Batman (1989) (25th Anniversary Edition)

[sarah_wentworth]

i don't know anything about VC-1, MPEG 2, or AVC but is one of them the absolute best and why isn't the best one always used? if a movie is costing millions to make why not use the best one to make sure it looks as good as can be? just curious

[jayman3]

*Cue sarcasm* I'm going to wait another five years for the 30th Anniversary set

All jokes aside, I already own the 4-pack blu-ray so I don't need to get this edition.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by jayman3

*Cue sarcasm* I'm going to wait another five years for the 30th Anniversary set

All jokes aside, I already own the 4-pack blu-ray so I don't need to get this edition.

i just bought the 4 pack. if the video quality is the same i'll just keep that one

[flyry]

i like the luxe packaging. i just saw a pic of the green mile one.

its way cooler than the average boring blu case

i was just thinking the other day that DVD cases were way more imaginative back in the day. this is a throwback to that imo

[Neomic]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

i don't know anything about VC-1, MPEG 2, or AVC but is one of them the absolute best and why isn't the best one always used? if a movie is costing millions to make why not use the best one to make sure it looks as good as can be? just curious

AVC-MPEG4 is generally the only one used now days since it's far superior, but in the early days of Blu-ray, a lot of releases were just ports of their HD-DVD counterparts, which supported VC-1 and MPEG2, so a lot of movies from those days still use those same encodes ported from release to release.

Most movie studios don't bother re-encoding the master for AVC since most of those encodes fall under their (and sometimes our) "good enough" category.

As cool as it would be to get a new master for this film, I don't see it looking much better since it was made to look pretty drab in the first place. A new master might be a tad sharper, but unless you're watching on a large screen or have your television professionally calibrated, the difference probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

Then again, I could be wrong and a new transfer could be a night-and-day difference.

[SteamPunkCat]

I really like Tim Burton's world of Batman. I just think the characters and visuals deserved better storylines. (Even though there are many parallels to '89 Joker's plans to Heath Ledger's Joker's plan.) Otherwise, I would own both Batman & Batman Returns.

Just of curiosity, did they ever remove the purple paint from Jack Nicholson's neck for the Blu-ray?

[Region_unlocked]

Originally Posted by SteamPunkCat

Just of curiosity, did they ever remove the purple paint from Jack Nicholson's neck for the Blu-ray?

Nope, still there.

[Ned Schneebly]

Originally Posted by Region_unlocked

Nope, still there.

What's the story with the purple paint? A glitch or just an oversight during filming?

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Ned Schneebly

What's the story with the purple paint? A glitch or just an oversight during filming?

Jack's white makeup got on the neck of his jacket for one take, so Burton had someone cover it with purple paint before the next one. They obviously didn't let it dry long enough, so it wound up on Jack's neck.

[Region_unlocked]

Originally Posted by Ned Schneebly

What's the story with the purple paint? A glitch or just an oversight during filming?

Very minor spoiler, so be warned if you haven't seen this 25 year old movie.

[Show spoiler]When Joker comes out of the shadows right before he shoots Jack Palance's character you can see a purple smudge on Jack Nicholson's neck.
This is because in the process of filming some of the Joker face paint rubbed off onto the coat he was wearing, to fix this the filmmakers just put some purple shoe polish over the makeup. Some time later Jack must have sat down or something and the polish rubbed onto his neck and ta da purple smudge.

[StingingVelvet]

Why should that be "fixed" anyway? I thought we were done with film revisionism crap.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Neomic

AVC-MPEG4 is generally the only one used now days since it's far superior, but in the early days of Blu-ray, a lot of releases were just ports of their HD-DVD counterparts, which supported VC-1 and MPEG2, so a lot of movies from those days still use those same encodes ported from release to release.

Most movie studios don't bother re-encoding the master for AVC since most of those encodes fall under their (and sometimes our) "good enough" category.

As cool as it would be to get a new master for this film, I don't see it looking much better since it was made to look pretty drab in the first place. A new master might be a tad sharper, but unless you're watching on a large screen or have your television professionally calibrated, the difference probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

Then again, I could be wrong and a new transfer could be a night-and-day difference.

