Nightmare Before Christmas coming next year! [Text View]

FoxyMulder

04-26-08, 11:54 AM

The movie was shot in 1.66:1, which is less wide than 16:9. If it was anamorphic, the resolution gain would be less than usual and it would need to be pillar-boxed or they'd need to crop the top and bottom. I think non-anamorphic was the right call, personally.

I have the UK DVD version which is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and has been slightly cropped to achieve this. It looks superb but some scenes look slightly cramped at the top and bottom of the screen and it's better than Corpse Bride but i really like both.

I hope they release with the original aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

I have noted that some Disney releases are being released with 1.78:1 aspect ratio's on DVD and something is wrong....The Jungle Book and The Aristocats being just two examples which just don't look quite right on the recent DVD releases.

I am not a fan of cropping to achieve a ratio when a film was never intended to be shown that way.....The Evil Dead for example was cropped in later releases to 1.78:1 and i think the director Sam Raimi was involved in this but still it misses information which should be there and i don't like it.

No one would want the classics from the thirties and forties cropped and neither should releases like this be cropped.

Great movie and i hope they do a superb Blu Ray release.

desmond212

04-26-08, 12:27 PM

Sony just released "A Passage to India" in 1.66:1 so there is a hope for this.

FoxyMulder

04-26-08, 02:28 PM

Sony just released "A Passage to India" in 1.66:1 so there is a hope for this.

Wasn't that a 1.85:1 aspect at the cinema ( Surprising too given Lean's fantastic Cinemascope films of the fifties, sixties and seventies )

Maybe it was shot flat using Super 35 and had multiple aspects though.....I'm sure someone here knows and can tell us all.

desmond212

04-27-08, 03:01 AM

Wasn't that a 1.85:1 aspect at the cinema ( Surprising too given Lean's fantastic Cinemascope films of the fifties, sixties and seventies )

Maybe it was shot flat using Super 35 and had multiple aspects though.....I'm sure someone here knows and can tell us all.

shot in 1.66. hbo co-produced it and it had to be close to 4:3.

Jason One

04-27-08, 05:05 AM

The movie was shot in 1.66:1, which is less wide than 16:9. If it was anamorphic, the resolution gain would be less than usual and it would need to be pillar-boxed or they'd need to crop the top and bottom. I think non-anamorphic was the right call, personally.
I realize I'm replying to a six-month old post here, but...

Anamorphic pillarboxed 1.66:1 on DVD has about 322,080 total pixels, whereas non-anamorphic letterboxed 1.66:1 has only 277,200. That's a gain of 16% more resolution with anamorphic 1.66:1.

Yes, it's not as much as the 33% gained from anamorphic 1.78:1 or wider, but it's enough for me to conclude that non-anamorphic was definitely not the right call for Nightmare Before Christmas, or any other 1.66:1 movie.

Then there's the issue of how there's almost no satisfactory way to view non-anamorphic 1.66:1 on a widescreen display.

My gut feeling is they'll be cropping it for BD; we shall see.
Disney has released a few DVDs with anamorphic pillarboxed 1.66:1 (Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan), so maybe there's some hope that the Nightmare Before Christmas BD will also have pillarboxed 1.66:1.

Brad Ley

04-27-08, 06:29 AM

I have the UK DVD version which is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and has been slightly cropped to achieve this. It looks superb but some scenes look slightly cramped at the top and bottom of the screen and it's better than Corpse Bride but i really like both.

I hope they release with the original aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

Just because something was shot @ 1.66:1 doesn't mean it was intended to be seen that way. That fact of the matter is that it was never distributed theatrically in America at anything other than the approximate 1.85:1 ratio. I know that the past two years that I have seen it projected at the El Capitan in Hollywood, it has been at that 1.85:1 ratio and that's what I want. I don't want to see what was shot, I want to see what was shown. Or should people hope for a 1.37:1 Back to the Future Blu-ray just because it was primarily shot at that ratio? Unless it was shot AND shown at 1.66:1, that's a useless ratio and seemed more to represent a studio's ambivalence towards going full ratio widescreen or pan and scan (sort of like cropping 2.35 to 1.78- which serves no one).

nyg

04-27-08, 09:45 AM

I too am curious if this movie will be presented in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio or if it'll be altered to 1.78:1 or God forbid, 1.33:1.

wyliec2

04-27-08, 12:11 PM

Then there's the issue of how there's almost no satisfactory way to view non-anamorphic 1.66:1 on a widescreen display.

Amen to that!!

I'll be first in line to purchase a correctly done, pillarboxed version of Nightmare Before Christmas!!!

FoxyMulder

04-27-08, 02:39 PM

Just because something was shot @ 1.66:1 doesn't mean it was intended to be seen that way. That fact of the matter is that it was never distributed theatrically in America at anything other than the approximate 1.85:1 ratio. I know that the past two years that I have seen it projected at the El Capitan in Hollywood, it has been at that 1.85:1 ratio and that's what I want. I don't want to see what was shot, I want to see what was shown. Or should people hope for a 1.37:1 Back to the Future Blu-ray just because it was primarily shot at that ratio? Unless it was shot AND shown at 1.66:1, that's a useless ratio and seemed more to represent a studio's ambivalence towards going full ratio widescreen or pan and scan (sort of like cropping 2.35 to 1.78- which serves no one).

This film should always be seen 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

IMDB.com states the original aspect ratio as 1.66:1

This site shows some pics and the overcropping.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/nightmarebeforexmas3.htm

Read the comments section as the DVD box cases wrongly state 1.66:1 for all versions when only the danish version shows the correct aspect ratio.

From the comments section;
This Danish release benefits greatly from anamorphic enhancement when compared to the R1, and also unlike the UK and Australian release is in its correct aspect ratio (they are both overmatted to 1.85:1). Improved definition is immediately noticeable, although I am a little cautious as to the accuracy of the colors, which seem oversaturated in comparison with the US and UK discs. These look similar to those on the Belgian disc, suggesting the same original source.
One trouble with the R1 - a slightly cropped picture on both sides.

Another source - DVD Times.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=6167

Taken from their article;

The major selling point of this release, in my view, is the fact that for the first time the film is presented anamorphically in its correct aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Previously, all releases were either in the correct ratio but non-anamorphic (see the American releases), or anamorphic but matted to 1.85:1 (all PAL releases). After previously having only seen the film matted, it is a real pleasure to finally watch it in its correct ratio. Almost immediately the improvements to the framing are obvious, with the film looking much better composed and less cramped vertically.

Incidentally, viewers who have previously owned the US release will be pleased to know that the line by the Mayor that was missing from that version ("Hold it, we haven't given out the prizes yet!") is indeed included here.

So i count that as three different independent high quality sources which state 1.66:1 as the theatrical aspect ratio and if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.

Brad Ley

04-27-08, 06:58 PM

This film should always be seen 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

IMDB.com states the original aspect ratio as 1.66:1

This site shows some pics and the overcropping.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/nightmarebeforexmas3.htm

Read the comments section as the DVD box cases wrongly state 1.66:1 for all versions when only the danish version shows the correct aspect ratio.

From the comments section;
This Danish release benefits greatly from anamorphic enhancement when compared to the R1, and also unlike the UK and Australian release is in its correct aspect ratio (they are both overmatted to 1.85:1). Improved definition is immediately noticeable, although I am a little cautious as to the accuracy of the colors, which seem oversaturated in comparison with the US and UK discs. These look similar to those on the Belgian disc, suggesting the same original source.
One trouble with the R1 - a slightly cropped picture on both sides.

Another source - DVD Times.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=6167

Taken from their article;

The major selling point of this release, in my view, is the fact that for the first time the film is presented anamorphically in its correct aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Previously, all releases were either in the correct ratio but non-anamorphic (see the American releases), or anamorphic but matted to 1.85:1 (all PAL releases). After previously having only seen the film matted, it is a real pleasure to finally watch it in its correct ratio. Almost immediately the improvements to the framing are obvious, with the film looking much better composed and less cramped vertically.

Incidentally, viewers who have previously owned the US release will be pleased to know that the line by the Mayor that was missing from that version ("Hold it, we haven't given out the prizes yet!") is indeed included here.

So i count that as three different independent high quality sources which state 1.66:1 as the theatrical aspect ratio and if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.

Guess what... They're all wrong. Sorry, the correct theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1. Most theaters in America aren't even equipped to show films in a 1.66:1 ratio unless that ratio is printed within the 1.85 frame with black added to the sides (as it would appear on a widescreen TV). Do you know who creates the info that appears on IMDB? Anyone, that's who. Try talking to people who know a bit about film exhibition and technology instead of anyone that can read the back of DVD cover. It's funny that you say the El Capitan showing it at 1.85 was wrong. Do you know what the El Capitan theater is? It just happens to be a theater run by Disney and one of the most well run, technically superior, and respected theaters in the country. In fact, the night I saw it there in 2006, it was preceded by a Q&A with the filmmakers, so I'm quite sure they would have noticed if it was being exhibited in the wrong ratio and that "mistake" wouldn't have been carried over in 2007.

