Hey I'm new here and still trying to struggle to understand Disneys release type's. It would have been nice if they were all just labelled something like the 'Classic Collection'. Then they should have released the 2 disc versions like that instead of all this confusing stuff.
Now anyway my question is will the UK see a Region 2 release of the new Mulan DVD or is it Region 1 only? As the Alice In Wonderland Masterpeice DVD as far as I know was only Region 1.
Also how comes some of the Region 2 DVDs are different than the ones in Region 1. For example I just got Sleeping Beauty 2 Disc collectors edition, which I don't think is the one released in USA.
Does anybody have a bit more information on the UK DVDs etc as I'm new to the Disney DVDs.
I appologise if this is confusing I don't know really how to explain it well.
Region 2 Mulan 2 Disc + Other + Beauty and the Beast R2/1
So far there's no word on the UK Mulan, but I'm positive it'll be released there eventually, as will Alice in Wonderland (I think it's been confirmed that they're getting Alice January 2005). The Sleeping Beauty release in the UK is generally the same as the U.S. Special Edition, the only differences is the U.S. one has commentary, some new games, and some introductions to certain features. This page contains releases found in Region 2 that aren't in Reigion 1, yet:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/international.html
I'm not entirely sure why sometimes the UK release of a film will differ from the US one, but they seem to be the same in general (at least in regard to their 2-disc releases).
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/international.html
I'm not entirely sure why sometimes the UK release of a film will differ from the US one, but they seem to be the same in general (at least in regard to their 2-disc releases).
Many thanks for your reply. I believe that the UK release that is due in January is going to be a single disc. So I think I may just import the masterpiece edition of Alice when I get a chance aswell as Mulan.
Also do you know if there is any word on any of the other Treasures being released over here. All I know is that Mickey Living In Colour Vol 1 and Silly Symphonies have already been released with a September date for Chronological Donald. It's annoying to see that there only releasing half of what the US got 3 years ago!
Thanks
Also do you know if there is any word on any of the other Treasures being released over here. All I know is that Mickey Living In Colour Vol 1 and Silly Symphonies have already been released with a September date for Chronological Donald. It's annoying to see that there only releasing half of what the US got 3 years ago!
Thanks
-
DLRP Magic!
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:05 am
- Contact:
Mulan has been announced as a 2Disc Special Edition for the UK, to be released on November 1st, the same day as Mulan II.
So far i don't think we'e had any confirmation of special features and definately no artwork, but this is completely normal for WDHEUK! Also, that date could very well change at any time, but personally i think we will get the 2-Disc set around that date this year - it kinda makes sense since last Christmas it was shown on the BBC.
So far i don't think we'e had any confirmation of special features and definately no artwork, but this is completely normal for WDHEUK! Also, that date could very well change at any time, but personally i think we will get the 2-Disc set around that date this year - it kinda makes sense since last Christmas it was shown on the BBC.
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
One physical reason for the differences
Ahh the international forum. My favorite.
One reason for differences between editions from different regions, specially PAL vs NTSC, is pure physics.
DVD discs have limited capacity and are the same anywhere. But the movie files are not.
PAL images have 20% more pixels than NTSC images. If you don't change the level of compression, PAL movie-video files ocupy 20% more space, while PAL audio files from movies are 4% smaller than the NTSC ones (cus they last 4% less after PAL speed-up)
On the other hand, segments shot on interlaced "videotape" are the same size on both.
In the end all this variations can lead to the program contents of one NTSC dvd to be a different size (in GB's) than the very same content on a PAL dvd. If the NTSC dvd is already full, the PAL version might not fit. Or viceversa.
In that case the company releasing the DVD has to make a compromise. Reduce content, or increase compression to make the files fit, which leads to loss of quality and increase of noise and artifacts. Or spring for an extra disc, increasing manufacturing costs.
This is independent from any copyright and regional markerting reasons.
So eliminate a DTS track here, add a pan/scan version there, change the foreign language tracks, put in (or out) some trailers, "increase the compresion 2 fold, nobody will notice", or, "actually, if we shortened the documentary, we could use minimal compresion on the main feature and the video will look fabulous", etc, are things that can happen on the way to your dvd region
Hope this takes a little out of the mistery.
And I must say that a feature or two less in exchange for the increased resolution of PAL dvd images sometimes is a good thing. After all we want to watch the movie at its best.
