DVD.

[SpringHeelJack]

Boy, drfsupercenter should be in charge of producing every studio's DVDs. He could show them a thing or two.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Is there anything in the form of $ or statistics to prove it wasn't for BatB?

No, but popularity isn't always in the form of money. For BatB, maybe most people didn't mind. But there's an entire forum of Star Wars fans who want their OTVs of the OT.

Maybe, but this thread is about BatB, not Star Wars.

Well, did they really need all the cheesy menu games? Those things are big hogs of space and I don't know anyone over the age of 5 who actually uses those. Plus, the first disc was pretty shoddily-assembled to begin with - the "work in progress" version is seamlessly branching in and out of the IMAX print tons of times, it's actually pretty messed up if you look at how it was authored. Given that it was 2002 and DVD was still a new medium, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But they could have also put the IMAX print and some special features on disc 1, then the OTV and possibly the WIP on disc 2...

They gave the first Chronicles of Narnia a four-disc release, why can't they do it for BatB?!

And with the Blu-ray, it could probably store two full versions on one disc, but I doubt all 3 would fit (in HD anyway). Most Blu-Ray movies I've seen have 15-20GB just for the movie proper, times that by two and most of your space is used up for a dual-layer disc. Hopefully they'll be wise and put either the WIP or OTV on disc 2, so they actually CAN do it properly and not give us one of those shoddy releases like the 2002 DVD.

1. There are alot of things that go on a DVD. Cheesey menus may be one, but it's the bonus features, ads, language tracks, commentary etc. It's alot of stuff to fit on 1 disc. Why do yo think Gone With the Wind, Ben-Hur or Around the World in 80 days are split up over two discs? There isn't enough space for those 4 hour movies with commentary to cram on 1 disc without suffering from compression issues.

2. Beauty is a Platinum Edition. Platinums only get 2-discs. If one got more than another the appearance of consistent quality would be ruined (not that they didn't ruined it anyway). Like it or not that's just how Disney works.

3. They could easily do this concept right with Blu-ray by putting the first two version on one disc (which adds up to just under 3 hours of video content) and the Work in Progress as a bonus feature on disc two. Blu-ray should be able to accurately show the sharpness and colours of both versions (and no Marky it won't be blurry like the laserdisc, it will look flat and cartoony like a digitally coloured hand drawn movie should).

[ajmrowland]

Well, if it was shot in 35mm then there's telecining and scanning each frame to worry about.

If it's digital - it's only a matter of encoding.

Ah, well that explains it, but the reviewers still notice stuff like Edge enhancement and color-banding, the latter of which is perhaps a common flaw with digital encodes. I guess I need to learn more about these.

And dude... if you make a DVD in an hour, you can just make thousands of copies of that one. Unlike VHS, all you need is one master image file and you can press hundreds of thousands of identical products.

True, but it still takes time to burn each disc, unless I have special equipment.

And even as far as Blu-Ray is concerned... CAPS has a larger resolution than Blu-Ray. It shouldn't take too much work to get a 1080p master encode.

I never said it didn't. In fact, I'm certain it should, as TV resolutions aren't as high as computer screen resolutions.

[ajmrowland]

In the 3 examples I gave the OTV were severely cut down against or unknown to the director's wishes to please other people who wanted them shorter for whatever reason. Their OTVs have never been released to DVD in an attempt to preserve what was intended, but should they be punished for that? In the case of 1776 the director didn't like either the 141 min OTV or the 180 min laserdisc cut so he made his own 165 min version that was released to DVD. It might be a nice novelty to include more than one edit through seemless branching but if there isn't enough disc space or the director doesn't want people to see it any other way he has the right to do so, because the film should be preserved the way he or she wanted it first and then if possible include something else for the fans.

That's partially why I go for the Extended Cuts of LOTR. Audiences don't know what they're missing when they say they don't like the films, or think they'd be too long.

[ajmrowland]

What?! Are you kidding? I've seen movies come out on DVD exactly 3 months from when they were in theaters... look at most newer DreamWorks films. And those DVDs are actually excellent compared to a lot of them now where they're slacking on DVD to promote Blu-Ray.
It may take that long to *release* a DVD, but you really think the entire time between the film is finished shooting to the time it comes out on DVD, they're actually working on putting it in digital form? That's ridiculous! Now that some films are actually being made in digital format (and the CAPS films all were, hence my point), it WOULD only take a day or two.

Now, you can have different "trials" and such to make sure it's the best looking it can be, but it seriously does not take that long to make mpeg-2 files. If I can do it, why can't they? And I'm only using commercial software (such as TMPGEnc), I'm sure the professionals have something better.

They still need to be transferred (probably 2K, in this example), it's only data to begin with. Then the transferring begins. They need to relay back and forth to the company, the directors, etc. etc. Also a mix needs to be done, and perhaps again. And bonus material and so forth. You very often hear of people delivering audio commentary when they haven't even been to the premiere yet, so what does that tell you?
And wouldn't you think that the professionals did have something better, but that they would also take their time to do it? They're not going to rush it if they don't have to.

Not to mention the fact that the movies need time to absorb as much money as it can in the B.O. No movie will be released within a month of it's theatrical release, let alone a week.