There's no way I'll probably ever be able to convince you since you seem to have made up your mind based on what you've read on the internet elsewhere, but no... the film SHOULD NOT be seen in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It was designed to be shown at approximately 1.85:1 but was protected at 1.66:1 both for theatrical framing variances and home video. The truth is that most films are shot with additional picture information that is matted out theatrically and, if done correctly, at home as well. Just last night I went to a screening of Back to the Future and the DP Dean Cundy was there for Q&A. When the film began it was misframed and for the first minute or so, there was more picture visible on the top of the screen than is seen in the widescreen DVD. That doesn't mean that the Blu-ray should open up the mattes to reveal that picture just because some believe it's vital information that is missing. It was captured on film but it was not intended to be seen under ideal and CORRECT viewings of the film.

paku

04-27-08, 08:37 PM

Brad Ley

04-27-08, 10:43 PM

Guess what... America isn't the whole World. If I'm not entirely mistaken this would have been shown in 1.66:1 in many European theatres.

A lot (if not most) of the Disney movies of that era were done at 1.66:1 (for example the CAPS animated titles) which would at least to me suggest that the American theatrical exhibition format was not considered the be-all end-all deciding factor of what a movie, as you yourself said, was "intended" to look like. And if the 1.85:1 was the intended ratio for theatres, then 1.66:1 must have been the intended ratio for home video formats (or European theatres), so here's another one: guess what Blu-ray is. I'll give you a hint: it's not a theatrical format. ;)

Anyway, all this bickering is just incredibly silly. The fact that it was shown in 1.85:1 in American theatres and likely 1.66:1 in European ones means both are completely viable ways of watching the film. And the difference is not that huge, certainly not big enough to be crucial to the film in any way. 1.85:1, 1.66:1 or even 1.78:1, it doesn't matter, it's going to be great anyway.

I agree and if you notice I was very deliberate to always discuss it's American theatrical ratio in my discussion. While it is certainly possible that the film has been shown in a ratio taller than 1.85 outside of America, that doesn't make A Nightmare Before Christmas (an American film made by American filmmakers for an American studio) shown at 1.85:1 incorrect. What I'm trying to head off is comments like:
so maybe there's some hope that the Nightmare Before Christmas BD will also have pillarboxed 1.66:1.
I too am curious if this movie will be presented in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio or if it'll be altered to 1.78:1 or God forbid, 1.33:1.
Implying that anything other than 1.66 is a botch job. NYG is even somewhat equating the 1.78 ratio with a 4:3 crop presentation! Again, he said "Altered."

And I also agree that the bickering is silly, but it's really gets to me when people are adamant about clouding facts with internet folklore when they're not qualified to discuss such. I mean, really, do you agree with Foxy's assertion that when I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in Disney's premiere theater that it was shown incorrectly in front of it's filmmakers? Let me remind you:
if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.
I just think Foxy and some others need to learn a bit about soft matting and hard matting and that sometimes matting out picture information is not wrong.

And by the way, I've seen the HD version of the film on Starz recently, and it wasn't 1.66...

FoxyMulder

04-27-08, 11:03 PM

I just think Foxy and some others need to learn a bit about soft matting and hard matting and that sometimes matting out picture information is not wrong.

And by the way, I've seen the HD version of the film on Starz recently, and it wasn't 1.66...

Even if your theater showed it 1.85:1 it doesn't explain why many reviewers have pointed out the cramped look to the image....That theater probably showed The Jungle Book and The Aristocats in 1.85:1 and Disney released them on DVD at 1.78:1 but that doesn't explain why they look wrong like the picture has been overmatted top and bottom of the frame and chances are they are both 1.66:1 aspect ratio giving the year both were made....Disney have a habit of doing this with some of their animated titles.....You yourself said that American Cinemas cannot show 1.66:1 so don't you think that perhaps a compromise print was struck especially for American Cinema audiences and that what you are seeing is perhaps this compromise whenever you visit the cinema ?

I'm well aware of what hard matting and soft matting is.

Take Body Heat as an example...In it's original matted 1.85:1 version Kathleen Turner appears to be holding something on William Hurts body but we can't see what and we just use our imagination....In the 1.33:1 presentation we find out its all pretty limp and thus the illusion of Body Heat is shattered.....I know about matting but the reviews show comparisons between the 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 versions of Nightmare Before Christmas.....Surely if you check the images you can see this ?

Just check the image comparison pictures...

Here's another site regarding The Aristocats and it's image ratio for DVD.....http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ - Taken from that site...Anyone can take one look at the image above and instantly tell that something is not right about the framing. It was nice to see this trend reversed for 101 Dalmatians, but that doesn't change the issue of several other titles having been bungled and continuing to be bungled.

Now ok perhaps some sites don't always list the correct information but tell me this....why re-release The Nightmare Before Christmas in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK if it wasn't the CORRECT aspect for the film....Now bear in mind the first release which i own was 1.78:1 and many considered it the wrong aspect and many considered it cramped and overmatted....

Why would Disney originally release it 1.78:1 and then a few years ago re-release it in the UK at 1.66:1 if it wasn't right...thats all i want to know and perhaps you can answer this for me and who knows you might even acknowledge i am right on this one.

In fact Disney's own site says 1.66:1 so how do you know for sure that what you saw at the cinema was a screen showing a 1.85:1 presentation and not a 1.66:1 presentation....I don't mean to question you on this but it's not like the curtain moves back and they announce the aspect ratio or do they ?

Taken from the Disney site.....http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/moviefinder/products/2010203.html

Technical Specifications:
Not All Technical Specifications Apply To All Elements
Color
1.66:1 Aspect Ratio
Region 1
English (Dolby 5.1 Digital), French
Spanish Subtitles Try talking to people who know a bit about film exhibition and technology instead of anyone that can read the back of DVD cover.

There's no way I'll probably ever be able to convince you since you seem to have made up your mind based on what you've read on the internet elsewhere, but no... the film SHOULD NOT be seen in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It was designed to be shown at approximately 1.85:1 but was protected at 1.66:1 both for theatrical framing variances and home video.

You see i have trouble with this explanation.

If it was designed to be shown at 1.85:1 then why oh why does it look so much better when shown at 1.66:1 and why oh why would Disney UK who i assume are intelligent and knowledgable and possibly in contact with the director or someone who worked on the film re-release it at 1.66:1. ( when originally they released it at 1.78:1 - Usually film companies only re-release at a different aspect when they got it wrong first time around )

I never take the word of a single person or what i read on the back of a DVD cover as gospel which is what you are suggesting....I do use my eyes though and i do listen and if you have evidence and i mean real evidence to suggest this film should be shown 1.85:1 then i'd love to see it and i will readily acknowledge you are right but to me all the evidence points to this being 1.66:1.....The framing is better and it just works better at 1.66:1

All things being equal too many people think this film should be shown at 1.66:1 for them to be wrong. So yes i think it's possible you saw it 1.85:1 but that doesn't always make it right....

Maybe Tim Burton and Henry Selick browse these forums and could pipe in and tell us for sure.

Dave Mack

04-27-08, 11:37 PM

somehwhere in some interview it's gotta be mentioned...

Brad Ley

04-27-08, 11:42 PM

Even if your theater showed it 1.85:1 it doesn't explain why many reviewers have pointed out the cramped look to the image....
This is AV SCIENCE, not AV Opinion. Someone random commenting that something looks crampped to them doesn't translate to it being incorrectly presented. I've seen the film shown at 1.85 probably a dozen or so times and I've never had a problem with the framing. Nor should I because the filmmakers would have seen that same framing when the film was shot.
That theater probably showed The Jungle Book and The Aristocats in 1.85:1 and Disney released them on DVD at 1.78:1 but that doesn't explain why they look wrong like the picture has been overmatted top and bottom of the frame and chances are they are both 1.66:1 aspect ratio giving the year both were made....Disney have a habit of doing this with some of their animated titles.....You yourself said that American Cinemas cannot show 1.66:1 so don't you think that perhaps a compromise print was struck especially for American Cinema audiences and that what you are seeing is perhaps this compromise whenever you visit the cinema ?
Yes, for the market that represents half of their business (especially in 1993) I'm sure they'll make special prints to accommodate a European ratio. I can't speak to how the El Capitan presented Aristocats or Jungle Book recently because I didn't attend either of those.

I'm well aware of what hard matting and soft matting is.

Take Body Heat as an example...In it's original matted 1.85:1 version Kathleen Turner appears to be holding something on William Hurts body but we can't see what and we just use our imagination....In the 1.33:1 presentation we find out its all pretty limp and thus the illusion of Body Heat is shattered.....