Others might want to have all the features instead. While another group will bite the bullet and buy two editions. Or three.
One reason for differences between editions from different regions, specially PAL vs NTSC, is pure physics.
DVD discs have limited capacity and are the same anywhere. But the movie files are not.
PAL images have 20% more pixels than NTSC images. If you don't change the level of compression, PAL movie-video files ocupy 20% more space, while PAL audio files from movies are 4% smaller than the NTSC ones (cus they last 4% less after PAL speed-up)
On the other hand, segments shot on interlaced "videotape" are the same size on both.
In the end all this variations can lead to the program contents of one NTSC dvd to be a different size (in GB's) than the very same content on a PAL dvd. If the NTSC dvd is already full, the PAL version might not fit. Or viceversa.
In that case the company releasing the DVD has to make a compromise. Reduce content, or increase compression to make the files fit, which leads to loss of quality and increase of noise and artifacts. Or spring for an extra disc, increasing manufacturing costs.
This is independent from any copyright and regional markerting reasons.
So eliminate a DTS track here, add a pan/scan version there, change the foreign language tracks, put in (or out) some trailers, "increase the compresion 2 fold, nobody will notice", or, "actually, if we shortened the documentary, we could use minimal compresion on the main feature and the video will look fabulous", etc, are things that can happen on the way to your dvd region
Hope this takes a little out of the mistery.
And I must say that a feature or two less in exchange for the increased resolution of PAL dvd images sometimes is a good thing. After all we want to watch the movie at its best.
Others might want to have all the features instead. While another group will bite the bullet and buy two editions. Or three.
That's all very well deathie mouse, but it's rare that any DVD comes even close to it's maximum capacity. I know we can get into the argument of peak bit-rates etc, but this really doesn't affect non-movie extras that much if there is still storage space on the disc (but it obviously can affect soundtracks and commentaries on the movie itself). For example, I'm pretty sure the UK Sleeping Beauty could of had the trailers included on the movie disc, being as the US version had two full versions of the movie on theirs, compared to the movie and a few supplements on ours (DTS or no DTS track).
As for prefering PAL - I do myself for animated movies - PAL just seems a lot clearer. The difference is not that noticable to me on non-animated titles. But plenty of people dislike the PAL speedup on the soundtrack (which I must say is something I've never noticed, even when compared to NTSC copies of the same title - along with a lot of people who are used to PAL transfers).
As for prefering PAL - I do myself for animated movies - PAL just seems a lot clearer. The difference is not that noticable to me on non-animated titles. But plenty of people dislike the PAL speedup on the soundtrack (which I must say is something I've never noticed, even when compared to NTSC copies of the same title - along with a lot of people who are used to PAL transfers).
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
neo_virus , I just recalled that someone else mentioned a 4th R2 PAL Treasure release in this international forum, scheduled for an European nation. I think it was either Mickey color 2 or BW 1. Do a search and you might find the post. If i find it i'll mention it here.
2099net I completely agree with you, there's no reason for a 7 GB dvd from region X to have 11 features and for it's region Z counterpart to have only 10. I just sugested the storage capacity and different file sizes as one of the possible reasons for the discrepancies. When it comes to the difference among many releases, probably a better reason could be: Da monkeys are running da house! : >
I always read that PAL DVD was a superior system because of the specs, but I'd never had the chance to see it till last summer while vacationing in Europe. Just one look and I was hooked. After 35mm, PAL dvd's are the best thing (not counting HD sistems that are not mass marketed yet) and i say this as a former projectionist. (I projected Lion King for example. And it was thru a 1.85 aperture btw).
Digital media has the great advantage that if you have the right hardware you can almost always recuperate 100% of the quality that is on the disc. While film, being analog and run on century old mechanical devices very seldom reaches not even 70% of its potential. That extra 20% "area" on PAL starts crossing the boundary from what we perceive as "video like " to "film like". My PAL Fantasia looks better than any 16mm projection I've seen, heh, it even looks better than the recollection I have from watching it in the theaters many years ago and on top of that has the original 4 track Fantasound. And I don't have the recent UK dvd, so I might have a previous version (It's a PAL short version ) When I watch the R1 dvd, it is video to me. But the R1 anthology box has all this extra features. On the other hand all my Disney R2 dvd's look so good i forget i'm watching video, scanning lines and strange non film artifacts start to fade from view.
