Interesting post on Shrek's affect on Disney DVD

[Jack]

This was taken from a post here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/vie ... tm?t=23603

"Another factor in Shrek's DVD success was what essentially changed animated DVD's from then on, it was a single release. You can tell from the suppliments that this was not the way it was originally planned. The diocumentaries are essentially the same on both discs, but the disc holding the pan and scan version of the film contains all the "family-friendly" material, while the widescreen disc has more technical features. Nevermind the fact that the "11 hours of bonus material" isn't on the disc afterall.

Shrek's success changed Disney's marketing strategy for DVDs and we started getting the single release. This began, appropriately, with Monsters, Inc. This is a very good set, but now both versions of the film are compressed way down to fit onto a single disc, and the results are not flattering. Probably not that noticeable on smaller sets but abundant on larger ones is the proliferation of compression artifacts. An unfortunate result of lack of space.

And so it would go on with all of Disney's animated releases from that point. Even the Platinum release of Beauty & The Beast suffers from this. There was not a pan & scan version of the film, but instead 3 seperate versions on one disc. The logical thing, it would seem, would be to utilize seamless branching to devote as much space as possible to the film. But Disney is well aware of the problems with this on some low-end players and did not want to deal with the fallout. The results, unfortunately, are quite bad. The artifacts are rampant in this release, and although more space was given to the Special Edition, the degraded video is startling. The suppliments on that release were equally lacking."

Do you guys agree with him? His theory of Shrek affecting the quality of Disney's 2-Disc releases seems legit.

[Luke]

Sure, the Shrek DVD was the inspiration for Monsters Inc to be a single 2-disc release, rather than an overpriced single disc and a colossaly-priced double-disc. Well, actually Snow White and Shrek set that trend.

What I'd give credit to the Shrek DVD alone is the heavy emphasis on fluff - games and like that really stupid Shrek 'karaoke' thing, Disney's music videos and new scenes. I'm not a fan of pandering to one of two distinct audiences - by thinking that kids like games and music videos and adults like storyboards and talking heads. There undoubtedly is a lot of crossover, and a well-done 30-minute documentary (like the one on Toy Story, or the Disney Channel one that Disney actually included on Hunchback) can be most entertaining for young and old alike, without making sacrifices.

[Disneykid]

In terms of affecting HOW they're released, yes. I believe that if Shrek wasn't made, all the Disney DVD's minus the platinums (Snow White came out around the time Shrek did and SW was a one-release thing) would be dual releases. BUT I don't think Shrek affected quality at all. Beauty and the Beast may not be as jam packed with meat and potatoes as Snow White, but it's still a great DVD and much better than Shrek's, IMO. I found Shrek's DVD to be quite unspectacular. It just didn't seen that packed to me and the features it did have just seemed all too familiar to stand out. Personally, I hate it when companies split 2-disc editions up so that one disc is family friendly and one is for enthusiasts because I feel like I'm essentially buying a packed 1-disc edition and have an extra disc of kiddie fluff I'll watch once or twice and never again. This is why I'm very worried about Finding Nemo because I believe I'll watch disc 2 once or twice at the most, then treat the set like a 1-disc edition because everything I want and care about is on the same disc as the film. Sleeping Beauty and Monsters, Inc. did it right the way by putting EVERYTHING on disc 2 and have disc 1 be all about the movie.

[Jack]

Very good points, guys. I'm becoming rather annoyed at seeing seperate sections on DVDs (let alone seperate discs) for "Families" and "Enthusiasts" myself.

Personally, I think Snow White was the absolute best at blending the two together. Sure it had games and sing alongs made exclusively for kids, but much of the documentary material was made in a way that really anyone could watch it and enjoy it, for the most part, and still appeal to film buffs.

[MickeyMouseboy]

SHREK SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

[Disneykid]

That was subtle...

[Joe Carioca]

SHREK SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

I AGREE!!!!

[Loomis]

SHREK SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

I think that is going a bit too far. I liked Shrek. It has some charm.
Many disagree, but I think that is only because it isn't Disney.
It has a Princess Fiona!!!
Fionas are wonderful!

[MickeyMouseboy]

SHREK SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

I think that is going a bit too far. I liked Shrek. It has some charm.
Many disagree, but I think that is only because it isn't Disney.
It has a Princess Fiona!!!
Fionas are wonderful!

Fionas is a rip off of Trinity

[Luke]

Yes, beautiful fat ugly Fiona. Boy they really screwed up with their sequel by not going with an interspecies marriage.

[Jake Lipson]

Yes, Shrek was the basis of Monsters, Inc. being a single release.

With its Karoke Dance Party segment, Shrek can be blamed for Disney's special edition recuttings. However, that can also be blamed on George Lucas's tweaking of the original Star Wars trilogy.

Otherwise, I find that Disney's comprable two-disc DVD product, even the Beauty and the Beast DVD which was much more fluffy than Snow White, is always head and shoulders above Shrek. The single-disc versions of Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet are on par with the DreamWorks single-disc special editions like Spirit and The Prince of Egypt.

[Loomis]

Yes, beautiful fat ugly Fiona. Boy they really screwed up with their sequel by not going with an interspecies marriage.

Just be careful.
There is a REASON I have a fondness for Fionas you know...

[indianajdp]

Yes, beautiful fat ugly Fiona. Boy they really screwed up with their sequel by not going with an interspecies marriage.

