Manzana

Could someone who owns the Gold package version of "My Cousin Vinny" please tell me if it's single layer (DVD-5) or dual layer (DVD-9)? Rather than trust the packaging, I'd appreciate someone using a computer DVD-ROM drive to tell. I'd like to find out soon so I know if I should buy it during Best Buy's upcoming sale. If no one can say for sure, I'll assume it's single layer.

Here's the mystery about "My Cousin Vinny". I know for a fact that My Cousin Vinny was first released as a single layer (DVD-5) disc in anamorphic widescreen with a DD 2.0 soundtrack. Recently I saw this Gold package version at Walmart and the package clearly said dual layer (DVD-9).

If I check older reviews, they say single layer in the specs which matches my experience when I once rented the disc, such as:
http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=578
http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreview...nvinnydvd.html

If I check a newer review, it says dual layer in the specs, such as:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...usinvinny.html

Other than the layers, both discs have identical content and extra features. To me that indicates the Gold package is probably also single layer. Because there is no extra content listed, for it to be dual layer means either Fox added a bunch of trailers or Fox retransferred the movie at a higher bit rate. Only if it's the latter do I want to buy it. I've learned not to trust reviews because so many sites have incorrect info.

My guess is the text on the back of the Gold package is wrong saying dual layer because most studios don't do new transfers without adding a couple new extras and a "new special edition" type logo on the package to encourage re-purchases.

BuckNaked2k

I just picked this up at WalMart for $7.00 or so. What do look for in the Windows Explorer menu to determine if it's dual layer or not?

dvd_luver

Can someone please confirm this, this is one of my personal favorite films and I would go buy it in a second if it was dual-layer. My guess is it's not.

Peep

Open the VIDEO_TS sub-folder and check the file sizes. If they add up to over 4.4G (or so), it's dual layer.

BuckNaked2k

VIDEO_TS = 4.32 GB

Although the Create Date is Friday, June 02, 2000, 8:18:50 PM.

dvd_luver

Thankyou BuckNaked2k for checking the size. At 4.32 GB it's definitly not a dual-layer dvd.

Manzana

BuckNaked2k, let me also add my thanks for checking the disc!

Now we all know that the "dual layer" info written on the back of the My Cousin Vinny Gold package is incorrect, as I suspected. Finding this out saved me from buying it, even though it's only $4.99 at Best Buy this week. I'll wait for a dual layer re-issue or a HD/BluRay version of this.

I'll just throw in my 2 cents about how amazed I am by the number of studios that get information wrong on the packages (layer info, running time, sound formats, listing commentaries that don't exist, or vice-versa) and by the number of review sites that rather than say "Unknown" simply make guesses. You'd think someone at the studios would double-check the info for accuracy before sending it to be printed, but I guess not.

As a side note, DVD Empire has the disc format listed for discs it sells. IMDB also has it listed for many discs. Lots of people have told me to consult those sources for layer information. Unfortunately I sampled a few dozen titles I own long ago on both sites, and I found almost a quarter of the titles I entered had incorrect info, so I gave up using either site as a definitive resource. In fact, I know of no review site that has been correct 100% of the time. This means when I'm in doubt I have to come to DVD Talk and post a question to get the truth.

I only buy dual layer and anamorphic widescreen discs these days on the principle that if studios can't bother to give my movie anamorphic widescreen with a higher bitrate than single layer allows, I can't bother to give them my money no matter how cheap the disc is (on rare occasions I'll violate this rule if I really like the movie). This means I research layer and anamorphic for every disc I consider buying. Sadly dual layer doesn't guarantee high bitrate because some studios use the extra space for a barrage of trailers and ads.

On new releases, almost everything is anamorphic and dual layer, but on older releases you never know without researching. Sometimes it's easy to find accurate info by checking several reviews on DVD-Basen or Google. Other times there is conflicting info or not enough reviews to be certain.

I don't know if others feel the same way I do about single vs. dual layer and anamorphic, but when I have future questions about specific titles should I post a new thread about a specific title each time? Or would it make more sense to create a thread whose purpose is to ask questions about layer info, anamorphic, and sound formats whenever anyone doubts the accuracy of a review or online retailer's site? Does such a thread already exist? (If so I couldn't find it.)