That's a different type of "soft matting." ;)

I know about matting but the reviews show comparisons between the 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 versions of Nightmare Before Christmas.....Surely if you check the images you can see this ?

Just check the image comparison pictures...

Here's another site regarding The Aristocats and it's image ratio for DVD.....http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ - Taken from that site...Anyone can take one look at the image above and instantly tell that something is not right about the framing. It was nice to see this trend reversed for 101 Dalmatians, but that doesn't change the issue of several other titles having been bungled and continuing to be bungled.

Did you actually read what is written under that image:
I don't care that this was how they would have been projected theatrically (the chances of finding a cinema equipped to display 1.33:1 material in 1970, when this film was released, would be small in the extreme)

Now ok perhaps some sites don't always list the correct information but tell me this....why re-release The Nightmare Before Christmas in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK if it wasn't the CORRECT aspect for the film....Now bear in mind the first release which i own was 1.78:1 and many considered it the wrong aspect and many considered it cramped and overmatted....

Why would Disney originally release it 1.78:1 and then a few years ago re-release it in the UK at 1.66:1 if it wasn't right...thats all i want to know and perhaps you can answer this for me and who knows you might even acknowledge i am right on this one.
Again, I'm not saying that 1.66 is wrong for the European market (which you are clearly a part of). If it was projected slightly opened to 1.66 over there that's fine. As I said earlier, it was protected to 1.66 with the filmmakers knowing that the information might be seen, either in an international screening or the eventual home video release. But I can tell you that they knew with 100% certainty that the film would be projected on film in 1993 American cinemas at an approximate 1.85:1 ratio and would have composed for that. What I have taken to task is the notion that anything other than 1.66 is "altered" or "a mistake." Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one. Good lord, I used to have a 1.90:1 laserdisc of The Abyss that contained more picture information than the theatrical release... doesn't make it the correct ratio.

FoxyMulder

04-28-08, 02:08 AM

Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one. Good lord, I used to have a 1.90:1 laserdisc of The Abyss that contained more picture information than the theatrical release... doesn't make it the correct ratio.

Maybe you are right...who knows... maybe i am....I'm just wondering why Disney would release 1.78:1 over here ( I own that one ) and then re-release at 1.66:1 over here...It just seems inconsistent.

No disagreement from me on anything here even if it seems i am disagreeing ( just healthy debate ) i'm just wondering whether 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 should be used and who knows maybe as you say both can be used.

Goatse

04-28-08, 10:50 AM

Is this movie shot with SLR like Corpse bride?

Dave Mack

04-28-08, 11:22 AM

No, I believe it was a 35mm movie camera, exposed one frame at a time.

wyliec2

05-01-08, 07:21 AM

After having watched this movie many times seeing the entire 1:66 image, I don't see how ANYONE could conclude that this movie was intended to be seen other than at 1:66.......so what if it was shown or distributed at other ARs out of ignorance or convenience.......IMHO this is supposed to be 1:66 period.

Brad Ley

05-01-08, 08:52 PM

IMHO this is supposed to be 1:66 period.

And the key in that sentence is "IMHO"
Just because you're fond of your opinion doesn't make it fact for the rest of the world.

wyliec2

05-01-08, 09:22 PM

This is AV SCIENCE, not AV Opinion.

But I can tell you that they knew with 100% certainty that the film would be projected on film in 1993 American cinemas at an approximate 1.85:1 ratio and would have composed for that. What I have taken to task is the notion that anything other than 1.66 is "altered" or "a mistake." Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one.

Guess it's debatable (and no I won't debate - see wrestling with pigs analogy) whether the movie was designed for 1.66 with framing so as it wouldn't be totally destroyed when cut to 1.78 or 1.85.

Similarly a movie may be shot knowing that some parts will be censored in certain areas - that doesn't alter the fact of what really constitutes the 'ENTIRE' movie.

I clearly labelled my feeling as opinion because I'm not sure how anyone can establish it as fact by themselves - and considering you reject the FACT that IMDB, Amazon and the vast majority of references list the movie as 1.66 aspect ratio. The two US release versions I have had were both 1.66 - maybe they were mistakes.

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/the_nightmare_before_christmas.html
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video/nightmarebeforechristmas.htm
http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=7478&PID=10088127&Tab=reviews&CID=18

Finally, as regards the Disney reference, please contact them ASAP to correct their Nightmare Before Christmas website which lists the movie as 1.66 aspect ratio (NOTE: this is a FACT).

http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/moviefinder/products/2010203.html

:eek:

William

05-02-08, 05:24 AM

Is this movie shot with SLR like Corpse bride?

Corpse Bride was shot using a digital SLR and not a 35mm SLR. Nightmare Before Christmas was made before this was technically possible.

HeadRusch

05-02-08, 12:31 PM

There was a widescreen rip of this in HD floating around the interwebs and it didn't look particularly bad at 16:9, regardless of its intended presentation ratio.

BenjaminG

05-30-08, 07:12 AM

Yes! Announced!

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6565290.html?nid=2705

* Exclusive introduction by Tim Burton
* Audio Commentary by Tim Burton, director Henry Selick and composer Danny Elfman
* An original poem written by Burton and narrated by Christopher Lee
* Digital copy version of the film
* Tim Burton's Vincent short film
* Several featurettes including a tour of Disneyland’s Haunted Mansion
* Making of

paku

05-30-08, 07:28 AM

Very nice! I hope the short Vincent will be in HD as well.

SirDrexl

05-30-08, 08:14 AM

August 26th seems a bit odd (you'd think they'd wait for October), but I'm not about to complain. :)

$39.99 though? Yikes.

bassmonkeee

05-30-08, 08:57 AM

The BD for National Treasure 2 has a trailer for Nightmare Before Christmas. It looks phenomenal. I can't wait.

paku

05-30-08, 10:12 AM

$39.99 though? Yikes.
The $32.99 is oddly high for a regular DVD re-release as well... although this is one of those movies where I'd gladly pay for a nice edition.

But what on earth is in the Ultimate Edition to warrant a $179.99 price tag?! :eek:

toxic_avenger

05-30-08, 02:14 PM

August 26th seems a bit odd (you'd think they'd wait for October), but I'm not about to complain. :)

$39.99 though? Yikes.

The sooner the better;) I won't mind paying around 30 for it. It's one of my all time faves.

msgohan

06-01-08, 07:48 AM

The real reason I rented National Treasure 1 and 2... at 6 bucks each no less. Is Blockbuster that expensive in the US?

http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i53044_NBCTrailer1.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i53045_NBCTrailer2.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i53046_NBCTrailer3.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i53047_NBCTrailer4.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i53048_NBCTrailer5.png

The trailer is 16:9 MPEG-2. Strange that it claims a fall release at the end while the announcement is for August.

Dave Mack

06-01-08, 10:23 AM

Very nice! I hope the short Vincent will be in HD as well.

THAT would be a treat!

:)

rhett7660

06-01-08, 02:09 PM

Sweet..... I can't wait for this one!

Dave_6

06-02-08, 08:26 AM

THAT would be a treat!

:)

Read this: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disney/Disc_Announcements/Nightmare_Before_Christmas_Blu-ray_Gets_Date,_Digital_Copy/1784

:)

bassmonkeee

06-02-08, 09:55 AM

Read this: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disney/Disc_Announcements/Nightmare_Before_Christmas_Blu-ray_Gets_Date,_Digital_Copy/1784

:)

That doesn't give any indication of whether or not "Vincent" will be in HD, though, which was the question.

Dave_6

06-02-08, 10:22 AM

N/m

ShagMan

06-02-08, 10:37 AM

I read the article and the linked Video Business article, and neither specified whether the extras were going to be in HD or not.

FoxyMulder

06-06-08, 11:11 AM

The specs are now in and as i thought 1.66:1 is the aspect chosen ( hurray )

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67929

Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment have announced the US Blu-ray Disc release of The Nightmare Before Christmas (Collector’s Edition) on 26th August 2008 priced at $39.99 SRP. Writer and producer Tim Burton’s animated tale debuts on Blu-ray alongside the new DVD release which features a new digital restoration and new extras. The Blu-ray boasts all of the DVD content plus a special Blu-ray only introduction by Tim Burton.

Directed by Henry Selick, The Nightmare Before Christmas combines stop-motion animation with three-dimensional sets.

