Blu-ray, in General

[dx23]

Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Announces Expansive Slate of Upcoming Platinum Editions

Pinocchio * Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs * Fantasia * Fantasia 2000 * Beauty and the Beast Each Available For the first time on Blu-ray(TM) Hi-Def Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Launching Disney's New BD-Live Network - Worldwide - Fall 2009!

BERLIN, Aug 27, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (WDSHE) proudly unveils five additions to the celebrated Platinum Collection of animated features to be released on DVD and for the first time ever on Disney Blu-ray Hi-Def. These include some of Disney's most beloved classics, Pinocchio, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Fantasia 2000 and Beauty and the Beast. Each will be available for a limited time only, in new multi-disc sets featuring rarely seen footage and an array of new bonus features.

Fittingly the one that started it all for Walt Disney, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the first feature length animated film ever made, will be the title that will mark a new era in home entertainment around the world, launching Disney's worldwide BD-Live Network, a revolutionary technological breakthrough in home entertainment that will connect family and friends, allowing unprecedented interactivity and ease, from anywhere in the world.
Disney's BD-Live Network will be initially launched in the U.S. only, with the first Platinum Edition Blu-ray release, Sleeping Beauty 50th Anniversary Platinum Edition, available on October 7, 2008.

The Platinum release roll-out will be:

Pinocchio, the beloved story of a wooden puppet who wants to become a real boy, comes to Platinum Edition DVD and Disney Blu-ray in spring 2009. Disney's second full-length animated movie, Pinocchio won two Oscars(R), one for Best Score and another for the unforgettable song "When You Wish upon a Star." It returns for the first time since 2002.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, honored with a special Academy Award(R) for screen innovation this movie has been unavailable since 2001. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Platinum Edition will be released in the fall of 2009.

Walt Disney's experimental masterpiece Fantasia won two honorary Oscars for its innovative use of animation and music. Most recently released in 2000, the restored and remastered Fantasia Platinum Edition will be available in 2010. Alongside this release, a newly restored and remastered Fantasia 2000 Platinum Edition, will be available. Fantasia 2000 begins where its predecessor, Fantasia, left off, with seven completely new segments and the return of the popular "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," featuring breathtaking images coupled with classical music favorites.

In conjunction with these releases, Destino, the unfinished animated feature film created by Walt Disney and famed surrealist painter Salvador Dali will release. Begun in 1946, it was rediscovered in 2003 and completed by Walt's nephew, Roy E. Disney. The collaboration between these two legendary artists will be available to own for the first time along with an all-new feature-length documentary that examines the surprising partnership between Dali and Disney.

Beauty and the Beast, the only animated film ever nominated for an Academy Award(R) for Best Picture, earned a breathtaking six Academy Award(R) nominations and won two Oscars(R). Beauty in the Beast Platinum Edition will be available in fall 2010.

About Platinum Editions
Walt Disney Home Entertainment Platinum Editions is an exclusive collection of The Walt Disney Company's greatest films on Blu-ray Hi-Def and DVD. Each release is restored and includes state-of-the-art bonus features to ensure the ultimate entertainment experience.

SOURCE Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

[Argonaut69]

2001 and The Shining, absolutely.
Both look excellent in high definition, and have a goodly number of extras (although I haven't looked through them yet)

Eyes Wide Shut (the other HD Kubrick I own) is a maybe. It's something of an improvement (I stupidly got rid of my 4:3 DVD, so can't really compare) with a slightly soft, grainy picture that I suspect is true to the look of the film (lots of lens flare, some obvious blue-screen, etc. seems to make it pretty clear that Kubrick shot this to look 'crudely made' in parts) BUT watching it in 1.78:1 (especially on a 1.66:1 set) I'm increasingly convinced the film SHOULD be 1.66:1, there's just too many scenes were the very top of someone's head is cut off, etc.
And the extras are frightfully light. Some interesting stuff about Kubrick himself (interviews with relatives, etc. and a short featurette on the unfinished projects (Napoleon, Aryan Papers, etc.) but practically nothing on Eyes Wide Shut.

As for the other releases, I've heard the improvement over DVD isn't that great, but the extras sound interesting.

