DVDizzy Forum

I have no idea why Disney pretends that HoND and Hercules don't exist. They're both great movies.

Yeah Black Caludron got better treatment and that movie is almost, usually considered to the lowest point of Disney History. If HoND and Herc had a princess they would be getting better treatment imo.

But the aspect ratio was correct on Hercules....

It was the resolution and the transfer that were off....

Sicoe6256 wrote:A friend of mine downloaded an HD version of The Hunchback from iTunes, and it features a new digital restoration. Here is a comparison between that version (on the right) and the DVD version from 2002 (on the left).


Not bad...not bad at all
The Hunchback will be released on Blu-ray in Germany and other parts of Europe on March 7, 2013.

http://www.amazon.de/Gl%C3%B6ckner-Notr ... 553&sr=1-4

Could you post these in 2 separate pictures, without resizing them or anything?

Ouch!

Doesn´t look that much different than the Rescuers Down Under BR transfer.

Hope Disney DOES restore this one.

I don't think the current iTunes transfer is going to be what ends up on the Blu-ray for a couple of reasons:

1) The new transfer for the BD's would not be available on iTunes this soon before release.

2) No Disney Blu-ray has worse resolution than the DVD. The resolution on the iTunes screenshot is by far worse than the DVD. That tells me either iTunes is using a questionable source or that their claims of a video being HD is false. That DVD screenshot looks like it came from an HD transfer when put side by side next to that one. Disney's Blu-rays may not always be as great as we want them to be but none of them look worse than the DVD that came before it. I would go as far as to say that all of them look better to varying degrees.

DC Fan wrote:Ouch!

Doesn´t look that much different than the Rescuers Down Under BR transfer.

Hope Disney DOES restore this one.

The Rescuers Down Under BR still beats the previous DVD though. This iTunes transfer doesn't do that in regards to the DVD. That's why this is questionable.

The_Iceflash wrote:I don't think the current iTunes transfer is going to be what ends up on the Blu-ray for a couple of reasons:

1) The new transfer for the BD's would not be available on iTunes this soon before release.

2) No Disney Blu-ray has worse resolution than the DVD. The resolution on the iTunes screenshot is by far worse than the DVD. That tells me either iTunes is using a questionable source or that their claims of a video being HD is false. That DVD screenshot looks like it came from an HD transfer when put side by side next to that one. Disney's Blu-rays may not always be as great as we want them to be but none of them look worse than the DVD that came before it. I would go as far as to say that all of them look better to varying degrees.

The second screenshot does not have worse resolution than the first. The problem is that whoever created the comparison shrank the HD version to put it on the same level as the SD version. Huge mistake that has completely messed up the lines and produced an effect similar to aliasing (it's not, but it looks similar).

That's why I asked for the 1:1 pixel image some posts above.

Yes, Rescuers Down Under is an improvement but not by THAT much.

The left is the dvd source? Why does it look better to me? The itunes master looks flat and washed out by comparison.

It's sad that these two releases won't get the actual special edition treatment they should have gotten in the past.

I hope they include the original music videos so my music video DVD will be complete lol!

Lnds500 wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:I don't think the current iTunes transfer is going to be what ends up on the Blu-ray for a couple of reasons:

1) The new transfer for the BD's would not be available on iTunes this soon before release.

2) No Disney Blu-ray has worse resolution than the DVD. The resolution on the iTunes screenshot is by far worse than the DVD. That tells me either iTunes is using a questionable source or that their claims of a video being HD is false. That DVD screenshot looks like it came from an HD transfer when put side by side next to that one. Disney's Blu-rays may not always be as great as we want them to be but none of them look worse than the DVD that came before it. I would go as far as to say that all of them look better to varying degrees.

The second screenshot does not have worse resolution than the first. The problem is that whoever created the comparison shrank the HD version to put it on the same level as the SD version. Huge mistake that has completely messed up the lines and produced an effect similar to aliasing (it's not, but it looks similar).

That's why I asked for the 1:1 pixel image some posts above.

Yes, indeed. I realized this when I enlarged the linked photo. It really does give the wrong impression about its restoration and makes it hard to compare them accurately.

Hercules is a terrible saturday morning cartoon of a movie, but Hunchback is one of the best they've ever done. It could make an incredible special edition. I'm not a blu ray fan, but it deserves the best they can offer.

ps. Mulan is not princess.

I can't believe no one started a new thread or commented on this one already today.... GIVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT HUNCHBACK!!!

Tho I smell an edition lacking in bonus features...

And who added the stupid (and badly drawn) gargoyles to the cover?!?!?!?

Marce82 wrote:I can't believe no one started a new thread or commented on this one already today.... GIVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT HUNCHBACK!!!

Tho I smell an edition lacking in bonus features...

And who added the stupid (and badly drawn) gargoyles to the cover?!?!?!?

Since the topic is void of the info you are discussing, it would be nice to inform us what the hell you are talking about

EDIT

first page

sad to see disney get sooo close to an amazing cover, only to ruin it.

sunhuntin wrote:sad to see disney get sooo close to an amazing cover, only to ruin it.

That's what I said as well. That's the second classy cover Disney created and then tarnished (the other one being Peter Pan's)

While I do of course wish they would have left the gargoyles off, it is still one of the nicer covers that Disney has come out with recently.

My question is... why is the title only named once, when all the other 2 movie collections have put both titles on there? I wish this was the way they'd do it normally - all these two movie collections would look so much nicer if they didn't put both titles on there.

Finally a Blu release for Hunchback. I'm a little annoyed that it's ANOTHER double movie pack. Don't me wrong, I'm going to get it regardless.

Never seen the "Hunchback" sequel so will probably give it a spin when I buy the disc.

"Mulan" is billed as the 15th Anniversary Edition. Does that mean they'll be including some new extras?

SWillie! wrote:While I do of course wish they would have left the gargoyles off, it is still one of the nicer covers that Disney has come out with recently.

My question is... why is the title only named once, when all the other 2 movie collections have put both titles on there? I wish this was the way they'd do it normally - all these two movie collections would look so much nicer if they didn't put both titles on there.

You just said exactly what I was about to say.

SWillie! wrote:My question is... why is the title only named once, when all the other 2 movie collections have put both titles on there? I wish this was the way they'd do it normally - all these two movie collections would look so much nicer if they didn't put both titles on there.

The other movies also clip art characters from the second movie over the original cover art. Brother Bear's is just the DVD cover art with some added clip art for the sequel. It's obnoxious.