Features include:

1080P 1.66:1 Widescreen
7.1 Dolby True HD and 5.1 Dolby Digital (48k-24bit)
English, French and Spanish languages
”DisneyFile” Digital Copy - a second disc holds a standard definition digital copy of the film in your choices of iTunes of Windows Media formats.
NEW! What’s This? Jack’s Haunted Mansion Holiday Tour – Viewers choose the way they want to tour Disneyland’s Holiday Haunted Mansion. “On Track” explores a tricked-out version of the Haunted Mansion, while “Off Track” reveals what went into creating all the creepy fun.
NEW! Tim Burton’s Original poem narrated by Christopher Lee – Tim Burton’s poem that inspired the creation of the movie. Now, the original verse comes to creepy life as performed by legendary actor Christopher.Lee.
NEW! Film Commentary – commentary by producer and writer Tim Burton, director Henry Selick and composer Danny Elfman.
NEW! Introduction To Frankenweenie! – A new un-cut version introduction by Tim Burton.
The Making of Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas - Go behind the scenes of the very first full-length stop motion animated movie with the filmmakers.
The Worlds of Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas – Witness the creation of the film’s richly imagined dreamscapes, including Halloween Town, Christmas Town and the Real World.
Deleted Scenes
Storyboard to Film Comparison
Original Theatrical Trailers and Posters
PLUS Tim Burton’s Complete Short Film Vincent
Blu-ray only introduction by Tim Burton

HeadRusch

06-06-08, 11:21 AM

Hmmm....I would have liked to have seen some behind-the-scenes footage of Danny Elfman doing the soundtrack recording, although the guy is more than a little reclusive, so I guess I'm not surprised.

jokerfish

06-06-08, 01:04 PM

He is participating in the new Commentary though!

I loved my old Special Edition DVD but it is time for an Anamorphic transfer already!

HeadRusch

06-06-08, 02:13 PM

bassmonkeee

06-06-08, 03:02 PM

Ah that will be cool, hopefully he has a few things to say, tho I understand he's a much different person from his Oingo Boingo manic days ;)

Cool to know tho, I saw it in HD off one of the HD channels moons ago, it'll be nice to own a copy where I can make out every fingerprint on the models as they get moved around ;)

I was just about to say--It's funny to think of the guy fronting the party band in Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School" and responsible for Forbidden Zone* as "Reclusive." :D

* Quite possibly the most #&$(ed up movie I've ever seen.

Big Brad

06-06-08, 04:18 PM

/offtopic

HeadRusch, if you're a big fan of Danny Elfman, check out the isolated score w/ commentary on Edward Scissorhands. Elfman explains a lot about how he writes his scores and how his way is much different from others. I really enjoyed listening to it. On a side note, he wasn't only fronting the party band in Back to School, he also did the score!

-Brad

lgans316

08-21-08, 03:37 AM

David Vaughn review is up at U-AV-MAG.

Film: 9 / 10
Picture: 9 / 10
Sound: 9 / 10

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/moviereviews/082008nightmare/

Burton's vision comes to life on Blu-ray with a spectacular 1080p AVC encode. Detail is breathtaking, from the characters' facial expressions to the intricate backgrounds. Halloween Town highlights the excellent shadow detail and depth in an otherwise colorless image, but when Jack ventures to Christmas Town, colors jump off the screen with reference-quality saturation and detail. Some rare instances of moiré creep into the picture, but otherwise this is a near-flawless presentation.

Disney has delivered some of the best audio soundtracks on Blu-ray, and the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track on this disc is no exception. Imaging is wide and deep, and Danny Elfman's award-winning score shows off a full-bodied midrange along with crisp highs and taut bass. The surround channels produce an all-encompassing ambience with many discrete effects creating the illusion of characters moving about the room, which had me turning my head on many occasions thinking a creature had sneaked into my viewing room!

Kram Sacul

08-21-08, 05:28 AM

I really hope it's a new transfer and not what is shown in the above captures from the promotional ad. Surely they made a new master when creating the 3-D version shown in theaters.

davcole

08-21-08, 06:43 AM

Good to see there's finally a domestic release of a TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack.

Imeldhil

08-21-08, 07:54 AM

errr is there anyway we can know from the reviews if finally this titles is region free???

Dave Vaughn

08-21-08, 10:23 AM

It's region A only.

paku

08-21-08, 10:26 AM

Reports will probably be in soon. Fortunately in case it isn't, there's the UK release in October.

Edit: Well there we go, guess I'm waiting. Dave, is Vincent in HD or is it the same really poor version that was on previous DVDs?

JWhip

08-21-08, 11:26 AM

working on my review now. This is an excellent transfer on both video and audio. Looks amazing.

Dave Vaughn

08-21-08, 12:12 PM

It's in SD....but it was 3 weeks ago that I watched it! I am 99% sure though.

Josh Z

08-21-08, 01:22 PM

I was just about to say--It's funny to think of the guy fronting the party band in Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School" and responsible for Forbidden Zone* as "Reclusive." :D

The guy scores about 3-4 movies every year. How reclusive could he be?

robertc88

08-21-08, 01:42 PM

And the best price you folks have seen? Thanks in advance.

paku

08-21-08, 03:41 PM

It's in SD....but it was 3 weeks ago that I watched it! I am 99% sure though.
Thanks, that's what I was afraid of. Kind of odd really, I read that it would also go through the 3-D process to be showed together with Nightmare Before Christmas in theatres, would it have killed them to include the new (I assume) HD transfer of it?

Imeldhil

08-21-08, 06:29 PM

region locked? an old film? man... screw you disney!!

Coxwell

08-22-08, 04:14 AM

Indeed, and unfortunately, it's region locked. :(

Maxx2029

08-22-08, 04:15 AM

It's region A only.Did you test it somehow or is it just based on the back cover?

They did mark National Treasure 2 as Region A only on the back, when actually it was Region AB.

paku

08-22-08, 08:49 AM

I'm thinking Disney's region scheme is probably something like this:

New titles - region locked
Catalogue titles - region free
Catalogue titles from new restorations (day-and-date with new DVD editions) - region locked

If the Nightmare Before Christmas really is region locked, I'm 90% certain that Sleeping Beauty will be locked as well.

Dave Vaughn

08-22-08, 11:04 AM

Did you test it somehow or is it just based on the back cover?

They did mark National Treasure 2 as Region A only on the back, when actually it was Region AB.

Just the back cover.

lgans316

08-22-08, 11:12 AM

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=1100771&postcount=61

Good catch by Josh @blu-ray.com

I watched this disc last night, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. There are halos EVERYWHERE, and I'm not sure if this is a result of DNR/EE or if it is because of the style of filming. Anytime there is any deep contrast - the moon against the dark sky or Jack's head against the dark sky - there is a halo. Honestly, I can't remember how it looked on DVD and I no longer have it to compare. Can anyone provide insight?

The only glaring problem with the video (besides what is mentioned above, which may be inherent to the film) is one scene where the fat kid is running away from a toy. He is coming from out of the dark, and the red stripes on his shirt get crushed as he leaves the darkness and enters the light foreground. Its really bad, and surprising that they didn't go back and clean that one scene up after the encode.

The sound is absolutely amazing. One of the best soundtracks I have heard. The surround channels are amply used (I only have a 5.0 system) and it sounds perfect. I was probably more impressed with the high definition sound than the high definition video.

A great release, I'd just like to know what is up with all the halos?

Dave Vaughn

08-22-08, 12:12 PM

The halo's are supposed to be there for stylistic reasons. It is a whimsical world after all.

As for the stripes, I didn't notice it on my first viewing of the BD...but then again, I was enjoying the film :D

vpn75

08-22-08, 01:10 PM

SirDrexl

08-22-08, 01:43 PM

I'm interested in picking this one up, but it seems kind of pricey for a catalog title ($27.95/Amazon). Disney's pricing is usually a bit better.

Are we being forced to pay a premium for the digital copy?

Yes, we are. The list is $5 higher. :(

However, I believe this is the only such title so far, and on Prince Caspian they're offering a separate version without the digital copy for the usual $35 list. I hope this is how they do it from now on, but I wonder if this is because Caspian is a major new release. Catalog titles may not warrant 2 different units.

JBlacklow

08-22-08, 02:52 PM

The halo's are supposed to be there for stylistic reasons. It is a whimsical world after all.After looking at the screenshot Josh provided, it's not the halos that we associate with EE but actual glowing, which is almost certainly the lighting of the animatics(?), not something introduced in the master or transfer, AFAIK.

Dave Vaughn

08-22-08, 04:27 PM

After looking at the screenshot Josh provided, it's not the halos that we associate with EE but actual glowing, which is almost certainly the lighting of the animatics(?), not something introduced in the master or transfer, AFAIK.

I agree.

Decado2

08-22-08, 04:38 PM

Crap the movie is expensive! $40 for an old movie that doesn't even run 90 minutes!

Imeldhil

08-22-08, 05:15 PM

Not spending a dime untill I know for sure if it's region locked or not. If it is I'll wait for its release in spain in october (sadly cuz it's even MORE expensive here!).

paku

08-22-08, 05:33 PM

The UK release with shipping is almost exactly the same price as the US version would cost to import. Haven't seen anything about it including the digital copy though.

Ralph Potts

08-22-08, 05:50 PM

Greetings,

I received my copy yesterday and will finish watching it tonight. My initial impressions are very positive. The 7.1 channel audio is impressive indeed..

I will get my review posted over the weekend for those interested...