Once upon a time Amazon listed lots of details about DVDs, but they weren't always right either. When most of that info disappeared (such as whether it's anamorphic), someone told me it was because Amazon didn't want to be liable for inaccurate information. I don't know if that's true or not. All I know is I get really mad if I buy something expecting anamorphic, dual layer and DD 5.1 sound only to find non-anamorphic, single layer, DD 2.0 sound.

BuckNaked2k

You are welcome.

This had me a little curious, so I went back and re-read the review of the "new" disc on the Bits posted above. It states that the layer change takes place at 55:13, in Chapter 12. On my disc, 55:13 occurs in Chapter 11, and there is clearly no layer change.

I then remembered my old DVD player (Sony DVP-NS900V), has a feature that actually graphically displays the layer(s) on a disc, so I ran it through that machine and further confirmed the presence of only a single layer.

Based on the Bits' review, it seems there indeed is a dual-layer version of this title out there somewhere, it's just that Fox Home Entertainment screwed up and sent out the old release with an erroneous or fraudulent slipcover.

Manzana

Well, I'll propose a different theory. I believe some reviewers often cut and paste from a template or from a similar review, so my theory is the layer change info at 55:13 was for a totally different title and the reviewer forgot to change that piece of info when updating the review for My Cousin Vinny. Those are the kind of errors that really bug me. I believe there have been some "stealth" re-transfers from single layer to dual layer (in fact, I believe Legal Eagles is one of them... but I think Universal gave it a different UPC, cover, and catalog # even though I don't think it said special edition or touted the new transfer on the package), but such "stealth" re-transfers are very rare. That's why I posted the question when I saw the gold package said dual layer but I knew the first release was single layer.

If you happen to be going by Best Buy or Walmart between now and Tuesday you could perhaps make yourself feel a little better by trying to get a pricematch to Best Buy's $4.99 price on this (or do a re-buy/return).

Speaking of reviewers, not to get too far off topic... I thought I had heard they get their screener copies for free and get to keep them. In the old days I heard they were full versions of the movie like you'd get at stores, so it was basically a way to get a free DVD collection if you'd take the time to write up a review. However, I later heard that most studios were putting banners (on-screen "bugs") on the screener copies so that nobody would want to keep them. Does anyone know the real story?

The reason I ask is I had this theory about certain sites (I'll refrain from mentioning their names) which have really short 3 or 4 paragraph reviews (reviews so superficial that most people could crank one out pretty quickly). My theory was that some of these reviewers just wanted to get free DVDs and figured they could do it by starting a review site, watching the movie, and spending about 15 minutes on each review. Fortunately most sites are not like this and offer substantial, worthwhile reviews (www.dvdmg.com being my favorite in-depth review site).

dvd_luver

Despite the low bit-rate the picture quality is very good and it is anamorphic. I paid around $20 bucks when this was 1st released onto the dvd format and seeing you pass on a price that is so low and dirt cheap at Best Buy makes me scratch my head just a bit. It seems like you want perfect image quality but at that low price, it's perfect enough if you ask me. I wish I could have bought that for $5 and change.

Thanks for all the info given and all the hard work everybody has put into this thread.

BuckNaked2k

No problem. I really learned something through this process. I always thought that dual-layer discs would only be used on longer films, and you would never see a 90-minute movie on a DL. Now, I realize it's about the bit rate, and therefore the PQ, and/or presence of 5.1 soundtrack(s), etc.


Are you kidding? I'll gladly swallow $2.00 not to go back to WalMart! To paraphrase Carlos Mencia, "If you don't think God has a sense of humor, go to WalMart tomorrow and take a look at the people shopping there!!"

yeldarb367

What does this gold packaging look like?

BuckNaked2k

It's just a slip cover that goes over the same old edition that's been around since 2000. It's part of the "Awards Edition" packaging, a la American Beauty, or Wall Street, etc.

Manzana

Peep, I'm sorry I took so long to reply. I posted part of this in the original thread about Blu-Ray Saw, but you've probably stopped looking there so I moved it here since this is a related topic and I saw you posted here.

I would like to get into the discussion of DVD disk usage a bit more. I'll already assume that since we both are pro Dual Layer advocates we are that way for the same reason: because we'd prefer our movies have a higher bitrate than single layer allows. I'm also a stickler for anamorphic widescreen because 16x9 mode looks so much better on a 16x9 TV than 4:3 widescreen.