Just be careful.
There is a REASON I have a fondness for Fionas you know...

ummm...she's a redhead?
Or a cow?

[MickeyMouseboy]

Just be careful.
There is a REASON I have a fondness for Fionas you know...

ummm...she's a redhead?
Or a cow?

[AnimeFanBoy]

Hey Jack are you on boxofficemojo 2??

[Porce]

SHREK SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

Agreed!

[Jack]

Hey Jack are you on boxofficemojo 2??

I sure am. Whats your screenname there? Because I don't recognize you.

It's a great site, isn't it?

[Luke]

It's a great site, isn't it?

It's a great site once you deactivate pop-ups.

[Jack]

It's a great site, isn't it?

It's a great site once you deactivate pop-ups.

Oh hell yeah, those are annoying. It's getting to be like IGN in terms of sheer mass of ads.

[2099net]

And so it would go on with all of Disney's animated releases from that point. Even the Platinum release of Beauty & The Beast suffers from this. There was not a pan & scan version of the film, but instead 3 seperate versions on one disc. The logical thing, it would seem, would be to utilize seamless branching to devote as much space as possible to the film. But Disney is well aware of the problems with this on some low-end players and did not want to deal with the fallout. The results, unfortunately, are quite bad.

The reason seamless branching was not used on the Beauty and the Beast DVD is nothing to do with player compatibility, it's because multiple-angles were extensively used throughout the film to implement the Work-In-Progress edition. True seamless branching (rather than extended branching, which is what the Beauty and the Beast film uses at the layer change point) is implemented by using a method similar to how multiple angles work and as a result it is not possible to perform a seamless branch at a point while there are multiple standard angle picture streams. There would be too many different packets (or groups) of data interlaced in the bitstream.

So how do angles work? Well basically although the maximum bitrate for an encoded movie is 10, this is not the maximum rate data can be read from the disc, it is only the (theoretical) maximum the decoder inside the player can process and decode the incoming bitstream.

When multiple angles are used, the multiple image information (GOP - Group of Picture data) are interlaced in the bitstream like this:

Angle A | Angle B | Angle C | Angle A | Angle B | Angle C etc.

Each GOP has a header, meaning that when the player reads a GOP not relating to the angle desired the information is quickly thrown away (it doesn't even begin to be processed by the decoder) and the next GOP is read. So the disc will be read at a faster rate than normal, but the bitrate being processed by the decoder still has a maximum of just over 10. We know DVD players do not read the bitstream at a fixed rate as MPEG is a variable compression codec.

Seamless Branching works in a similar way, but as well as GOP data, the soundtracks are also interlaced inside the bitstream. Also, because when a branched segment of film is played, the runtime is different, each 'branch' has to be a multiple of the the shortest branch's runtime.

For example using simple numbers, should the unbranched footage be 100 seconds, and the branched footage be 120 seconds the longer branch would be implemented as 200 seconds. That way the branches can be neatly interlaced in the bit stream (1:2 in this example)

Branch 1 | Branch 2 | Branch 2 | Branch 1 | Branch 2 | Branch 2 etc

Again each branching point 'chunk' of data has a header, meaning the unwanted branch's data can be quickly discarded before processing. Again, the reading of the disc is faster then normal, but the maximum bit rate passed through to be decoded remains just over 10.

Because the branch points of the film are interlaced in the same datastream seamless branching doesn't require the read head of the player to search for a new track so the switching between branch points is seamless. Extended branching simply makes the read head search for a new chapter and as a result a short pause is noticable on most players.

Of course, I don't fully understand seamless branching. The examples given above are very simple and there are lots of other considerations to be taken into account.

For example, in the example above with the 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 format logically the disc would have to be read at 3 times the normal speed. But this doesn't happen. So although in theory there is no need to take a hit on the maximum bitrate, in practice their is a hit on the through bitrate. Taking a hit on the bitrate could reduce the picture quality.

Also MPEG keyframes have to be taken into consideration. Due to how keyframes work it may be neccassary for the branches to be mixed but still keep the 1:2 ratio when actually encoded.

eg:
1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |1 | 2 | 2 | may need to be encoded as
2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2| to optimise the picture quality on the actual film.

As you can see impelmenting seamless branching is difficult - not only does it require the transfer to be of the utmost quality for both branches (to ensure no jarring differences in brightness and contrast etc) but it also requires lots of manual timing and encoding tweaking if it is to be done properly. This is why most authoring houses don't offer seamless branching.

Disney has used seamless branching on at least one title (Miramax's Kate and Leopold) so I guess that they can do it if they want to. It will be interesting to see if their Lion King release is implemented by seamless branching, extended branching or simply 2 copies of the film being encoded onto the disc as no angles should be used (apart from at the beginning and end when they do the alternative language titles and credits).

I hope that explanation makes sense to you. It is rather vague and it is only my understanding of the process from what little I've managed to find written about it. I could be talking complete nonsense, but I think that at least the basics are correct. I've explained it as best I can. If you don't understand it, don't worry.

As a rule, I've noticed that Disney seems to have more problems with their discs than any other company - from fiascos like Dinosaur and Monsters, Inc. on some players to minor problems like sound drop-outs etc on other discs (like Atlantis). They don't seem to mind, and have even started to cover themselves for it now, buy putting this disclaimer on their covers "Some players may not be able to access all features".