Regards,

Imeldhil

08-22-08, 06:02 PM

The UK release with shipping is almost exactly the same price as the US version would cost to import. Haven't seen anything about it including the digital copy though.

yeah but have you find specs on the UK edition?? is impossible to know audio-video specs for it!

paku

08-22-08, 06:17 PM

I assume it would be more or less identical in terms of specs.

msgohan

08-22-08, 06:25 PM

Ralph, any chance you can tell us whether it looks better than the promo on National Treasure 2? Screenshots are on the previous page.

Imeldhil

08-22-08, 06:30 PM

not exactly normally UK release are PCM english, DTS of two european languages and 3 or 4 dolby digital audio tracks.

I'm interested to know what european languages will come with the UK edition.

zoro

08-22-08, 08:34 PM

Darn! why not around Halloween and Christmas this year???

Is UK version releasing around same time? How about Beetlejuice Ralph?

Kram Sacul

08-22-08, 09:07 PM

Someone please post the captures of the "halos".

Ralph Potts

08-23-08, 06:34 AM

Someone please post the captures of the "halos".

Greetings,

They are not halos in the edge enhancement sense. It is a glow that appears intentionally given to the moon and Jack's head. In certain scenes the glow is more prominent but its not a video artifact.

Regards,

Ralph Potts

08-23-08, 06:36 AM

Ralph, any chance you can tell us whether it looks better than the promo on National Treasure 2? Screenshots are on the previous page.

Greetings,

I would rather not make the comparision based upon screenshots. I will check out the promo on NT2 and let you know.

Cheers,

Kram Sacul

08-23-08, 06:42 AM

They are not halos in the edge enhancement sense. It is a glow that appears intentionally given to the moon and Jack's head. In certain scenes the glow is more prominent but its not a video artifact.

Yeah, we'll see about that. :D

paku

08-23-08, 07:06 AM

Kram, the "halos" are on the shots from the National Treasure 2 promo on the previous page in the thread. It's the thick glow around characters and objects when they're standing against a dark background.

Kram Sacul

08-23-08, 07:25 AM

Well, if you say so. ;) What I'd really like to know is if it's the same transfer seen on Starz and BSHi. The captures on the other page from the promo confirm that it probably is.

Dave Mack

08-23-08, 09:46 AM

MSmith83

08-23-08, 09:57 AM

If it's what we see on the previous page, then, no, that is not EE.
First it's the boy who cried DNR and now EE on all these new titles. (Many indeed warranted, yes) but when people have no idea what they're talking about and sound the alarm it just makes the legitimate complaints get lost in the hysteria.

Well said. Using the term "halos" and questioning where they were introduced can be very misleading in a case such as this, where the "halos" are quite obviously not what we would see from excessive edge enhancement.

JBlacklow

08-23-08, 09:59 AM

Well, if you say so. ;):rolleyes:

Here's the image referring to the halos:

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/885/halowz4.jpg

As you can clearly see, it's light diffusion, not ringing.

wizzack

08-23-08, 01:41 PM

yeah must have been the kid @ blu-ray.com's first time seeing the movie, or he would know it's supposed to look like that.

can't wait to check this out.

Steeb

08-23-08, 10:32 PM

Blu-ray.com...

'nough said.

Yep. It's a shame the nonsense didn't stay over there where it belongs.

I'm definitely picking this one up because it's one of the wife's favorites.

SirDrexl

08-23-08, 11:54 PM

Wow, someone really thought that light diffusion (or whatever) was edge halos? It looks like many current-gen video games where they go too far on the HDR lighting. I wonder if he said the games had halos too. ;)

Kram Sacul

08-24-08, 12:15 AM

ie Finding Nemo / gummi effect

gubarenko

08-24-08, 10:37 AM

will smn check region coding????

ResOGlas

08-25-08, 06:17 PM

Anybody find this Blu-ray disc early? I came across the new DVD on Friday which also has a street date for the 26th, but my tireless search for the Blu-ray version has been a wild goose chase.

I guess I could wait until tomorrow... :p

toxic_avenger

08-25-08, 08:24 PM

giantchicken

08-25-08, 10:33 PM

For some reason, Amazon didn't ship my copy today.

Dave Mack

08-25-08, 10:35 PM

Too bad Frankenweenie and Vincent are still just in SD. Kinda disappointing in the supplement section for the MSRP.

Ah well. PQ and AQ are most important.
HDD liked it.

notoriousmatty

08-26-08, 04:08 AM

The picture quality on this is outstanding. It looks like it was filmed yesterday. And hearing Elfmans music on a 7.1 HD track...if I died today I would be happy.

robertc88

08-26-08, 08:45 AM

On its way from Netflix, no problem getting this new release from them for me at least. I'll wait for a good price before I buy it. Anxiously awaiting to see and hear it tonight!

paku

08-26-08, 10:22 AM

Release day is here and still no word whether it's region coded or not?

Vriess

08-26-08, 10:30 AM

Wow what a great disc. The special features like the walkthrough of the haunted mansion are really cool and the video rate was sky high the whole time.

As far as the region coding goes there is a hexagon with an A on it if that is the region coding.

paku

08-26-08, 10:35 AM

Yeah, that's it, but occasionally the packaging is wrong and it will say just Region A even though it's actually ABC. It needs to be tested on an actual machine of a different region.

jkwest

08-26-08, 12:30 PM

great disc!! Superb quality...sorry, I didn't check for Region locking...I will after work, but, someone will probably already post something...

sharkcohen

08-26-08, 12:44 PM

Mine is on the way from netflix, can't wait to see it.

ppshooky

08-26-08, 02:00 PM

I'm picking this movie up today (pre-ordered on Saturday, which, apparently, was the last day to get it).

I'm picking it up from FYE, as I have their membership plan (10% off purchases) and gift cards.

Now, I have to decide if I want to watch this right away, wait until Halloween, or wait until the holidays.

ShagMan

08-26-08, 02:08 PM

I wanted to publicly thank our fellow member JoshZ for his illustrative and informative review of A Nightmare of Christmas... what a great review man!

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1207/nightmarebeforechristmas.html

RBFC

08-26-08, 03:24 PM

Incredible PQ and AQ on this! Only watched about 10 minutes so far, more when the kids get home.

Lee

AlexBC

08-26-08, 03:31 PM

Can anyone with the disc please check if it has portuguese subtitles? They're usually not listed on the coverart for BV releases that feature them.

I'd appreciate it very much. ;)

Ralph Potts

08-26-08, 04:53 PM

Can anyone with the disc please check if it has portuguese subtitles? They're usually not listed on the coverart for BV releases that feature them.

I'd appreciate it very much. ;)

Greetings,

It has Portuguese subs Alex..:)

Cheers,

AlexBC

08-26-08, 05:53 PM

WOW, thank you Ralph, great news! ;)

Kids are gonna love it!

tiger_qc

08-26-08, 06:02 PM

I'm watching it tonight, my expectations are set really high.:)

kdssrugby

08-26-08, 07:37 PM

As a heads up to anyone in Waterloo (Canada) the HMV has TNBC french edition which is $29.99 but no digital copy. The only reason I didn t pick it up is the cover and back are bilingual and the French comes first (not being racist, just prefer it the "traditional way")

toxic_avenger

08-26-08, 08:40 PM

Just got done watching this a little bit ago and the PQ and AQ were excellent. Disney did a great job with this and I'm glad they did since it's a favorite of mine.

Dave Mack

08-26-08, 09:04 PM

Finally, a high profile title that everyone was waiting for that, (GASP!) looks really good!

:)

ResOGlas

08-26-08, 09:38 PM

Would love to see some Xylon comparisons. :)

kdssrugby

08-26-08, 10:03 PM

Just finished watching myself. I have to say I was leery going into it because I remember disliking it as a kid, but it is now one of my favourites. Oh and the audio is ridiculous in its awesomeness. I wish there was an music only track.

Dave Mack

08-26-08, 10:21 PM

maingon

08-26-08, 11:41 PM

awesome awesome awesome soundtrack.

Dave Mack

08-27-08, 12:21 AM

Especially Patrick Stewart's longer opening narration. They should have gotten him for the film as well. The guy who does it is just ok. Stewart rocks on the soundtrack.

ResOGlas

08-27-08, 05:17 AM

Just finished watching my copy, Very satisfied.

I believe there was one audio glitch, but I'll double check to make sure it wasn't just in my head.

gubarenko

08-27-08, 05:22 AM

region? anyone?

Jeffroy

08-27-08, 10:06 AM

Just finished watching my copy, Very satisfied.

I believe there was one audio glitch, but I'll double check to make sure it wasn't just in my head.

I thought I noticed something too. After 'this is halloween', when Jack is walking away and talking to the musicians. One of the words gets slightly chopped off.