Which makes those diferences between regions all the more frustrating! If I want the best picture i always want the PAL, (of course, I mean if the video masters come from the same film element) but many times it may have less features. Sometimes it's the opposite and of course that frustrates my friends that don't have PAL capable equipment (for example my PAL Beauty and the Beast has an extra music video)
Right now I have the R1 Sleeping Beauty cus i didnt see the PAL widescreen on stores in my vacation, therefore I have the extras not available in the UK. But I sometimes think i should get the UK one some day for the extra resolution, Sleeping Beauty being a large gauge film (anamorphic sideways 35mm, aka Technirama) it deserves a larger presentation
I did get the PAL pan and scan which was available there (for research purposes, honest) and even tho it hasnt the Lowry "thing" I find the slight film grain more film like and guess what? the primary colors are slightly more pure than the R1. Those technicoloured birds never looked so good.
In the end for some films the solution sadly becomes: Watch the movie- the PAL R2 version. Watch the extras- the NTSC R1 version.
As for sound speed up, i hear it and i wish it wasnt there but i prefer to loose 4% of the sound quality in exchange for 20% better picture. And no motion artifacts. and sometimes, more accurate color. (You probably know what NTSC is sometimes called
) And my DVD player has pitch control.
I haven't purchased Alice yet hoping for a indentical PAL edition in the future, likewise i'm awaiting the R2 Mulan
2099net I completely agree with you, there's no reason for a 7 GB dvd from region X to have 11 features and for it's region Z counterpart to have only 10. I just sugested the storage capacity and different file sizes as one of the possible reasons for the discrepancies. When it comes to the difference among many releases, probably a better reason could be: Da monkeys are running da house! : >
I always read that PAL DVD was a superior system because of the specs, but I'd never had the chance to see it till last summer while vacationing in Europe. Just one look and I was hooked. After 35mm, PAL dvd's are the best thing (not counting HD sistems that are not mass marketed yet) and i say this as a former projectionist. (I projected Lion King for example. And it was thru a 1.85 aperture btw).
Digital media has the great advantage that if you have the right hardware you can almost always recuperate 100% of the quality that is on the disc. While film, being analog and run on century old mechanical devices very seldom reaches not even 70% of its potential. That extra 20% "area" on PAL starts crossing the boundary from what we perceive as "video like " to "film like". My PAL Fantasia looks better than any 16mm projection I've seen, heh, it even looks better than the recollection I have from watching it in the theaters many years ago and on top of that has the original 4 track Fantasound. And I don't have the recent UK dvd, so I might have a previous version (It's a PAL short version ) When I watch the R1 dvd, it is video to me. But the R1 anthology box has all this extra features. On the other hand all my Disney R2 dvd's look so good i forget i'm watching video, scanning lines and strange non film artifacts start to fade from view.
Which makes those diferences between regions all the more frustrating! If I want the best picture i always want the PAL, (of course, I mean if the video masters come from the same film element) but many times it may have less features. Sometimes it's the opposite and of course that frustrates my friends that don't have PAL capable equipment (for example my PAL Beauty and the Beast has an extra music video)
Right now I have the R1 Sleeping Beauty cus i didnt see the PAL widescreen on stores in my vacation, therefore I have the extras not available in the UK. But I sometimes think i should get the UK one some day for the extra resolution, Sleeping Beauty being a large gauge film (anamorphic sideways 35mm, aka Technirama) it deserves a larger presentation
I did get the PAL pan and scan which was available there (for research purposes, honest) and even tho it hasnt the Lowry "thing" I find the slight film grain more film like and guess what? the primary colors are slightly more pure than the R1. Those technicoloured birds never looked so good.
In the end for some films the solution sadly becomes: Watch the movie- the PAL R2 version. Watch the extras- the NTSC R1 version.
As for sound speed up, i hear it and i wish it wasnt there but i prefer to loose 4% of the sound quality in exchange for 20% better picture. And no motion artifacts. and sometimes, more accurate color. (You probably know what NTSC is sometimes called
) And my DVD player has pitch control.I haven't purchased Alice yet hoping for a indentical PAL edition in the future, likewise i'm awaiting the R2 Mulan
Oh yes. I don't think anyone doubts that you can see the difference on the PAL transfers. Beauty and the Beast looks twice as good as the US set (despite using the same not-really-branching option for the two versions).
However, Beauty and the Beast may be a whole different transfer as the Silver Screen Partners opening is present.
I do prefer PAL, but sadly, R1 gets most extras.