The focus of my discussion is mainly be how can we find out FOR SURE about any title whether it's single or dual layer or anamorphic and better yet, is there any way we can find out bitrate or disk usage?

My original hope is that perhaps we (I) should start a thread to discuss any questions about specific titles when review sites, online retailers, or the package itself has conflicting info. I was actually surprised several people posted to this thread, but I'm assuming they did so mainly because of an interest in My Cousin Vinny rather than the subject or single vs. dual layer. My worry is if I posted a question such as "Is title X single or dual layer?" in a generic thread about disc layers or usage, there won't be any responses because there would be too few regular readers of such a thread. What do you think?

If I thought there'd be enough interest, I'd be happy to start a new thread but I couldn't maintain it on a regular basis. What would I call it? "The one and only DVD layer, anamorphic, sound, and features accuracy verification thread"?

Ideally, there should be a site with an ACCURATE DVD database. For instance, IMDB would be a good choice because users can add to it, but the problem is there are too many errors. It seems users don't mind adding wrong information. I'd want a database whose rule is "do not add any info unless you are 100% positive it is correct". Better to have a database that is small and 100% accurate than a huge database that is only 75% accurate.

BTW, I haven't gotten into HD-DVD or BluRay yet (not until the players are under $200), but I'm sure I'll have the same issues once I get there. Actually, I don't really care about the layer info so much (because extra space can still be unused or wasted with ads/promos). I'd guess what we really want to know is the video and audio bitrates (i.e. exactly how much disc space is used by the movie's video stream and each of its various audio streams). How I would love to see a database of that info! Unfortunately I think getting single vs. dual layer info is about as much as we could hope to get these days because I think most people don't like popping their DVDs into a computer and then analysing them. I think in the real world very few people care about bitrate or layer formats, or even understand what those terms mean. It's only at places like DVD Talk where you find some who do care.

Mike Adams

That is such crap. Do you seriously think the studios are gonna look at slow sales figures and realize that people aren't buying a title because it wasn't released in anamorphic widescreen on a dual-layer disc??? NO! They're gonna look at slow sales figures and say "Well, looks like this one's a turkey. Guess we won't even bother with widescreen on the sequel. Let's just dust off that fullscreen transfer we had done for the TV presentation and leave it at that."

I'm sure every time you get the urge to watch a movie that hasn't been released on DVD to your discerning specifications, you sit there and stew about how the studios just don't understand your high quality standards and they're just selfish bastards who only care about selling to Joe WalMart. It's because of people like you that future releases of TV shows are dying off. If elitist prisspots like you wouldn't withold your hard-earned cash for capricious reasons like "oh, it's not anamorphic" or "I'm only buying it if it's a complete season", then the studios would actually see that there's interest in these titles after all. Obviously you have a right to buy or not buy whatever you choose, but the simple fact of the matter is that boycotting anything that's not the perfect DVD release you were expecting doesn't help the situation. All it does is reinforce the studios' view that the property wasn't even worth the little effort they put forth, so next time it'll be an even MORE bare-bones release. I can only imagine how many titles are being relegated back to fullscreen only by Sony because the widescreen versions didn't sell, and it's all because nitpickers like you were crazy enough to think that since it wasn't anamorphic, if you didn't buy it the studio would have no choice but to fork over an SE release with an anamorphic transfer. I'm sure that's probably how you got your way as a child, but in the DVD world, if you don't eat what's been put in front of you, nobody's gonna give you what you really want, you're just gonna go to bed hungry.

Peep

I'm going to have to side with Manzana this time and not the angry, name-calling dude. There's too many movies out there for me to buy for me to waste my money on a crap release that I could just as easily rent if I ever want to rewatch it.

And I'm not thinking that my single purchase is going to change the way a studio does business, but it may keep me from spending money on something that I don't really want. Who the f*ck are you to tell people that they have to settle for crap and buy it anyway!?!

Manzana

Hi, Peep. I thought you might have a bit more to say because I was under the impression you were interested in discussing this further from what you once said in another thread. When I read PDTV's comments, I pretty much laughed because I know my buying philosophy is absolutely right for me and very fair to the studios.

