DVDizzy Forum

Hm, what blue backdrop? Can someone post comparison pictures?

I would get a picture on my TV like that, but the only 2003 DVD I have is a copy I made, and I deleted the 4:3 one to avoid needing to uber-compress it to a single layer.

Suppose I could use my WDMC VHS... but for now I won't bother.

Do you see how the DVD is purple and looks just overall much better?

Duster you can call me Michael/Mike if you want, and I agree the Blu is just overdone on the cover.

Looks like a blueberry cake with a Sleeping Beauty decal on it.

Love the rich purple on the DVD cover. *big fan of purple*

CampbellzSoup wrote:The only thing I don't like abou the Blu ray is how they made the backdrop "blue" as well...that's pretty tacky the DVD cover looks much classier.

I know what you mean. The movie companies are becoming obsessed with making the cover artwork blue.
Look at the cover art for Young Frankenstein:


and Twister:


It's like, I get it, BLU-Ray, but I kind of wish they would stop ruining the cover artwork for some of these movies.

Wow, Campbellz, you're a Mike, too, 'cause I'm Mike! Well, I will call you Mike if you want. I guess we won't get confused if we call each other Mike...?!

Yea, I don't want all the covers to be blue from now on, but they will. But it's not like I like the design that much anyway. Any of the first four of these would've been better:


The fifth one was the one that turned into what we have now, a redone version of the 2003 DVD cover! I was hoping any of the first four covers, mainly the 4th one, in purple, would be the Blu-ray cover, perhaps with a silver, not blue, border. But consumers are dumb and might complain they didn't know it was a Blu-ray cause it wasn't blue!

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I like the purple one better myself... but honestly, I think the 2003 has a better cover. It's basically the same but has a cooler arrangement.

I LOVE the third one for some reason. Well, I love the coloring. I just don't like how Malificent is the major focus.

drfsupercenter wrote:Yeah, I see what you mean.

I like the purple one better myself... but honestly, I think the 2003 has a better cover. It's basically the same but has a cooler arrangement.

I agree - except everyone is too off-model for my likies.

Escapay,

You are right, it IS a matter of perspective.
But the difference between a cinema screen and a widescreen tv in your home is so big, that you would have to sit miles away from the cinema screen to get the same perspective as your home situation, and that's impossible, because there's no room for that in a cinema.

Disney Duster wrote: I just said the new ratio makes it real hard to see on some TV's that statement is true and the original theatrical ratio would make it easier to see. It's true!

Absolutely true!

Escapay wrote:No wonder Blu-ray.com makes fun of us.

albert

You're the one who said it!

I find it hilarious that Blu-ray.com members are being called "shallow fetishists" by a crowd of people who then proceed to post comparison shots of the freakin' cover art. After all, the color palette of the packaging is the most important element of this release!

Marky_198 wrote:Escapay,

You are right, it IS a matter of perspective.
But the difference between a cinema screen and a widescreen tv in your home is so big, that you would have to sit miles away from the cinema screen to get the same perspective as your home situation, and that's impossible, because there's no room for that in a cinema.

I don't believe that at all. You can look at a reproduction of the Mona Lisa (for example) in an art book at half it's size or less and still appreciate it. Likewise, the Louvre doesn't have a copy next to the original Mona Lisa blown up to double-size just so people can see the brush-work clearer. And the Louvre definitely would never support blowing up the picture but cropping the sides or bottom off, even if the picture was to be viewed in another media/format. Can you imagine having a zoomed in head and shoulders of the Mona Lisa, with the Torso being cropped off being approved by anyone with an interest in art?

Marky you yourself have often mentioned owning a Technicolor book with screen images reproduced inside. These are smaller than on a cinema screen - would you say these make the artwork suffer?

I know TV is not exactly the same as a book (NTSC TV is limited to 480 horizonal lines of resolution for example) but you've also critisised the Blu-ray screengrabs for being too sharp. I really don't know what you actually want from a home video release?!?

In case anyone cares, DVDTown has posted their review of Sleeping Beauty Platinum Edition:

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/sleeping-beauty/6351

Netty wrote:Can you imagine having a zoomed in head and shoulders of the Mona Lisa, with the Torso being cropped off being approved by anyone with an interest in art?

Eek! You're making all the 'detail from ...' snapshots on an art book of mine seem evil!

Netty wrote:NTSC TV is limited to 480 horizonal lines of resolution for example.