ShagMan

08-27-08, 10:40 AM

Especially Patrick Stewart's longer opening narration. They should have gotten him for the film as well. The guy who does it is just ok. Stewart rocks on the soundtrack.

Hear hear, Patrick Stewart's opening and closing on the soundtrack rocks!

Rach

08-27-08, 10:44 AM

Watched this last night. The AQ is exceptional and the PQ is great. However, I thought the picture was a tad soft based on the 35mm camera shots used to create the movie. I guess I expected the Corpse Bride. CB used digital cameras and it is definitely sharper. Still, no complaints. Great quality. I would give the PQ 9/10 instead of 10/10 (like CB).

tiger_qc

08-27-08, 06:56 PM

I watched it last night, WOW!
I found the corpse bride PQ a little better. No biggie since the story is better IMO.

Dave Mack

08-27-08, 07:08 PM

kdssrugby

08-27-08, 08:35 PM

I have a question for people watching this on a set top player (or PS3), when you select a bonus feature does it show how long it is at the top, and when you choose a chapter does it give an audio preview. I only ask because the dvdbeaver review stated that it did, and it doesn t do this on my HTPC.Thanks.

webdev511

08-28-08, 03:14 AM

PQ and AQ are just outstanding. It's now on my short list of demo quality BD. The only BD releases I've seen that are more feature rich than this are the new Universal BD titles. (only because they had practice releasing in red cases)

I really hope the other studios take notice and release their titles with this level of polish. Okay, Fox won't, but maybe the others will. :)

Bob Black

08-28-08, 07:46 AM

Just watched this last night. A must-own title, absolutely! PQ is outstanding, as is the audio. Now I just hope Ghostbusters isn't really delayed. Keep the great titles coming.

talbain

08-28-08, 12:53 PM

i can't understand why they felt the need to rebrand the intro from touchstone to walt disney. its a little thing, but it REALLY bothers me. smacks of lucas-ism...

rboster

08-28-08, 02:14 PM

i can't understand why they felt the need to rebrand the intro from touchstone to walt disney. its a little thing, but it REALLY bothers me. smacks of lucas-ism...

I have not read the answer to this...but having visited Disneyland half dozen times over the last 10 years, it would seem that Disney has embraced this film as one of their modern classics. There is a lot of merchandise available for this title in the shops (esp in the New Orleans area of the park).

If you haven't had the opportunity yet...please take a moment to watch the special feature on adapting the Haunted House tour to A Scary Christmas/NMBC tour/ride. Very clever...made me want to plan a special visit in the fall during the three months they change the ride over to feature the movie.

Ron

Josh Z

08-28-08, 03:03 PM

The movie was originally released under the Touchstone banner because it had a PG rating, and at the time the Walt Disney Pictures banner was exclusively G-rated. In the years since, Disney has changed their policy and now release numerous PG movies under Walt Disney Pictures (ex: Pirates of the Caribbean, National Treasure, etc.).

Also, Michael Eisner thought that the movie was "too dark for kids" and didn't want it under the Disney brand (while apparently Bambi's mother dying and the Lion King's father being murdered were fine). Obviously, time proved him wrong and the current Disney regime wanted to bring Nightmare Before Christmas into the Walt Disney Pictures fold along with the rest of their animated properties.

rboster

08-28-08, 03:23 PM

Thanks Josh for the info!!

sharkcohen

08-28-08, 07:14 PM

This release looks and sounds phenomenal. I just watched it from netflix last night, and I plan on purchasing it now.

Bob Black

08-28-08, 08:20 PM

I have not read the answer to this...but having visited Disneyland half dozen times over the last 10 years, it would seem that Disney has embraced this film as one of their modern classics. There is a lot of merchandise available for this title in the shops (esp in the New Orleans area of the park).

I attended Mickey's "Not So Scary Halloween" at the Magic Kingdom in Orlando with my family last year. Oogie Boogie actually narrates the special Halloween fireworks display, and the music from the film is included as well. Nightmare Before Christmas is pretty big in Orlando, too.

paku

08-29-08, 02:19 PM

I knew it, Region Locked (http://movietyme.blogspot.com/2008/08/nightmare-before-christmas-region-coded.html). :(

Looks like new titles and high-profile deluxe restorations will be region locked.

pepsihudson

08-30-08, 08:54 AM

Has anyone had issues with what looks like the camera shake. I was watching the movie and i noticed the picture shakes, and it stopped and then did it again but more often. I don't know if it's the movie or my player. I checked different movies and didn't notice it with any of them.

paku

08-30-08, 09:20 AM

It's a stop-motion film, a certain amount of camera shake is probably to be expected.

Aetherhole

08-30-08, 10:51 AM

Yes, it will have a certain amount of camera movement.

Dave Mack

08-30-08, 10:10 PM

ack_bk

08-31-08, 02:23 AM

Amazing transfer. One of the best of the year IMHO. Surrounds were extremely active throughout the entire movie and the PQ was spot on as well. This is what HDM is all about my friends.. Kudos to Disney.

Big Brad

08-31-08, 02:55 AM

ack_bk

08-31-08, 04:46 AM

ack_bk, you mention the surrounds were active. Did anyone else here think that they were too active? I found myself somewhat distracted by the activity in the rear soundstage. Perhaps I need to check my receiver settings. It has been a while since I calibrated.

-Brad

Brad,

Do you have a 5.1 or a 7.1 setup? I have a 5.1 and did not feel that the surrounds were too active. I thought it was a great balance and better than some action movies that lack surround.

sharkcohen

08-31-08, 08:56 AM

ack_bk, you mention the surrounds were active. Did anyone else here think that they were too active? I found myself somewhat distracted by the activity in the rear soundstage. Perhaps I need to check my receiver settings. It has been a while since I calibrated.

-Brad

They are active, but I like it. There is one part where it sounded like the mayor literally walked around me while he was talking loudly.

Dave Vaughn

08-31-08, 12:02 PM

They are active, but I like it. There is one part where it sounded like the mayor literally walked around me while he was talking loudly.

I agree 100%...one of the best surround mixes in years.

Dave Mack

08-31-08, 07:51 PM

They SHOULD be active.

:)

Big Brad

08-31-08, 11:02 PM

I have a PS3 feeding a PCM HDMI signal to an Onkyo 605. I'm also running 7.1. Again, like I said, it could be my settings as I haven't calibrated in a while.

-Brad

invadergir

09-01-08, 02:14 AM

^^ I have the exact same setup and yes the surrounds were constantly active and i loved it. I would even consider this a Reference Quality disc for sound. The video was good too(9/10) but noticed a few specs here and there of dirt but still awesome looking.

leng jai

09-01-08, 03:46 AM

Really want to get this as I LOVED my copy of Corpse Bride on HD-DVD. However the $28 price tag for a catalog title is putting me off. The news of the excellent transfer and surrund mix is extremely enticing though.

JaylisJayP

09-01-08, 09:57 AM

Just watched this last night (first time seeing the movie) and was quite pleased. Above average PQ and very strong AQ.

Ruined

09-01-08, 10:00 AM

Price is too high on this one IMO. Especially when we are guaranteed a stereoscopic double-dip within 2-3 years :p

Should have been priced 29.99 MSRP.

Aetherhole

09-01-08, 10:38 AM

I agree MSRP is too high. I got it for 24.99 at Fry's. That's not a bad price IMO.

Kram Sacul

09-01-08, 03:35 PM

Pugnax555

09-01-08, 04:05 PM

paku

09-01-08, 04:56 PM

Really odd how uneven it seems. Just compare the incredible sharpness and detail in this shot (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/nightxmas5.jpg) to the blurriness and processed look of the example Kram posted.

And I agree with what is written in the post, something that I've thought about many times. It's funny how as long as it's an older movie, de-graining is a priority and thought desirable, but take a look at many of the newer movies like PotC; full of grain, untouched, yet no one is complaining and they all get "top tier" status.

lyris

09-01-08, 06:40 PM

Me and Whiggles (that's my brother) just watched this tonight, and while we enjoyed the picture quality overall, it would have been better if they'd just left it alone.

Sadly, I have to report that this has Dirt and Scratch removal artefacts (http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01/the-nightmare-before-dirt-and-scratch-removal-artefacts/) in a handful of scenes:

BD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_bd_small.jpg

Scandinavian PAL DVD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_dvd_small.jpg

Disney, please be more careful. I caught these on the first viewing. Why can't they?

Be wary of any site that posts full-resolution images in a lossy format.
The JPEG images are actually saved at a perceptually lossless level. So, while they're not 100% ideal for judging compression, they're fine for judging video processing artefacts.

The interesting thing is, it's difficult to tell when the waxy appearance is down to lost detail, or if the detail just wasn't there on the puppets/armatures in the first place. Certainly the film grain reduction has been damaging though (especially in that one scene linked to above). I don't know why Disney have this perverse fascination with making film look like video.