I am planning to make the jump into Blu-Ray as soon as Sony makes its rumored $100 price cut on its S-350 player later this month. Currently, I have a 47" HDTV 1080i and a standard (non-upconverting) region-free DVD player. Last night I watched the 2-disc Special Edition of The Shining on regular DVD and while it did look better than I have seen it look before, I was pining for more detail in the images and found it just a little soft. I'm hoping that this is a limitation of regular DVD format and not the original film itself. I've read the Blu-Ray vs. standard DVD comparison on DVDBeaver for The Shining but I guess I will only believe it when I can see with my own eyes.

The film itself holds up so well, it is definitely among my favorite Kubrick works along with Paths of Glory, Spartacus and 2001. Interestingly, the only two Kubrick films I have no use for are the same two you mention, A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket.

[dx23]

Does anyone know aboutthis Blu Ray release of a Nightmare On Elm Street? It seems that it was only released in Canada.

[dx23]

According to blu-news.com, Election is being released by Paramount on January 20th, 2009.

Akira is going to be released on Blu Ray in February 2009.

[Darth Lavender]

Akira is going to be released on Blu Ray in February 2009.

Sort of. RRP is $50, so I'm assuming it's a joke.
But, even if it isn't, would anyone actually pay that kind of money?
(Admittedly, Blu-Ray anime is usually rather silly. A movie called "Wings of Honneamise" got released for $80, and then there's those infamous "Freedom" releases at $40 per 20 minute episode (and the episodes themselves were, by design, filled with product placement (whole series was comissioned by a noodle company))

[fdm]

Akira is going to be released on Blu Ray in February 2009.

Sort of. RRP is $50, so I'm assuming it's a joke.
But, even if it isn't, would anyone actually pay that kind of money?
(Admittedly, Blu-Ray anime is usually rather silly. A movie called "Wings of Honneamise" got released for $80, and then there's those infamous "Freedom" releases at $40 per 20 minute episode (and the episodes themselves were, by design, filled with product placement (whole series was comissioned by a noodle company))

Nobody pays that kind of money. Although amazon is migrating towards at least 25% off for every Blu-Ray (from 30%), one rarley pays full price. Similarly the Criterions will be running about the same price on Blu-Ray as DVD over there (althouh amazon is trending towards almost 30 bucks now). Their prices lately have been like the stock market so... So figure 25% off is 37.50. Yikes. Not many people pay that much either (probably won't sell all that well I would guess).

[davebert]

Unfortunately the second disc of standard-def PAL content will be unplayable on a U.S./NTSC PS3, as the PS3 won't do the standards conversion (even for region-free discs).

That's weird - my British PS3 has no problem playing NTSC material! Mind you, I suspect it probably puts out a pure NTSC signal which my television has no problem dealing with.

You are lucky. My Region A PS3 wont play any PAL material and complains that it is an incompatible video format (on DVD) and wont play it at all and gives no error if its 576i material on a Blu-ray.

And yes my display takes any video signal and my firmware is the latest (2.42)

Has everyone seen this?

Apologies for dragging this back up, but I definitely covet the Mad Detective MoC Blu-ray. Since I'm using an NTSC PS3 for my player, does this mean I'm out of luck? Or are just the extras unplayable? (Which in itself would be a total bummer.)

[peerpee]

MoC MAD DETECTIVE Blu-ray has all extras in NTSC, and the disc is all-region.

[stwrt]

Skin tone on the Blu-Ray release Gone Baby, Gone was startlingly good, probably helped by the fact that John Toll was the cinematograper. Although to be fair, all this is a question of what the picture quality is being compared with and how far home theatre can go in replicating the movie experience. I can remember watching DVDs of two other Toll movies, Thin Red Line and Almost Famous and feeling sure the picture quality couldn't be bettered - but those two DVDs probably look pretty ragged these days.

[dx23]

Does anyone know why WB, who has been one of the studios that has been praised throughout the years for releasing catalog titles and giving them a special treatment with all the toppings, has been crapping all over their Blu Ray releases? First, it was the news that some of their titles were not 1080p, now their insistence of not including lossless audio on their releases and including half-assed, non-HD extras. I would have expected much more, especially from the company that made Blu Ray win the next-gen format war.