I'm assuming that that feature inherent to NTSC can be observed on any standard definition source, be it a DVD, video cassette, laserdisc or television broadcast. But what happens when we speak of high definition? Does PAL still surpass NTSC in terms of picture quality?

Cooly wrote:In case anyone cares, DVDTown has posted their review of Sleeping Beauty Platinum Edition.

That reviewer sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Since when is the aspect ratio of 70mm Technirama 2.55:1?

Julian Carter wrote:

Netty wrote:Can you imagine having a zoomed in head and shoulders of the Mona Lisa, with the Torso being cropped off being approved by anyone with an interest in art?

Eek! You're making all the 'detail from ...' snapshots on an art book of mine seem evil!

If "detail from" snapshots were the only way to view the art, then yes, they would be evil. Evil evil evil things!

Hello. Just wanted to drop in with a review for the new Blu Ray version of Sleeping Beauty. I got the disc on wendsday and have now had a chance to view most everything on it. I'm in no way a professional reviewer, and please excuse any typos.
The picture quality on this Blu Ray is nothing short of amazing. You have to see it to believe it. Beautiful colors, deep blacks, not a scatch or speck to be seen. The detail will blow your mind. Just like with a live action blu ray, you'll find your eyes traveling away from the main action just because the detail of background scenes and items is so pristine.
Trust me when I say, you'll be amazed.
The DTS HD 7.1 audio is very nice also. The sound effects and music are all very clear, no hissing, and all surrounds seemed to get plenty of action.
As for the extras, some from the old special edition are carried over, and some are not.
Gone are the "Once Upon A Dream" documentary (16 min.), and several 2-3 min. featurettes. They are replaced by a new 45 minute documentary, which is much better and pretty much covers anything lost from the old docs.
Also retained are a few storyboard sequences, 3 live action sequences, trailers, and the photo galleries (the blu ray claims many are never before seen).
The Peter Tchaikovsky story is here again, this time with 2 differant intro's.
4 men paint 1 tree is still here.
A new bonus is a featurette on Eyvind Earle.
Another new bonus is a featurette on the music restoration (but gone from the previous dvd is the one on the film restoration, and widescreen to fullscreen comparisions)
Also retained is the short film "Grand Canyon", but this time its in HD. Wait until you see it. It's beautiful.
Another new bonus is a recreation of the Sleeping Beauty castle from Disneyland, and also a featurette on it.
I havnt watched the Cine-Explore PiP track yet, nor have I listened to Lasseter's commentary.
I tried to access Disney's BD Live, but it keeps telling me it's not available in my area. I'm thinking it's just not up and running yet, since the official street date is still 2 days away.
Lastly, gone is the cheesy teeny bop video from the old DVD, but it's replaced by another one thats just as cringe inducing. And gone are any set top games, but are replaced by some cool new ones. And the Dragon Encounter Audio Sensory Experiance is short, but kinda cool. It's best if you have a large HD monitor and full 7.1 surround.
So thats it. I can't recomend the Blu Ray upgrade enough. You'll be glad you did.

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/sleeping-be ... first/5981

WTF? Is that for real?


While PAL DVDs may have a higher resolution, they're also either sped up or telecined. Sped up videos can easily be slowed down, but they're a PITA to watch. Whereas, if they're telecined (like most NTSC TV shows are on PAL DVDs,) they'll have unfixable motion blur.
I just say, whichever is the native format I want it in. If it's a TV show made in a PAL country (for example: H2O: Just Add Water, that they're showing on Nickelodeon here,) I'd want it in PAL. But for movies and NTSC TV shows I want it in NTSC (NTSC telecining is easily fixed with some IVTC filters...)
And for that matter, Disney almost always makes their DVDs 480p. At least with the PEs, they're all at 24fps progressive, vs. interlaced.

How'd you get it already?

Did you rob a delivery truck or something?

Thomas J wrote:I LOVE the third one for some reason. Well, I love the coloring. I just don't like how Malificent is the major focus.

I think that the third cover is actually being used in the UK Collectors Edition 'book' cover, but slightly altered. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but thats what it looks like to me!

Sorry for interrupting the thread but can someone point me in the right direction to find Sleeping Beauty 2003/2008 comparison pics? Have tried looking & sure I've seen them up here but can't find them right now.


Oh, on Blu-ray there is no PAL/NTSC - it's simply a pure 1080p signal regardless.

Ta very much