For instance, I was hoping perhaps you would have some additional input or suggestions on how people like you and me can find out before buying what the video bit rate/disc space usage is for other DVDs we are thinking of buying. Sure, nowadays we can make a pretty good assumption new releases will be dual layer, but I find few discs push the space limits and those that do waste a good portion of the space with ads and trailers, so the movie is lucky to get 7 GB max, but 7 GB is a lot better than 4 GB in previous years. In my dreams there would be a database where you could look up any title and it would say:

Disc format: DVD-9
Movie: 5890 MB
Average Bitrate: 6.2 Mbps
Audio streams: English DD 5.1 (384 MB), English DD 2.0 (125 MB)

While it's a bit late for DVD, since HD-DVD and BluRay are just starting, sites that are maintaining databases should add the disc space usage and average bitrate fields so that the info will already be there when I get into these formats in a couple years. But I doubt anyone will add this type of info. Why? Because too few people care. It's hard enough just to find out single vs. dual layer, especially on older releases, and that is usually evident by visual inspection. If most people (including reviewers) can't do a simple visual inspection, then they certain aren't going to run any sort of disc analysis using a computer.

How do you find out this type of info? What do you do when you find single vs. dual layer discrepancies between various reviews - do you post a message on DVD Talk about that specific title, assume the worst and don't buy it, or buy it anyway and hope for the best?

Peep

I usually never find out and am very miserable. Sometimes I search the 'net but haven't found a reliable source of data. Sometimes DVDEmpire (if I remember right) will tell you the layer/side count (but obvoiusly never the file sizes).

With re-issues, I often have to rent both at the $1 a night place near where I live (which is one of the few local places that even stock the re-issues) and compare them myself.

I would be in heaven if there was a site that provided the level of detail that you suggest!!

Mike Adams

I've already said that you can buy or not buy whatever you like.

However, and this is the point, if you refuse to buy "Things Blowing Up" on DVD because it's a single-layer, non-anamorphic transfer, I don't want to hear any complaining from you when "Things Blowing Up II" is only released in fullscreen with a mono soundtrack.

Your money is just about the only way to communicate with the studios. Unfortunately, it's not an eloquent enough speaker to tell them why you're not giving it to them. Therefore, if you don't buy something, the only conclusion the studios can come to is that there's no interest in it. They cannot discern the specific reason you didn't buy it, partly because how can they anticipate that anyone would refuse to buy a movie they've been waiting to see released on DVD for decades just because it's doesn't meet their standards. For that reason, less money will be spent on bringing similar titles or sequels to DVD, if the studio even bothers to bring them out at all.

Once again, what you buy is up to you. I'm just trying to make you see the effects of that decision, so when the next Joe Pesci movie you really wanted to see is never released on DVD, you'll know that your refusal to buy "My Cousin Vinny" on a single-layer DVD is part of the reason.

Manzana

I understand what you're trying to say, but I somewhat disagree with your opinion. If a particular movie doesn't sell well, then they can assume it's because of the movie and choose never to re-release it, but any studio with a brain should be able to look at the current trends which are toward widescreen anamorphic and dual layer. There is a reason most new releases are widescreen anamorphic... because enough people want it. Like Peep said, if nobody cares about picture quality and bitrate then why did Sony introduce the Superbit line? While old releases are one thing, there is no excuse for any new release not to be anamorphic widescreen and dual layer except for cheapness. Those titles I will rent and not buy. While I agree that few if any studios take the # of layers into account, I think they all must consider anamorphic widescreen as a factor.

The bottomline is that I won't buy a DVD that is inadequate in my opinion regardless what message it might send to a studio that doesn't interpret it properly. If I'm in the minority then my withholding my money should have no impact on the studio's sales.

Manzana

Well, I would say that the situation frustrates me, but it doesn't make me miserable. With DVD prices dropping so fast and sub $5 DVDs very common, I find that if I'm in doubt I assume the worst (single layer) and don't buy until it becomes cheap enough to risk it. I learned my lesson after getting burned many times on DVDs in the past, and I can't recall the last time I paid more than $8 for a DVD movie. Tomorrow I may spend $17 on Three's Company S7, but that's 4 DVDs and from past pricing trends it probably won't be any cheaper than $13 by the next DDD sale, so I can justify losing $4 getting it several months early.