[Morbii]

Perhaps sony hasn't paid them their blood money yet.

[cdnchris]

Some of their releases aren't 1080p? Why? All of their HD DVD titles were, weren't they? Actually, it's funny, I went HD DVD primarily because of Warner but on Blu I haven't bought a title yet and probably won't until the Batman movies comes out (though I've been looking at Dirty Harry.)

[fdm]

Some of their releases aren't 1080p? Why? All of their HD DVD titles were, weren't they? Actually, it's funny, I went HD DVD primarily because of Warner but on Blu I haven't bought a title yet and probably won't until the Batman movies comes out (though I've been looking at Dirty Harry.)

Actually they've all been 1080p, far as I know. They goofed up the movie-only version on Terminator 3, but subsequently corrected it. Only one that comes to mind.

Slowly they're getting their stuff together wrt lossless soundtracks, but yeah, they are probably the worst about this these days. E.g., Eraser out a couple of weeks ago, lossless. Interview With The Vampire comes out in a few weeks, lossy. Body Heat in a week or two, lossless. Oh yeah, and their recent big screw-up was Speed Racer with only a lossy soundtrack.

Think part of the problem is not enough 50GB manufacturing capacity for all the Blus, but regardless they could still be doing better with their soundtracks, if nothing else pushing them back until they can do them right.

[Matt]

I suppose Warners' approach to lossless audio and to SD extras is mitigated by their approach to sell-through pricing.

[Darth Lavender]

I suppose Warners' approach to lossless audio and to SD extras is mitigated by their approach to sell-through pricing.

I still don't see what the criticism is on SD extras. There's a TINY number of extras I'd like to see in 1080p (deleted scenes mainly, some of the more serious documentaries (especially something like the Robin Hood technicolor documentary, with it's film-clips, etc.)) but when it comes to the talking-heads, etc. that make up a vast majority of extras; I truly, utterly do not care.

Lossless is a little trickier. Because it will take a lot of listening before I start to fully appreciate the difference between Lossless and Lossy (in an interview with a Dolby spokesperson, even he said that he couldn't tell the difference) If there is a difference, it will be something one can only appreciate after starting to notice the subtle flaws that may or may not be audible in Lossy soundtracks.

As for direct on-the-fly comparisons, those are unfortunately impossible because the different volume levels.

Having said all that, no question about it; there's simply no excuse for Warner NOT including lossless audio. Blu-Ray has space enough, and it probably doesn't cost any more than lossy to produce. It just isn't usually a 'deal-breaker' for me.

[fdm]

Lossless is a little trickier. Because it will take a lot of listening before I start to fully appreciate the difference between Lossless and Lossy (in an interview with a Dolby spokesperson, even he said that he couldn't tell the difference)
If there is a difference, it will be something one can only appreciate after starting to notice the subtle flaws that may or may not be audible in Lossy soundtracks.

As for direct on-the-fly comparisons, those are unfortunately impossible because the different volume levels.

Hard to say where the line would fall regarding on what type (aka quality) of system lossy vs lossless would become difficult to notice a difference.

For me, lossless typically provides a huge gain in dimensionality (kind of a even more 3D flavor to the surround) and a more precise replication of what the sound actually started out as (more true to life, less distorted); these two seem to feed off each other. I suppose it would be reasonable to describe it as the audio equivalent of the improvement in detail visually of the high def picture: more data to fill in the blanks, less fuzzy result.

Throwing on one of the lossy WB titles is rather disappointing after listening to one of the more well-done lossless soundtracks.

(Sad about that Dolby guy...)

[dx23]

From thedigitalbits.com:

Here's some news that's going to thrill a whole bunch of you Blu-bies. Warner has revealed, in a promotional insert packed with the new Poltergeist Blu-ray Disc, that it's currently working on a Blu-ray version of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring! No s--t! Not ONLY that, but the same insert lists The Wizard of Oz, Being There, Gone with the Wind, King Kong, Woodstock, Rush Hour, The Notebook and Amadeus all as coming soon to Blu-ray! How do you like THEM apples? What's more, our industry sources tell us that ALL THREE Lord of the Rings films are planned for release in Blu in 2009, though we're not yet certain if the discs will be the theatrical editions, the extended editions or both. Still, if that isn't enough reason for some of you holdouts to run out and pick up a player this holiday season, I don't know what is. Here's a look at the actual insert (not that the image links to the official Warner Blu-ray website)...