However, Beauty and the Beast may be a whole different transfer as the Silver Screen Partners opening is present.
I do prefer PAL, but sadly, R1 gets most extras.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
2099net wrote:
"However, Beauty and the Beast may be a whole different transfer as the Silver Screen Partners opening is present."
huh? what is exactly this? i need to check this out
*goes to look for his Beauty and the Beast disc
ok. i saw it. So the R1 doesn't have that title?
My Deeveedee aditionally also has 3 title cards between "Disney DVD , pure digital magic" and "blue castle opening"
They say:
Walt Disney Presents
the Large Format edition of
Beauty and the Beast
white letters over black background
and a red rose
which arent included in all of the different language openings
The transfer looks very digital "clean" not film print source based.
probably a Lowry or equivalent
"However, Beauty and the Beast may be a whole different transfer as the Silver Screen Partners opening is present."
huh? what is exactly this? i need to check this out
*goes to look for his Beauty and the Beast disc
ok. i saw it. So the R1 doesn't have that title?
My Deeveedee aditionally also has 3 title cards between "Disney DVD , pure digital magic" and "blue castle opening"
They say:
Walt Disney Presents
the Large Format edition of
Beauty and the Beast
white letters over black background
and a red rose
which arent included in all of the different language openings
The transfer looks very digital "clean" not film print source based.
probably a Lowry or equivalent
yes, its missing from the R1 copy.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Thanks for summing this up people and I too just managed to get hold of a copy of the R2 Red 'Book Type' Collectors edition of Beauty and the Beast, and I must say the quality is absolutly amazing, its just so clean and clear. I have to say this is definatly my favorite Disney film so many memories of years past came back. The ball room scene gave me goosebumps.
Surprising what a year doing animation will do to you. Its opened my eyes up so much to the world and the world around me.
Surprising what a year doing animation will do to you. Its opened my eyes up so much to the world and the world around me.
I believe Beauty and the Beast is direct from the CAPS system - no Lowry cleanup required.deathie mouse wrote:The transfer looks very digital "clean" not film print source based.
probably a Lowry or equivalent
I don't think the UK version has a card saying "Walt Disney Presents
the Large Format edition of Beauty and the Beast", I think the initial card just says "Beauty and the Beast Special Edition" on a black background. I will check later.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
2099net thanks for clearing that up, I was already starting to think i might be wrong about saying that after reading lots of other posts (many by you! ) The reason that might have lead me into that Lowryed thought was that I had watched Beauty last year on a DVD marathon togueter with several other films after I brought all those PAL dvd's and the image looked so different and stunning that I wasn't paying attention (as I said when watching PAL i tend to forget about the media it is in and get inmersed) but i kinds of remember it had some graininess so for a moment I thought it had been a film transfer "Lowryreded" which now after revisiting it looking for the title card it's obviously some form of mpeg compression noticiable on edges against the rest of the image cus the rest is so clean. (I watch my movies on a computer monitor so mpeg compresion mosquito noise shows up if it's there)
The extra title cards I mentioned show up only when one choses the alternate language soundtrack and since they come before the blue castle they probably aren't part of the "movie". Checking the specs against the UK edition's, I also notice I have the the Break the Spell Game on disc 1 (Probably moved there to make space for the extra female singing artist Gisela video on disc 2?)
You've said that the Pal version looks so much better you think it may be another transfer. I have not seen the R1 dvd one (after all, I had old film based ntsc Laserdiscs already) but maybe one reason for it looking so much better is that since it's a direct digital to digital transfer then it went from High Resolution computer file directly into 576 digital PAL pixels while the R1 went just into 480 NTSC pixels and this is a case of the full 20% resolution adavantage of PAL finally being "digitally" showcased? whereas for example live action films shot on analog soft edged grainy film celuloiuid (in comparison to digital files i mean, of course) going through optical glass or photo multipliers or ccd scanners on mechanical transports on their way to video don't show the differences that much?
Now I'll have to rent the R1 disc. I'm getting curioser!