Josh Z

09-01-08, 07:03 PM

So I guess no one else noticed that the transfer has DNR issues? Check out the captures on Whiggles' site:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2008/09/christmas_comes_early.html

It doesn't look horrible (except this shot:eek: (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/nightxmas8.jpg)) but why they just didn't leave it clean is beyond me. Like what New Line did with with Dark City's transfer they went 90-95% of the way down the right path but then took a sharp left into a dump truck full of wax.

So that glow around Jack while he's in front of the moon is not EE? ;)

Listen, I pointed out in my review published last week (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1207/nightmarebeforechristmas.html) that the disc has a slightly processed appearance and even specifically mentioned the minor ringing during the shot where Jack is standing in front of the moon (which is the only shot I noticed anything like that). However, that review you linked to completely exaggerates the complaints in order to pander to the anti-DNR hysteria sweeping forums like this one.

This transfer may not be 100% perfect, but it's about 95% there. That review blows any small issues with the disc way out of proportion.

lyris

09-01-08, 07:27 PM

I wouldn't say totally out of proportion, I agree with him that "the grain reduction is not massively destructive". The ringing around Jack when he's in front of the moon is probably a photography effect, but I'm not an expert on optics.

GizmoDVD

09-01-08, 09:31 PM

Listen, I pointed out in my review published last week (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1207/nightmarebeforechristmas.html) that the disc has a slightly processed appearance and even specifically mentioned the minor ringing during the shot where Jack is standing in front of the moon (which is the only shot I noticed anything like that). However, that review you linked to completely exaggerates the complaints in order to pander to the anti-DNR hysteria sweeping forums like this one.

This transfer may not be 100% perfect, but it's about 95% there. That review blows any small issues with the disc way out of proportion.

I noticed the halo effect on Jacks head during that scene but it look more like the moon was shining off of it. That's the only part in the film where I noticed it.

Josh Z

09-01-08, 09:50 PM

I wouldn't say totally out of proportion, I agree with him that "the grain reduction is not massively destructive".

Here are the quotes that I take issue with:

---
"Anyway, the disc has been the recipient of some extremely positive reviews. I'm sorry to report, however, that it is yet another DVNR victim."

"it's extremely inconsistent. Some shots are Dark City bad"

"Grain-sucking has been applied"

"some shots look extremely waxy, with the optical effects shots (basically everything with Zero, fire, glowing lights, etc.) looking particularly bad"

"The massive irony is that, had this been a modern film made within the last couple of years, the technicians would probably have assumed that it didn't need any sort of digital 'restoration' applied to it and, as a result, it would therefore have ended up looking far grainier"
---

The main argument in this review seems to be that he didn't see enough grain, so therefore the studio must have DNR'ed the hell out of it. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the way this movie was made. As a stop-motion production, the film was photographed one frame at a time under precisely controlled lighting exposure. As a result, it has a much finer grain structure than a movie shot in real time under less rigidly controlled circumstances might.

The quote that "some shots look extremely waxy" is particularly absurd. How is he judging "waxiness" if there are no flesh tones to evaluate? And the statement that "the optical effects shots (basically everything with Zero, fire, glowing lights, etc.) [look] particularly bad" ignores the fact that those are indeed optical effects and have inherent image degradation as a result of the way they were composited.

wyliec2

09-01-08, 10:16 PM

lyris

09-01-08, 10:22 PM

Josh: I think most of your complaints here may be due to differences in terminology.

The main argument in this review seems to be that he didn't see enough grain,
To me, this isn't that bad a criticism. Certainly the mindset that "grain=automatically good" would be wrong, but with "Nightmare", there is almost no grain left, something that is arguably quite unsettling given that this is a film, not a video production.

Personally, I didn't mind the grainless look on this film too much, since it's filmed with stop-motion figures and not actors. Nevertheless, I do think that a film should look like a film.

The disc *is* a DNR victim (I assume it's the "victim" part that you think is sensationalist, but that depends on your point of view... my opinion too is that DNR is a bad thing when used this way) and grain-sucking HAS been applied, there is no question (perhaps the phrase sounds too violent?). I agree that even at its worst, it's not quite as bad as Dark City, though.

The main argument in this review seems to be that he didn't see enough grain, so therefore the studio must have DNR'ed the hell out of it.
But, they have clearly DNR'd it. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.

The quote that "some shots look extremely waxy" is particularly absurd. How is he judging "waxiness" if there are no flesh tones to evaluate?
I'm not sure what that has to do with flesh tones, which is why I say we may be meaning different things from the same terms :) . Do you mean "waxy" as in the "clayface" effect (temporal NR artefacts)? This disc doesn't have any of that as I'm sure you've seen for yourself, if they've used temporal filters then they seem to have been pretty damn careful!

I would personally have used the term "powdery" myself, the DNR used here appears to be more of a simple frequency cut-off filter rather than one which actually smooths things out.

And the statement that "the optical effects shots (basically everything with Zero, fire, glowing lights, etc.) [look] particularly bad" ignores the fact that those are indeed optical effects and have inherent image degradation as a result of the way they were composited.
Right, but what he's saying is that they've been DNR'd more to remove the extra grain, so look that little bit worse.

Dave Vaughn

09-01-08, 10:41 PM

How does the reviewer know that it has been DNR'd? He is guessing or worse, assuming. Has he seen the master? I doubt it. This is one fine looking BD, regardless of what he is saying.

lyris

09-01-08, 10:44 PM

How does the reviewer know that it has been DNR'd?By looking at the DNR artefacts (in this case, zeroed-out high frequencies) and using knowledge of the fact that the disc is film-sourced, yet does not look entirely like film.

I've even posted screen shots of the dirt and scratch removal artefacts present.

I agree that it's a fine looking disc all things considered... but with respect, anyone with knowledge of processing algorithms, can look at it and see that it's been processed (for better or for worse is up for debate though).

mdc3000

09-01-08, 11:38 PM

thank god I don't have knowledge of processing algorithms, because I thought the disc looked ****ing awesome.

sharkcohen

09-01-08, 11:47 PM

thank god I don't have knowledge of processing algorithms, because I thought the disc looked ****ing awesome.

Same.

Kram Sacul

09-01-08, 11:57 PM

The quote that "some shots look extremely waxy" is particularly absurd. How is he judging "waxiness" if there are no flesh tones to evaluate?

So this shot (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/nightxmas8.jpg) looks perfectly fine? It looks like it came out of a VHS-sourced transfer.

The dirt/scratch removal stuff that lyris posted is just beyond stupid. I thought that was done manually nowadays so we wouldn't get horrific artifacts like that.

lyris

09-02-08, 12:44 AM

Dirt & scratch removal is a real pain in the backside. It can be incredibly useful for restoring damaged films (of which this is almost certain to not be one!), but can be quite depressing too. After you first apply it, your instant reaction is "WOW!", but it only takes moments for you to start noticing that the highlights in people's eyes, fine details in the background, and other such subtleties are getting warped up by it.

mdc3000 and sharkcohen: to a point I think it does look ****ing awesome, I agree. A lot of it is very pleasing. Could it be better? Yep!

Kram Sacul

09-02-08, 12:58 AM

The thing is I dont think NBC is that damaged or dirty. The previous transfer certainly didn't exhibit anything. The use of automatic dirt/scratch removal just reeks of laziness and overkill. DNR AND dirt/scratch removal.

I'd still like to know if the transfer on the BD is new or is it the same that has been shown on cable for the past few years. A comparison would be interesting.

oink

09-02-08, 01:36 AM

I think this whole DNR/Grain War is turning around.

There are masters with enough grain that would piss-off J6P, bitching "it doesn't look like HD."
This is something the studios do NOT want to happen.
We need to remember the plan is to have the public adopt BD as the preferred optical format.
Therefore, it must appear "better" to the Great Unwashed out there.;)

Something to keep in mind.

ack_bk

09-02-08, 02:17 AM

thank god I don't have knowledge of processing algorithms, because I thought the disc looked ****ing awesome.

Haha. Me too. I thought it was a huge upgrade over the DVD in terms of PQ and AQ. I am not a big fan of excessive DNR (ie Patton), but I just did not see this level of DNR with Nightmare Before Christmas. In fact, I thought it was a tremendous transfer and the audio mix was well above average.

paku

09-02-08, 03:41 AM

BD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_bd_small.jpg

Scandinavian PAL DVD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_dvd_small.jpg
That's terrible. And they managed to remove an arm and a leg yet still couldn't get rid of the white speck near his head.

Do you think this is the source they used for the 3-D theatrical version of the film? Anyone want to go see it later this year (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nbc3d08.htm) and check if his limbs disappear?

micnic77

09-02-08, 05:49 AM

So this shot (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/nightxmas8.jpg) looks perfectly fine? It looks like it came out of a VHS-sourced transfer.

The dirt/scratch removal stuff that lyris posted is just beyond stupid. I thought that was done manually nowadays so we wouldn't get horrific artifacts like that.