Let's hope that they include lossless audio in 2009.

[Darth Lavender]

Lossless is a little trickier. Because it will take a lot of listening before I start to fully appreciate the difference between Lossless and Lossy (in an interview with a Dolby spokesperson, even he said that he couldn't tell the difference)
If there is a difference, it will be something one can only appreciate after starting to notice the subtle flaws that may or may not be audible in Lossy soundtracks.

As for direct on-the-fly comparisons, those are unfortunately impossible because the different volume levels.

Hard to say where the line would fall regarding on what type (aka quality) of system lossy vs lossless would become difficult to notice a difference.

For me, lossless typically provides a huge gain in dimensionality (kind of a even more 3D flavor to the surround) and a more precise replication of what the sound actually started out as (more true to life, less distorted); these two seem to feed off each other. I suppose it would be reasonable to describe it as the audio equivalent of the improvement in detail visually of the high def picture: more data to fill in the blanks, less fuzzy result.

Throwing on one of the lossy WB titles is rather disappointing after listening to one of the more well-done lossless soundtracks.

(Sad about that Dolby guy...)

That sounds about right. My own system consists of some cheap but extraordinairily well reviewed analogue speakers (and a pretty high-end sound card)

I would elaborate on your analogy just a tad to say that Lossy vs Lossless is probably closer to the difference between watching video in 4k and watching in 8k. And, consequently, it's increasingly difficult to tell how much is imagination and how much isn't (mostly because of the slightly increased volume that a lot of Lossless tracks have. Just watching something at a higher volume will have precisely the same type of effect you've described re: lossless)

That's my own guess, anyway. But from the Dolby Interview (I'd post it, but it was a "video of the day" type of thing, and probably impossible to find now) Lossy vs Lossless is probably closer to something seeing EE or DNR or MPEG artefacts on a DVD. The average person won't know what to look for, and it takes a lot of viewing to become sensitive to these things (and, then, to be able to appreciate the lack (or, there SHOULD be a lack) of these flaws in a High Definition presentation)

I understand, for instance, that there's a specific type of "aliasing" that can be heard by the most sensitive users, and the only reason for 96khz and 192khz encodes is that it's believed (still not quite definitive) that such an approach removes that type of aliasing.
(Based on the actual theory at work, a calculation I can't remember the name of, Human's shouldn't be able to appreciate an increase in quality beyond "twice the human hearing range" Humans have a hearing range of (at best) 20hz - 20,000hz, hence CDs having a sample-rate of 44,100hz (or, over twice the maximum pitch audible to humans*)
Anyway, my point was, the only reason 96khz and 192khz are even worth considering, is that some participants (with very well-practiced ears) in double-blind testing have repeated an absence of the mild "aliasing" that can occasionally occur in lower samples-per-second. The issue being not an increase in quality, but an absence of certain digital flaws that only the most practiced of audiophiles will notice.

Hertz in reference to sample-rate and Hertz in reference to pitch, btw, are two different things. But, they are mathematically related.

[Person]

I love Being There. Bit of unusual inclusion for a 'prestige' batch of releases, though. I can't see it being a SE, either and doesn't need a 5.1 remix. Ah, wait - next year will be the 30th anniversary since its release; that must be it.

[fdm]

I would elaborate on your analogy just a tad to say that Lossy vs Lossless is probably closer to the difference between watching video in 4k and watching in 8k. And, consequently, it's increasingly difficult to tell how much is imagination and how much isn't (mostly because of the slightly increased volume that a lot of Lossless tracks have. Just watching something at a higher volume will have precisely the same type of effect you've described re: lossless)

That's my own guess, anyway. But from the Dolby Interview (I'd post it, but it was a "video of the day" type of thing, and probably impossible to find now) Lossy vs Lossless is probably closer to something seeing EE or DNR or MPEG artefacts on a DVD. The average person won't know what to look for, and it takes a lot of viewing to become sensitive to these things (and, then, to be able to appreciate the lack (or, there SHOULD be a lack) of these flaws in a High Definition presentation)