) The reason that might have lead me into that Lowryed thought was that I had watched Beauty last year on a DVD marathon togueter with several other films after I brought all those PAL dvd's and the image looked so different and stunning that I wasn't paying attention (as I said when watching PAL i tend to forget about the media it is in and get inmersed) but i kinds of remember it had some graininess so for a moment I thought it had been a film transfer "Lowryreded" which now after revisiting it looking for the title card it's obviously some form of mpeg compression noticiable on edges against the rest of the image cus the rest is so clean. (I watch my movies on a computer monitor so mpeg compresion mosquito noise shows up if it's there)The extra title cards I mentioned show up only when one choses the alternate language soundtrack and since they come before the blue castle they probably aren't part of the "movie". Checking the specs against the UK edition's, I also notice I have the the Break the Spell Game on disc 1 (Probably moved there to make space for the extra female singing artist Gisela video on disc 2?)
You've said that the Pal version looks so much better you think it may be another transfer. I have not seen the R1 dvd one (after all, I had old film based ntsc Laserdiscs already) but maybe one reason for it looking so much better is that since it's a direct digital to digital transfer then it went from High Resolution computer file directly into 576 digital PAL pixels while the R1 went just into 480 NTSC pixels and this is a case of the full 20% resolution adavantage of PAL finally being "digitally" showcased? whereas for example live action films shot on analog soft edged grainy film celuloiuid (in comparison to digital files i mean, of course) going through optical glass or photo multipliers or ccd scanners on mechanical transports on their way to video don't show the differences that much?
Now I'll have to rent the R1 disc. I'm getting curioser!
Last edited by deathie mouse on Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
The UK doesn't have a Gisela video, or does this only show up if you pick an alternative language track from the initial menu (Like the French 2 Disc Peter Pan only shows the Return to Neverland posters if Franch is selected, or the Franch Atlantis only shows the French dubbing features if French is selected). What country is your Beauty and the Beast from.deathie mouse wrote:The extra title cards I mentioned show up only when one choses the alternate language soundtrack and since they come before the blue castle they probably aren't part of the "movie". Checking the specs against the UK edition's, I also notice I have the the Break the Spell Game on disc 1 (Probably moved there to make space for the extra female singing artist Gisela video on disc 2?)
If you can, let me know how you feel about the mosquito noise on the PAL transfer, as its a big issue on the R1 transfer!
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
My R2 PAL is from Spain. The Gisela video lasts 3:27 and has a 20 second introduction by the Spanish artist. The video only shows up on the menues if you choose Spanish navigation when you insert the disc. It's on the "Sra. Potts" and Magic Mirror menues. To access it if you choose English as the navigation language, you can select title #74 from your remote. The video is not listed on the booklet navigational chart (as the Jump5 and the Dion/Bryson are) but it's mentioned on a sticker on the shrinkwrap and on the book-like case but not on the slipcase. The video's image quality is great, shot in PAL it consists mainly of yellow lit and blue filtered close ups of her singing between clips of the film. The clips look excellent having the same quality as the movie, being made from the CAPS with the colors having the new brighter scheme or even brighter (unlike the other two videos that have the darker original color scheme) and are in 4:3 fullscreen, not 16:9 or letterboxed. When I compared one shot on both formats the 4:3 showed about 15% more vertical image but the 16:9 shows about 20% more horizontal image. (Showing 100% of both directions would give around a 1.61 ratio if we asume the 16:9 version is really showing the full 1.85).
That video was one of the first things I played cus it was an extra I hadn't heard about before and I was wowed by it because of the (then new to me) PAL experience.
The song style is in a similar vein to the one in the Jump5 video.
It doesn't bother me. I even thought it was very fine grain from the negative on my first viewing.
It bothers me more that to make the ballroom scene like it was originally, I have to turn the blue channel's intensity down so the sky is black (or the jacket navy blue dark) (and the scene candle-lit)
But seriously, I think the mpeg compression artifact only looks noticiable cus the uncompressed source is soo clean and sharp (or actually noiseless and pixel perfect)
How big of a file is the video part of Beauty and the Beast? and i guess i'm meaning the Imax part without the Work in Progress b/w inserts if you can get the size independent of that.
Not counting features and soundtracks, at DVD's minimum compression of 15:1 BatB video file should be about 6 GB's. if it's smaller, it's further compressed
It would be perfect if it didnt have any mpeg compression artifacts but mpeg DVD is a compromise over uncompressed video...
I don't wanna have to rent it!
UPDATED. see below
That video was one of the first things I played cus it was an extra I hadn't heard about before and I was wowed by it because of the (then new to me) PAL experience.
The song style is in a similar vein to the one in the Jump5 video.
you mean, if it bothers me?2099net wrote:f you can, let me know how you feel about the mosquito noise on the PAL transfer, as its a big issue on the R1 transfer!