Of course renting the DVD is a good way to finding out the details we want, and it sounds like you're in a better situation than I am. I only have the big chain stores near me where rentals are about $3 each, where the selection of catalog titles is almost non-existent, and where they get re-releases once in a blue moon. I'd be thrilled to have a $1 rental place nearby, especially one that gets re-releases. Since Netflix and Blockbuster online don't get them and most rental stores have a policy of sticking with the first and oldest release, it becomes almost impossible to rent re-releases. So I stick re-releases on the bottom of my want list and keep waiting until they hit the dirt-cheap price and then I buy them.

If the info you and I are looking for about the difference in the quality of the movie (i.e. average bitrate) were available, that might convince me to buy sooner. DVD Beaver is one of the few sites that has this info with good comparison screenshots, but sadly they only seem to review a small number of titles.

Unfortunately the average DVD reviewer seems to be very vague on picture quality. The usual lines are: "Picture quality was very good with no noticeable print flaws of blemishes" or "The picture was a little soft" or "There was visible edge enhancement". Those statements are so non-specific as to be almost useless to me. The worst and most common line in a re-release review is "I was not able to obtain a copy of the previous release for comparison". The entire reason I read re-release reviews are for a comparison of features, and many reviews omit the comparison out of laziness. How hard is it for some reviewers to rent the older release at Netflix or Blockbuster online? (Apparently too hard) Since I visit many review sites, I'm very opinionated on who does good reviews.

Oh well. I'll stop my ranting here. Yes, I'm frustrated like you are, and it seems that there is no solution. It would be cool if we could share our info. For instance, I have data I've collected on various titles and hopefully you've kept yours in a spreadsheet from your rentals. Actually all I have is accurate 16x9, sound, and layer info as I don't bother to determine the disc space occupied. I've found so many errors on DVD Empire that I almost never trust what they say. There is no retailer site that I trust at all. I do trust dvdmg and ultimatedisney quite a bit, but they only have that info on titles they review. I can't tell you how many times I've typed in old catalog title DVDs on DVD Basen only to get 0 hits.

dvd_luver

People here are talking about renting this on dvd, when Best Buy had it for $4.99, that's near the price of a rental copy. Low bit-rate or not or whatever, I am just glad I own My Cousin Vinny on dvd and I have it to go and check out when I want to see it again. I can't believe all this ranting and raving, the dvd isn't that bad. I think the dvd is worth $4.99

Manzana

I haven't been talking about My Cousin Vinny for quite a while. I just happened to use this thread to try to talk to Peep a little bit about these disc space usage issues since he and I seem to be among the few people who care.

Yes, at $4.99 My Cousin Vinny is at the point where being single layer can be forgiven for those who really like the movie, especially since the presentation is anamorphic (though DD 2.0 sound is a bit weak). Unfortunately many single layer or non-anamorphic DVDs aren't down to that price point. The issue to me is identifying these titles accurately, and as Han Solo said "that's the real trick, isn't it?" because such info is difficult to get without asking actual owners. I had hoped there was another way, but it seems posting is it.

In the future I plan to keep my threads about specific titles much shorter and on subject.

Mike Adams

Here's a hint about decoding my future posts. If I'm just offering my opinion, I'll preface the post with "In my opinion...", "IMHO", or something similar, okay?

If studios are so "hip" to what they *should* be doing with a film (i.e. anamorphic, dual-layer, etc.) they'll do it to begin with. The zero point they start from is getting the movie out in a manner that is not overly expensive so they're not spending their sales revenue before they even get it. If a title doesn't sell well, their opinion of the interest in that title is not going to go UP (i.e., "Wow, nobody's buying this thing, they must love it so much they won't settle for less than anamorphic widescreen on a dual-layer disc -- let's get right on that!") it's gonna go DOWN (i.e., "Wow, for something marketing told us was such a 'hot' title, it sure is a slow seller -- remind me not to listen to them when they start squawking about the sequel.").

Believe what you want, I'm just telling it like it is.

Peep

That would be a great idea, but sadly I just keep that information around long enough to make a prchase decision and then I trash it. I have a big (15 or so) stack of DVD's that I'm waiting to figure out what to do with, but lately I've become lazy and haven't spent to much time trying to track down the answer. And most of these discs are unopened (!), so I'm not really sure the status of what I have.

As for what PDTV is saying, I don't disagree. Still, I'm only going to buy the product I want. Making a handful of purchases of titles that I'm not happy with just so to motivate the studio to continue releasing discs with the same actor/storyline seems stupid to me, IMO.