I understand, for instance, that there's a specific type of "aliasing" that can be heard by the most sensitive users, and the only reason for 96khz and 192khz encodes is that it's believed (still not quite definitive) that such an approach removes that type of aliasing.
(Based on the actual theory at work, a calculation I can't remember the name of, Human's shouldn't be able to appreciate an increase in quality beyond "twice the human hearing range" Humans have a hearing range of (at best) 20hz - 20,000hz, hence CDs having a sample-rate of 44,100hz (or, over twice the maximum pitch audible to humans*)
Anyway, my point was, the only reason 96khz and 192khz are even worth considering, is that some participants (with very well-practiced ears) in double-blind testing have repeated an absence of the mild "aliasing" that can occasionally occur in lower samples-per-second. The issue being not an increase in quality, but an absence of certain digital flaws that only the most practiced of audiophiles will notice.

Hertz in reference to sample-rate and Hertz in reference to pitch, btw, are two different things. But, they are mathematically related.

The difference is beyond one of loudness... more akin to your less digital artifacts notion. Lossy audio results in digital artifacts present once the sound is decompressed again in a similar way to how lossy video results in digital artifacts appearing in the picture once it has been decompressed again. (The latter could be all the noise you can see in the background of certain DVDs, the mosquito noise that surrounds certain objects from time to time, the reduced resolution (vs the original film).)

There are still constraints to both present in their Blu-Ray level equivalents (i.e., you still need to compress the video, and the audio is typically limited to 48kHz if I am not mistaken, but the audio can be "lossy" or "lossless" at that level).

My hearing is not what it used to be, nor is my vision (at least for the latter I get to wear glasses to pretty much bring it back as normal as it's gonna get with glasses.) I guess I must be one of your "most sensitive users" as I hear aliasing a lot, particularly in the higher pitches (one example that I use to check for it is how that blue alien chick sounds when she's singing during the concert in The Fifth Element; even the DTS track on the DVDs was such that I hear several instances of digitization anomalies during certain parts of that segment... whether it's the DVD, the player, or the receiver doing the decoding, or possibly even the speakers, to me it's quite noticeable (I don't have state of the art, but I have a pretty high-end system, in an admittedly not acoustically perfect room). It was one of the first Blu-Rays I watched, and yay such anomalies are far less noticeable on the lossless PCM track, but they're still there (I think an even higher sampling rate would probably have made them disappear altogether, although... certainly possible it could be the audio decoder in the blu-ray player, the digital processing going on in the receiver, the speakers, the room or my hearing (or some combination of some or all of them), or even limitations in the original recording made during the film's production that emphasize them when in my "system"). If I were sitting in the audience of that concert, I would not be hearing such artifacts, I would be experience a truly lossless audio/visual presentation.

(Anyway, I've now lost track of where I was going with all this, but perhaps I made it there with the above.)

[swo17]

----------------------------------
|.........PUPPET SHOW........|
|........................................|
|.SPINAL TAP ON BLU-RAY.|
----------------------------------

[dx23]

We'll see if MGM ports all the extras from the DVD release.

[Donald Brown]

We'll see if MGM ports all the extras from the DVD release.

* Create Your Own Band Game – Create and customize your very own rock star avatars
* Commentary by Spinal Tap
* Commentary by Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer
* Commentary by Director Rob Reiner, Producer Karen Murphy and Editors Robert Leighton and Kent Beyda
* Deleted Scenes
* Flower People Press Conference
* Spinal Tap appearance on "The Joe Franklin Show"
* Music Videos

Gimme Some Money
(Listen to the) Flower People
Hell Hole
Big Bottom

* Theatrical Trailer
* Cheese Rolling Trailer
* Rock and Rolls Commercials

[Jeff]

* Commentary by Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer

Hasn't this one previously been exclusive to the Criterion? All of Criterion's supplements from The Rock show up on Disney's Blu-ray release of that title too. Maybe they are going to be more free about licensing commentaries for Blu.

[Donald Brown]

There would indeed seem to be some sort of licensing agreement in place.