It doesn't bother me. I even thought it was very fine grain from the negative on my first viewing.
It bothers me more that to make the ballroom scene like it was originally, I have to turn the blue channel's intensity down so the sky is black (or the jacket navy blue dark) (and the scene candle-lit)
But seriously, I think the mpeg compression artifact only looks noticiable cus the uncompressed source is soo clean and sharp (or actually noiseless and pixel perfect)
How big of a file is the video part of Beauty and the Beast? and i guess i'm meaning the Imax part without the Work in Progress b/w inserts if you can get the size independent of that.
Not counting features and soundtracks, at DVD's minimum compression of 15:1 BatB video file should be about 6 GB's. if it's smaller, it's further compressed
It would be perfect if it didnt have any mpeg compression artifacts but mpeg DVD is a compromise over uncompressed video...
So the R1 has lots of mosquito noise?2099net wrote:as its a big issue on the R1 transfer!
I don't wanna have to rent it!
UPDATED. see below
Last edited by deathie mouse on Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
Check out
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast (I'm James Reader by the way)
and
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast
for some screenshots posts
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast (I'm James Reader by the way)
and
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... +the+beast
for some screenshots posts
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
time for me to update my browser
"Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
The request line contained invalid characters following the protocol string."
I've been getting that from the HTforum for about a month. (My browser is about 6 years old) I'll go see in a public library maybe later
thanks anyway
btw i did a quick brown law (a regional local engineers term meaning its very fuzzy and quick) calculation about probable differences between the PAL vs NTSC
(i assumed the WinP parts took about a third of the film) and,
if "projected" side by side at the same magnification, the PAL version is supposed to have 1.25 dB's more compression noise visually. (But the PAL version would have at the same time 20% more resolution. that is teheoretical and if both filled the full disc space. And i didnt take into account the maurice invention thing
I used lots of rules of thumb for that. Brown law.
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
The request line contained invalid characters following the protocol string."
I've been getting that from the HTforum for about a month. (My browser is about 6 years old) I'll go see in a public library maybe later
thanks anyway
btw i did a quick brown law (a regional local engineers term meaning its very fuzzy and quick) calculation about probable differences between the PAL vs NTSC
(i assumed the WinP parts took about a third of the film) and,
if "projected" side by side at the same magnification, the PAL version is supposed to have 1.25 dB's more compression noise visually. (But the PAL version would have at the same time 20% more resolution. that is teheoretical and if both filled the full disc space. And i didnt take into account the maurice invention thing
I used lots of rules of thumb for that. Brown law.
Here's my posts on the encoding:
andLet's clear this up:
All regions of the Beauty and the Beast DVD use EXTENDED branching to show the Special Edition of Theatrical Version of the film.
You cannot tell it is EXTENDED BRANCHING though as the branching point is at the layer change. So the entire second half of the movie is encoded twice on the disc, once with the musical sequence (and associated animation and background changes) and once without any of these changes (but with WIP angles).
The WIP is indeed implemented by angles.
The reason extended branching the whole second half of the movie as opposed to seamless branching the affected sections is due to the inclusion of the WIP version using angles. As both true seamless branching and angles are based on the same bitstream interlacing technology, it would be hard (but not impossible) to author a single title with both alternative angles and seamless branching picture and sound data in a single bitstream.
Plus I got this reply regarding the encoding:The WIP images will be encoded at a low bitrate, and they will not eat into the bitrate available for the 'finished' version of the film as they are interwoven in the bitstream.
As you know MPEG is a variable bit-rate compression, but when reading from a disc, the speed of the disc's spinning doesn't alter. Instead the player reads 'packets' of data which are then decoded by the processor as needed. Each packet has a small header indentifying it. Typically too these packets are non-sequential on the disc surface, thus granting better error-protection. So reading from a DVD disc is like reading from a computers' hard-disc, rather than a constant non-changing bitstream like a CD. When using angles, unwanted 'packets' are quickly examined via the headers and discarded if unwanted.
What this means is that while a bitrate of just over 10 is the maximum, the bitstream can have a higher bitrate if some of it is to be discarded before being decoded by the player. So an angle with a video bitrate of 5 doesn't mean that the alternative angle has a maximum of 5 as well. Of course this is only a guide, and the through bitrate is compromised by the presence of multiple angles - but not as much as you would first expect for the reasons I have explained above.