Your post clear things up, if only a bit. I was going to say that Features can be made during production, but I decided to hold out for drf's "evidence".

I'd like to know more about the transferring process. If you can bring up some info, I'd appreciate it.

And Oh yeah, fix'd.

[drfsupercenter]

Maybe, but this thread is about BatB, not Star Wars.

True, but the concept of preserving the OTV applies to all films - not just this one.

1. There are alot of things that go on a DVD. Cheesey menus may be one, but it's the bonus features, ads, language tracks, commentary etc. It's alot of stuff to fit on 1 disc. Why do yo think Gone With the Wind, Ben-Hur or Around the World in 80 days are split up over two discs? There isn't enough space for those 4 hour movies with commentary to cram on 1 disc without suffering from compression issues.

Well GWTW is a REALLY long movie. Beauty and the Beast is short. They managed to fit Lord of the Rings on a single disc (the OTVs, not the extended versions)... and I haven't heard any complains about it having compression issues. There are plenty of 2-3 hour movies that fit fine with several commentaries.

2. Beauty is a Platinum Edition. Platinums only get 2-discs. If one got more than another the appearance of consistent quality would be ruined (not that they didn't ruined it anyway). Like it or not that's just how Disney works.

3. They could easily do this concept right with Blu-ray by putting the first two version on one disc (which adds up to just under 3 hours of video content) and the Work in Progress as a bonus feature on disc two. Blu-ray should be able to accurately show the sharpness and colours of both versions (and no Marky it won't be blurry like the laserdisc, it will look flat and cartoony like a digitally coloured hand drawn movie should).

Well I know, as far as the DVD goes. But that's said and done. Nothing we can do at this point.
And it would be possible to just have the SE and OTV on the first Blu-Ray disc (as well as a commentary or two) and save the WIP for the second disc. But will Disney think of it? Probably not. (Plus, there will still be a DVD re-release to go along with the Blu-Ray, there's no way in heck they could pull that off without screwing it up)

True, but it still takes time to burn each disc, unless I have special equipment.

True. But it doesn't take nearly as much time to produce one digital version as it did back in the analog days with VHS and laserdiscs. Not to mention that studio DVDs are pressed - not burned. Which is mainly why burned DVDs look different than pressed ones.

Not to mention the fact that the movies need time to absorb as much money as it can in the B.O. No movie will be released within a month of it's theatrical release, let alone a week.

Your post clear things up, if only a bit. I was going to say that Features can be made during production, but I decided to hold out for drf's "evidence".

I'd like to know more about the transferring process. If you can bring up some info, I'd appreciate it.

I know they're not gonna release a DVD right away. But what I'm saying is they don't spend that whole 6-month time producing it... they probably have several million copies shipped to stores well before the set release date (As is true with the finished film product for theaters)

As for the special features... some are probably being made even while the film is in production stages. (Like those "how we made the movie" documentaries with footage of them shooting it). What evidence do you want? All I know for sure is it doesn't take them 3, 6, whatever months to make all the extras. Especially with older movies like Beauty and the Beast where some of the features were just ported over from the laserdisc (and things like the commentary of The Lion King).

The transferring process is basically turning the film into a digital source (This entire step can be skipped for CAPS), and then encoding it to MPEG-2 (for DVD) or AVC/MPEG-4 (for Blu-Ray) format. Then is the "authoring", or putting menus and navigation in place. If you want more specific than that, try Google or Wikipedia or something. All I'm good at is digital to digital conversion.

[ajmrowland]

True, but it still takes time to burn each disc, unless I have special equipment.

True. But it doesn't take nearly as much time to produce one digital version as it did back in the analog days with VHS and laserdiscs. Not to mention that studio DVDs are pressed - not burned. Which is mainly why burned DVDs look different than pressed ones.

I won't ask why.

Not to mention the fact that the movies need time to absorb as much money as it can in the B.O. No movie will be released within a month of it's theatrical release, let alone a week.

Your post clear things up, if only a bit. I was going to say that Features can be made during production, but I decided to hold out for drf's "evidence".

I'd like to know more about the transferring process. If you can bring up some info, I'd appreciate it.

I know they're not gonna release a DVD right away. But what I'm saying is they don't spend that whole 6-month time producing it... they probably have several million copies shipped to stores well before the set release date (As is true with the finished film product for theaters)

As for the special features... some are probably being made even while the film is in production stages. (Like those "how we made the movie" documentaries with footage of them shooting it). What evidence do you want? All I know for sure is it doesn't take them 3, 6, whatever months to make all the extras. Especially with older movies like Beauty and the Beast where some of the features were just ported over from the laserdisc (and things like the commentary of The Lion King).

I know.

The transferring process is basically turning the film into a digital source (This entire step can be skipped for CAPS), and then encoding it to MPEG-2 (for DVD) or AVC/MPEG-4 (for Blu-Ray) format. Then is the "authoring", or putting menus and navigation in place. If you want more specific than that, try Google or Wikipedia or something. All I'm good at is digital to digital conversion.

I actually meant the image flaws that can come with a digital transfer. Oh, heck, i'll just wiki them.