Originally Posted by bfellow (Post 2373905)

I'll probably spend $35 on it at Best Buy.

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2373806)

Because you are dealing with completely different systems. Those black areas ARE needed. You can't simply have a 4:3 HD image, as your HD set wouldn't know what to do with it or how to display it properly. It needs to be fed a resolution it can understand (480, 720, 1080, etc)

In order to be a 1080p HD transfer, the resolution must be a fixed 1920x1080 pixels. Now you can fill that entire area with a picture (say a 1.78:1 film), or only use a portion of that available area (say for 1.33:1 films or 2.40:1 films where black bars are necessary).

1.33 DVDs were based on the NTSC resolution standard. On an HD set, black bars would be generated on the sides of the picture by your hardware. Likewise, an anamorphic widescreen DVD played on a 4:3 television would have hardware generated black bars added to the top and bottom of the picture.

It's simply how the formats and home video transfers work.

Originally Posted by retablo (Post 2374184)

Guess it doesn't matter, there is enough disc space that it doesn't take away from the image.

Originally Posted by toefer (Post 2372223)

I'm not him, so I don't know for certain, but...

I don't think he's 80 years old, and is referring to seeing it in theaters back in the 30s.

I'm pretty sure he actually went and saw it last week in theaters, and was disappointed, because I heard that in many theaters it actually didn't look or sound good at all.

Edit: He did see it in theaters, and wasn't disappointed...

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374223)

Yeah, especially for a film that's only an hour and forty minutes, like Oz. There's plenty of space for a quality transfer.

Originally Posted by tvradio00 (Post 2374293)

the film is only encoded at 22.95 mb - if they would have put all the extras on the 2nd and 3rd blu-ray and eliminated the flipper disc

they could have made the encode nearer the 40 mb maximum bit rate that you can encode blu-ray discs at

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374223)

Yeah, especially for a film that's only an hour and forty minutes, like Oz. There's plenty of space for a quality transfer.

Originally Posted by retablo (Post 2374318)

Probably a stupid question, but I assume a black and white movie takes up less disc space than a color one? That's the way digital photography files work anyway... just wondering if video is the same. I assume so since there is less "information."

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374313)

It really would not have made any noticeable difference. The video quality is astounding as it is. It's getting 4 and 5 star reviews from almost every site on the planet.

I sincerely doubt a slightly higher bit rate would have added any perceptible quality to the already stunning transfer. Just because there exists a maximum bit rate, does not mean that it HAS to be reached in order to have reference video quality.

Originally Posted by tvradio00 (Post 2374348)

yes it would make a huge difference any time you have higher bit rates that = better even crisper more detailed picture

according to your philosophy the difference between 22.95 encode vs a 40mb encode would yield no better picture is as flawed as people thinking that vc- compressed 1080p video would look very little different than uncompressed 1080p video

any time you have less compression / more mit rate the picture will always be better

Originally Posted by Grim Reaper (Post 2373809)

is it worth paying $55 for it?

Originally Posted by xage (Post 2372118)

repost with image....


This is totally scarce (The Bestbuy Exclusive with Lenticular Cards)

1,000 for Bluray - UPC: 883929093687
1,000 for DVD



That is why some Bestbuy stores carry it and some were not. Lucky to those who stocked more than 2.

Make sure your eyes are sharp to see the ones with the exclusive sticker!!

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374345)

It's not always, excuse the pun, as black and white as that. Take a look at the Criterion releases of Third Man and Seventh Seal for example. Using incredible high bitrates yields very large file sizes (appx 30 gigs for the main features alone).

It's really about the bitrates being used and the length of the film that will determine file size.

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374367)

I said noticeable difference. And I stand by that. A higher bitrate would yield no noticeable difference in this particular case, as we have already been blessed with a reference transfer for this title.

Would there be a theoretical difference in quality? Sure. Would you be able to honestly discern this difference in a live viewing test? Most likely no.

Originally Posted by tvradio00 (Post 2374387)

they chose 22.99 because wb was to cheap for another 3 bucks per set another br disc would cost

Originally Posted by tvradio00 (Post 2374387)

they chose 22.95 because wb was to cheap for another 3 bucks per set another br disc would cost

Originally Posted by benricci (Post 2374395)

Based upon the 8K archival scan, thousands of man hours and millions of dollars they have invested in this release and restoration, I find your conclusion that they chose this bitrate to save money pretty ignorant. Please...:rolleyes:

Are you honestly gonna tell us that you are dissatisfied with the picture quality of this release? Have you even watched Oz on blu-ray yet?