I doubt the WIP angles had a big effect on the picture quality of the disc, I think that perhaps some of the problems are down to poorer encoding, as the R2 release does have a superior picture, despite being implemented the same as the R1 version. (It also has a different transfer as the R2 version keeps the 'In Association with Silver Screen Partners' credit at the start).
this refers to both regions - they implement the 3 versions in the same way. But I must say, I hardly notice the artifacts on the PAL disc, but they are obvious, even on my lowly equipment on my R1 NTSC version.James,
You are correct, it is not linear. The use of alternate angles reduces the peak bitrate for each stream from 9.8mb/s to a max of around 7mb/s, but the latter number actually varies from the inner to outer tracks of the disc.
This is one permanent angle from start to finish in the case of BatB.
A peak of 7mb/s is low for an animated feature, especially with multiple audio tracks. The video for BatB peaks at more around 6mb/s, and sadly the picture quality refelects this.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
This Mulan II+ others topic is getting waaaaay too otherly
Oh! I had read that post from you a while ago (when i could access the site) I remember it was very conforting as i was worried my PAL version would been different from the UK one
I don't remember screen caps, tho...
So in simple terms you have the "first half"( before the layer change) one time (plus the WiP angle) and then you have the "second half" twice with only one of them having the WiP angle.
The WiP parts much more compressed.
What about the audio? is the "second half's" longer audio track with the extra song a completly separate audio track from the one from the shorter "half" not having the extra number part?
What about subtitles? If they all have to duplicated too for the "second half" it all adds up.
Are both regions video rates 6mb/s?
I browned the numbers once more and depending on if the audio tracks/subs are duplicated or not, the diference betwen de NTSC and the PAL seen at the same magnificationside by side, go from a minimum of negligible to about a maximum of the PAL being 1.5dB noisier (but in all cases with 20% more resolution) if they both used the full capacity of the discs.
And my brown law result puts the PAL with its 3 versions of the movie in the worst case scenario (using audio+subs duplicated too) 3.5dB noisier than if they had included only one version of the movie. Thats about what happens when they put a 2+ hour movie in pan/scan and enhanced widescreen on a dvd-9.
So there's no reason for Beauty and the Beast to look nothing but good on PAL and there's no reason for the NTSC to look worse than the PAL in respect to compresson noise, actually it should look a little less noisier (about 1 dB better. maybe) (But always with 20% less detail)
BatB PAL does look excellent in practice. It seems that BatB NTSC doesnt.
Unless it is that transfering pure high res files down to a format smaller that another (NTSC vs PAL) might exagerate compression artifacts cus the smaller file is in a sense more compact, in other words details are closer togueter so the mpeg compression has to work harder, but i dont think 20% would be THAT different, (it's 0.75 dB's difference), there must be another reason. It looks to you that they may be 2 different transfers. Maybe there were 2 uncompressed video masters (PAL, NTSC) and they were mastered to mpeg compressed video with very different settings or equipment?
I woooonder if there's a copy of BatB on the local Blockbuster...
In any case. my PAL looks incredible, like a pure digital DVD should (the opening "traveling matte" looks umbeleivable, no complaints about quality there . In fact it look too sharp on a TV that has the sharpness control adjusted for other DVDs (guess digital to digital = no high frequency loss), comes in a gorgeous book-like case, and mine apparently has something extra
So i guess I can see now why you asked me how I felt about the mosquito noise.
interesting.
I don't remember screen caps, tho...
So in simple terms you have the "first half"( before the layer change) one time (plus the WiP angle) and then you have the "second half" twice with only one of them having the WiP angle.
The WiP parts much more compressed.
What about the audio? is the "second half's" longer audio track with the extra song a completly separate audio track from the one from the shorter "half" not having the extra number part?
What about subtitles? If they all have to duplicated too for the "second half" it all adds up.
Are both regions video rates 6mb/s?
I browned the numbers once more and depending on if the audio tracks/subs are duplicated or not, the diference betwen de NTSC and the PAL seen at the same magnificationside by side, go from a minimum of negligible to about a maximum of the PAL being 1.5dB noisier (but in all cases with 20% more resolution) if they both used the full capacity of the discs.
And my brown law result puts the PAL with its 3 versions of the movie in the worst case scenario (using audio+subs duplicated too) 3.5dB noisier than if they had included only one version of the movie. Thats about what happens when they put a 2+ hour movie in pan/scan and enhanced widescreen on a dvd-9.