Hey thanks! just for theck of it i'm going to pay attention to different encodes

[Stefan1]

Originally Posted by Region_unlocked

Very minor spoiler, so be warned if you haven't seen this 25 year old movie.

[Show spoiler]When Joker comes out of the shadows right before he shoots Jack Palance's character you can see a purple smudge on Jack Nicholson's neck.
This is because in the process of filming some of the Joker face paint rubbed off onto the coat he was wearing, to fix this the filmmakers just put some purple shoe polish over the makeup. Some time later Jack must have sat down or something and the polish rubbed onto his neck and ta da purple smudge.

Paint proof

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Why should that be "fixed" anyway? I thought we were done with film revisionism crap.

[Ned Schneebly]

That's really neat I've never heard the story of the purple paint before.

[Neomic]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

Hey thanks! just for theck of it i'm going to pay attention to different encodes

VC-1 is actually a decent codec and can have great results, but the one most people flip out about (and rightfully so) is MPEG2 since it's a very old codec (1996) and usually is accompanied by a ton of video anomalies that can easily be avoided by using one of the better codecs.

Sadly, some studios still do cheap out. The American Pie trilogy used old MPEG2 masters done for the DVDs, converted to MPEG4. Basically the equivalent of putting a turd in shrink-wrap. lol

[mrchallenge]

I have the book already, but I might have to re dip if the extra is any good.

Anybody know about "Diamond Luxe" packaging? Anything special? Or is it simply just a fancy name for a cardboard digipak?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by mrchallenge

I have the book already, but I might have to re dip if the extra is any good.

Anybody know about "Diamond Luxe" packaging? Anything special? Or is it simply just a fancy name for a cardboard digipak?

See this post

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=174

[Riddler95]

Originally Posted by Riddler95

I remember reading that VC-1 can be just as good as AVC just as long as it is used correctly.

Originally Posted by Dylan34

It sure is. Nothing wrong with it.

Originally Posted by stargazeruk

TBH for me most important when encoding and the final output comes down to these two things, Skill of the encoder, quality of the source.

I seen a lot of good VC1 encoded blu-rays/HD-DVDs from all the studios and I seen people compare the same film on occasions which had both and AVC encodes and some times the VC1 films had won over and then other times AVC won over. Both when used properly delivered excellent results.

From what I remember VC1 mostly was criticised when it came down to reviewing earlier warner disks which tbh warner did not do the best since most of their earlier films were heavy on the DNR and low bitrates.

Originally Posted by Neomic

AVC-MPEG4 is generally the only one used now days since it's far superior, but in the early days of Blu-ray, a lot of releases were just ports of their HD-DVD counterparts, which supported VC-1 and MPEG2, so a lot of movies from those days still use those same encodes ported from release to release.

Most movie studios don't bother re-encoding the master for AVC since most of those encodes fall under their (and sometimes our) "good enough" category.

As cool as it would be to get a new master for this film, I don't see it looking much better since it was made to look pretty drab in the first place. A new master might be a tad sharper, but unless you're watching on a large screen or have your television professionally calibrated, the difference probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

Then again, I could be wrong and a new transfer could be a night-and-day difference.

Originally Posted by Neomic

VC-1 is actually a decent codec and can have great results, but the one most people flip out about (and rightfully so) is MPEG2 since it's a very old codec (1996) and usually is accompanied by a ton of video anomalies that can easily be avoided by using one of the better codecs.

Sadly, some studios still do cheap out. The American Pie trilogy used old MPEG2 masters done for the DVDs, converted to MPEG4. Basically the equivalent of putting a turd in shrink-wrap. lol

I have seen some very impressive VC-1 Presentations on Blu-Ray. I think that it is a great Video Codec and I don't have any problems with it but I do understand the reasons for why most people prefer AVC.

I think both AVC and VC-1 are equally impressive just as long as they are used correctly.

In the end it really matters on how much time, money, and effort the studio will put into creating a Blu-Ray transfer. If they go that far the results can be terrific and if they don't the results will be the complete opposite.

[jscoggins]

They need to include both versions of the Vicki Vale/Joker scene in the belltower. It's a brief edit that's available on the DVD flipper with widescreen on one side and Pan&Scan on the other.