I also think we can't comlpain enough. Even if it only applies to some scenes like the posted one (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/nightxmas8.jpg) it's still a wasted opportunity that will bother fans everytime they watch it (if they are sensitive to it) and all this for no real reason. Messing up a perfectly fine transfer (I can only assume the untouched frame is fine but why shouldn't it) makes me kind of angry. How can a little bit of grain be any worse than this mess?
Since I like the movie but not enough to live with a compromised transfer I will pass. I have enough of such HD DVDs and Blu-rays in my collection already.

lyris

09-02-08, 07:50 AM

I still love the BD version despite it faults... it's still the best version of the film available all things considered.

Kram Sacul

09-02-08, 09:08 AM

That's not saying much though. Over here in R1 land all we had was an old reused non-anamorphic transfer. Not much to blow that away.

John Ballentine

09-02-08, 10:50 AM

All we had in USA was same non-anamorphic transfer as well.

kdssrugby

09-02-08, 11:47 AM

um, USA is R(egion) 1.

DREtoxication

09-02-08, 11:54 AM

I just copped this movie on Sunday, anticipating the glowing reviews of a title I held dear over a decade ago. Upon coming back home, I popped the Blu-Ray into my PS3. I checked the animated poem (with narration by Christopher Lee). 3/4's into it, the disc froze. I rebooted the system, the f**king thing killed my PS3's BD drive. Now nothing loads - games, blu-rays or DVDs, and I've had this system since Dec'07. Thankfully, I'm already excercising my limited warranty rights with Sony - but still, it was a major bummer.

Has anyone else had a similar issue?

I chalked it up against a faulty PS3 drive, but when I returned the disc this morning back to Best But - the people there tried to play the disc I bought and it came up unplayable there also. :confused:

I don't know what to think. Unfortunately, they didn't have any extra copies. I guess I'll just rebuy it through Amazon for $27 instead of $36 I paid @ Best Buy. I just want to know that there aren't any issues as a whole. I hope my case was a rarity...:o

Josh Z

09-02-08, 11:58 AM

That's terrible. And they managed to remove an arm and a leg yet still couldn't get rid of the white speck near his head.

How can a little bit of grain be any worse than this mess?

Have either of you actually watched the disc?

The Whimsy review is irresponsible sensationalism designed to stir up controversy in forums like this one. It saddens me to see how quickly it has achieved that goal.

ack_bk

09-02-08, 12:02 PM

Have either of you actually watched the disc?

I seriously doubt it. I am usually sensitive to excessive DNR and EE and I did not feel that this title had either.

kdssrugby

09-02-08, 12:07 PM

Ok, just a random question, but on the disc art, why does Sally have red hair?

paku

09-02-08, 12:41 PM

The Whimsy review is irresponsible sensationalism designed to stir up controversy in forums like this one. It saddens me to see how quickly it has achieved that goal.
Really? I think it's designed to show the truth in the face of (sometimes ignorant) Blu-ray apologists who proclaim flawless transfers left and right, and reviewers who simply might not have the equipment, eye and knowledge to accurately relay such information.

Indeed, in this case it does not seem like that much of a problem, but regardless whether I ultimately end up buying or not buying a disc, I'd still like to know what I'm paying for before I do so.

sharkcohen

09-02-08, 01:36 PM

Jack's arm and leg do not disappear in that shot when watching the film. Maybe that one frame looks strange, but it does not look that way while watching it.

RDarrylR

09-02-08, 01:47 PM

Jack's arm and leg do not disappear in that shot when watching the film. Maybe that one frame looks strange, but it does not look that way while watching it.

You're not trying to say that a single frame out of a couple of hundred thousand per film can't show how good it looks or how many problems the entire movie has? :rolleyes:

lyris

09-02-08, 01:52 PM

Jack's arm and leg do not disappear in that shot when watching the film. Maybe that one frame looks strange, but it does not look that way while watching it.
What you mean is, you can't see Jack's arm and leg disappearing when you watch the film. By the looks of it, neither could the people preparing the disc. FWIW, I noticed it (and other similar instances) on the first play-through. Of course, part of that is my job.

But actually, during that whole sequence, there are many frames corrupted in a similar way.

Josh: I understand that you write for people who are perhaps less demanding than videophiles. That's OK; what I don't get is why you have to push aside any opinion that notices and correctly appraises problems that you seem to be incapable of. I see what you are saying, there is a whole post detailing the faults of the disc with none of the advantages, but it's the flaws which need to be noted.

Whatever happened to "beyond high definition"?

Josh Z

09-02-08, 03:28 PM

Josh: I understand that you write for people who are perhaps less demanding than videophiles.

You clearly don't know our readership demographics. :)

That's OK; what I don't get is why you have to push aside any opinion that notices and correctly appraises problems that you seem to be incapable of. I see what you are saying, there is a whole post detailing the faults of the disc with none of the advantages, but it's the flaws which need to be noted.

That review doesn't "note" the alleged flaws, it exaggerates them completely out of proportion with reality and makes almost no mention at all that the disc actually looks pretty damn terrific.

I find it funny that you accuse me of being incapable of correctly appraising problems in the transfer, even though I actually did note those problems in my review published a week before this one. The difference is that I made an effort to accurately describe the severity of the problem (incredibly minor) and place it into context with an evaluation with the overall quality of the transfer (excellent).

The Whimsy review (and forgive me, but I'm not clear on whether you wrote that review or were just present when watching the disc) makes no such effort.

lyris

09-02-08, 03:49 PM

Well, I think everyone else has missed the dirt and scratch correction problems.

I didn't write that Whimsy review, no. I think our differences of opinion are on how much the disc's issues matter. I think we both agree that for a lot of the time, it's very pleasing to look at. But I am still irritated at the studios' motivation behind processing a film in this way in the first place: that's my issue.

mhafner

09-02-08, 05:38 PM

Sadly, I have to report that this has Dirt and Scratch removal artefacts (http://www.lyris-lite.net/2008/09/01/the-nightmare-before-dirt-and-scratch-removal-artefacts/) in a handful of scenes:
BD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_bd_small.jpg
Scandinavian PAL DVD:
http://www.lyris-lite.net/wordpress/wp_up/nightmare_dvd_small.jpg

Artifacts like this are common when algorithms are not properly supervised and parametrised on a shot by shot basis. Of course that costs more, and apart from some videophiles/technophiles on crazy sites like AVS no one will notice anyway. ;)
Nonetheless embarrassing for Disney and their quality control department.
The DVD of Metropolis has similar problems demonstrated in a supplement. They did not apply such processing some years ago to avoid these problems. Of course one can apply such filtering and avoid the artifacts when there is enough time and money and talent to do it.

FuneralDancer

09-02-08, 09:13 PM

Does anyone else experience glitchy subtitles on certain scenes?? I noticed that a bit.. was curious if anyone else did :)

~Krissy

lyris

09-02-08, 09:43 PM

The DVD of Metropolis has similar problems demonstrated in a supplement. They did not apply such processing some years ago to avoid these problems. Of course one can apply such filtering and avoid the artifacts when there is enough time and money and talent to do it.
Indeed, I wonder if it was even necessary on Nightmare though, or if it was a "we'll have it so let's use it" decision. Unlike the grain reduction, dirt and scratch removal can be invisible and truly hard to tell without seeing the master, so we'll probably never know.

jd213

09-03-08, 04:36 AM

blu-ray.com insider Penton-man seems to be of the opinion that there was no DNR/grain reduction and the difference was caused by lighting/exposure, since the film stock used is near-grainless:

This feature was shot with 35 mm. Kodak stock.
Specifically, Eastman EXR 100T 5248…….which was a fine-grained, and I mean FINE-grained emulsion which produced a near-grainless *look*.

It was a slow speed stock specifically chosen by cinematographers for its near-grainless clarity……..almost *vivid* look in terms of sharpness. As an aside, it was very neutral in all its color reproduction, i.e. every color was rich and deep.

I suggest (although I don’t work for Disney, or the post house they contracted to do the work) that if some viewers are seeing “inconsistent grain” from scene to scene or shot to shot, it is more related to lighting and exposure of the primary photography rather than the need for any DNR to begin with, or perhaps they should consult an ophthalmologist to assess for “floaters” in their aqueous humor.

EXR 100T 5248, in terms of grain, was about as close as one could get to going *digital* without doing so.

This reviewer is spot on with her assessment (specifically regarding detail)

Thoughts? It seemed to have a minor processed look in some shots when I watched it, and the grain reduction would seem to jive with Disney's use of DNR on several other catalog titles. Like others, it didn't really bother me though. I still got accused of bitching and was told that if things like this take me out of the movie I should just ask Disney to frame-by frame manually adjust all their Blu-rays and see how many titles they release then.... (couldn't they just like, manually fix the dirt/scratches that really stand out instead of using an automated system?)