So there's no reason for Beauty and the Beast to look nothing but good on PAL and there's no reason for the NTSC to look worse than the PAL in respect to compresson noise, actually it should look a little less noisier (about 1 dB better. maybe) (But always with 20% less detail)
BatB PAL does look excellent in practice. It seems that BatB NTSC doesnt.
So something else must have happened.2099net wrote:But I must say, I hardly notice the artifacts on the PAL disc, but they are obvious, even on my lowly equipment on my R1 NTSC version.
Unless it is that transfering pure high res files down to a format smaller that another (NTSC vs PAL) might exagerate compression artifacts cus the smaller file is in a sense more compact, in other words details are closer togueter so the mpeg compression has to work harder, but i dont think 20% would be THAT different, (it's 0.75 dB's difference), there must be another reason. It looks to you that they may be 2 different transfers. Maybe there were 2 uncompressed video masters (PAL, NTSC) and they were mastered to mpeg compressed video with very different settings or equipment?
I woooonder if there's a copy of BatB on the local Blockbuster...
In any case. my PAL looks incredible, like a pure digital DVD should (the opening "traveling matte"
looks umbeleivable, no complaints about quality there . In fact it look too sharp on a TV that has the sharpness control adjusted for other DVDs (guess digital to digital = no high frequency loss), comes in a gorgeous book-like case, and mine apparently has something extraSo i guess I can see now why you asked me how I felt about the mosquito noise.
I think we concur. Two masters done differently by maybe two different mastering facilities? But from the same digital high res source.2099net wrote:I think that perhaps some of the problems are down to poorer encoding, as the R2 release does have a superior picture, despite being implemented the same as the R1 version. (It also has a different transfer as the R2 version keeps the 'In Association with Silver Screen Partners' credit at the start).
interesting.
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
UPDATE
I finaly had time to check my R2 Beauty and the Beast disc so I've upddated some info about the Gisela video that I was uncertain about in one of the previous posts above.
I'm probably gonna post some on that info on it's own separate topic in case some Beauty and the Beast completist or spanish speaker would like to know about it and won't look for it on a Mulan II topic
2099net : Since I got to watch it again, this time I was looking at the image quality issues and darned if I couldn't see the compression noise at normal viewing distances. Not even in the second half of the movie. The difference this time being that I probably recalibrated my sharpness setting in between last year's viewing and now cus I had the settings optimized then for only NTSC discs and since then I've gotten myself a Test DVD and optimized settings for each format and one of the things changed was the sharpness which ended different on both. Now there's absolutely no edge enhancement. And Beauty and The Beast R2 is one of those rare discs that looks extra tack sharp at the edges. To see any mpeg compression noise I had to put my face very near the screen, about 1 time the height of the screen! Which is proportionaly even 50% closer than I do when i go to the theaters and watch a nicely focused 35mm print!
In other words the image is perfect i think.
I notice that In Luke's review of the R1 disc he mentions edge enhancement. Maybe that accounts for some of the difference in compression noise visibility on the R1 disc? Because my R2 disc has NO edge enhancement.
I finaly had time to check my R2 Beauty and the Beast disc so I've upddated some info about the Gisela video that I was uncertain about in one of the previous posts above.
I'm probably gonna post some on that info on it's own separate topic in case some Beauty and the Beast completist or spanish speaker would like to know about it and won't look for it on a Mulan II topic
2099net : Since I got to watch it again, this time I was looking at the image quality issues and darned if I couldn't see the compression noise at normal viewing distances. Not even in the second half of the movie. The difference this time being that I probably recalibrated my sharpness setting in between last year's viewing and now cus I had the settings optimized then for only NTSC discs and since then I've gotten myself a Test DVD and optimized settings for each format and one of the things changed was the sharpness which ended different on both. Now there's absolutely no edge enhancement. And Beauty and The Beast R2 is one of those rare discs that looks extra tack sharp at the edges. To see any mpeg compression noise I had to put my face very near the screen, about 1 time the height of the screen! Which is proportionaly even 50% closer than I do when i go to the theaters and watch a nicely focused 35mm print!
In other words the image is perfect i think.
I notice that In Luke's review of the R1 disc he mentions edge enhancement. Maybe that accounts for some of the difference in compression noise visibility on the R1 disc? Because my R2 disc has NO edge enhancement.