Lord Of The Rings Extended Editions on Blu-Ray

jaykhunter

Voodu Child wrote: »

Yes, Fellowship should be noticeably better because they are using a better source, that's what I said above :pac:
They used a film print as a source instead of a 2k master for the Fellowship Theatrical Bluray.

Does that mean that they went back and edited the whole movie, added colour grading/special effects etc etc from the original film it was shot on?

If yes then if they can do that with Fellowship, why not with TT and ROTK??

Sad Professor

Voodu Child wrote: »

Yes, Fellowship should be noticeably better because they are using a better source, that's what I said above :pac:
They used a film print as a source instead of a 2k master for the Fellowship Theatrical Bluray.

Really? That's bizarre. Why didn't they just transcode it from the DI? Which is what I thought they said they were doing.

Voodu Child

Sad Professor wrote: »

Really? That's bizarre. Why didn't they just transcode it from the DI? Which is what I thought they said they were doing.

I dunno, they made a balls up of Fellowship anyway, you can see the difference between the flashback scenes in the later movies and those exact scenes in Fellowship. That's why they're making a big deal out of the 'remaster' as they call it.

Galvasean

Hmm, might mait til the 'Super Remasterd bluray' or whatever comes out. this is all starting to sound like a fiasco of Gladiator preportions.

Voodu Child

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmm, might mait til the 'Super Remasterd bluray' or whatever comes out. this is all starting to sound like a fiasco of Gladiator preportions.

The funny thing is that apparently Peter Jackson has been talking about going back to the original trilogy after he is done with The Hobbit and re-doing some effects George Lucas-style. Not to mention the 3D versions :pac:

I don't know how many times they expect people to re-buy these movies.

Sad Professor

Alright, I've been looking around and from I can gather the new Fellowship transfer is indeed being taken from the original 2K digital intermediate.

What does this mean? Simple put, it is being taken from the best quality version of the film that exists. It was this same 2K DI that was used to create the theatrical prints that we all saw in the cinema, so there's no reason that it shouldn't look as good on Blu-ray (if not better) as it did in the cinema.

I'm not entirely sure what went wrong with the theatrical transfer, but I assume it was same thing that happened with Gladiator - they just reused the same master that was created for the DVD. This is why there was so much DNR and EE, it was made for a lower resolution format.

It's not clear whether they are going back to the DI for the other two films as well. It may not be necessary.

Butch Cassidy

As I understand it it's now the norm to scan at 8K for effects. Was it the case that a few years ago that they thought scanning at 2K would suffice?

It's interesting, with some stuff like Star Trek Next Gen and X-Files where the effects were finished for TV so a release of them on blu-ray doesn't seem possible.

I concur with others that the theatrical Fellowship on blu-ray was not that good and the DVD upscaled was in the same ballpark.

This is one of the things I dislike about blu-ray where you have poor quality control. The back of the box will boast about superior highest definition etc. but doesn't reveal whether it came from the same source used for DVD or a brand new transfer nor does it mention the methods used in creating the digital master such as DNR or EE.

Obviously there's internet forums where people can share views and opinions but magazines like EMPIRE don't seem to scrutinize picture quality on DVD and blu-ray releases much. These big magazines also run a lot of ads for these blu-rays.


Cheers for the info

jaykhunter

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

....digital master such as DNR or EE.

Obviously there's internet forums where people can share views and opinions but magazines like EMPIRE don't seem to scrutinize picture quality on DVD and blu-ray releases much. These big magazines also run a lot of ads for these blu-rays.

What's EE?

So from what i gather, the film should've been edited first with the original stock film, then do all the special effects/colour grading?

Or since 8k is the standard now, whenever iMAX-definition discs come out, will the norm be 16 or 32k? When will it ever end lol!

That makes me a sad pands what you wrote about Empire. Surely that's a horrible example of paying the bills and basically lying to your customers....direct conflict of interest.

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

That makes me a sad pands what you wrote about Empire. Surely that's a horrible example of paying the bills and basically lying to your customers....direct conflict of interest.

Empire is an atrocious excuse for a film magazine, they will gladly give a piece of crap 5 stars if it means that they can have the director guest edit their magazine. There are far too many examples of them awarding terrible blockbusters 4 and 5 star reviews only to then slate the DVD releases and the less said about their frankly odd review of Taken in which the writer attempts to turn it into a political debate the better.

Though as misguided and badly written the Taken review is their shockingly scathing review of The Fountain when it hit DVD was amongst the worst examples of film criticism I ever read. I used to bu the magazine on and off before then but after reading the review I swore never again

For ultimate proof of Empire's willingness to sacrifice unbiased opinion in exchange for wealth take a look at their review of Terminator Salvation by Devin Faraci in which he awards the film 4 stars after gushing over its greatness and then take a look at the exclusive story he published at CHUD a few days alter about what went wrong with Terminator Salvation. Important to note that Farachi and Empire had unprecedented access to the film while it was in production with members of their staff repeatedly on set but that in way skewered them toward offering up a positive review, after all that would be unethcical.

Voodu Child

jaykhunter wrote: »

What's EE?

Edge-enhancement, a type of sharpening.

If you've ever seen a Bluray where edges look very hard or artifical, with a glowing halo around some objects, that's probably ham-fisted use of EE.

rachums

I just thought it was extended editions

I will not be rebuying these on blu ray. I had been considering it but with the movies split on two discs still they can getttt ouuuttttt!!!

rachums

rachums wrote: »

I just thought it was extended editions

I will not be rebuying these on blu ray. I had been considering it but with the movies split on two discs still they can getttt ouuuttttt!!!

You would prefer a lower quality product just for convience. tbh if spreading it over 3 discs guaranteed the best possible quality I'd be all for it.

L'prof

€62.54 (£54.93) on amazon with free delivery. Are people saying that even though these are on BluRay that they were unable to fit each movie on a single disc?



For anyone who's interested the theatrical version is now €18.14 (£15.93).

Sad Professor

They probably could have fit all 3 films on to a single disc if they wanted to. But there's an assumption that people who buy Blu-ray want the best possible quality and squashing a 4 hour film with it's various commentary tracks onto a single disc wouldn't have provided that.

Tbh if getting up off their seat at the 2 hour mark to swap discs is too big inconvenience for some people then physical media like Blu-ray probably isn't for them.

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

€62.54 (£54.93) on amazon with free delivery. Are people saying that even though these are on BluRay that they were unable to fit each movie on a single disc?.

They could fit them on one disc but it would mean that the overall quality would be greatly reduced. By spreading it over two discs allows for better picture and audio. I really don't see the big issue with putting it on two discs tbh, each of them is the best part of 3 and a half hours and is the inconvenience of getting up and putting in another disc that annoying? I'm surprised that people aren't demanding all three films on one disc.

The one thing I've never understood about Blu Ray is why the smaller companies aren't putting a number of DVDs onto Blu ray discs and then selling them at knock down prices. I'd happily pay 10 or 20 euro if it meant getting a number of films of DVD quality on one disc.

L'prof

Sad Professor wrote: »

They probably could have fit all 3 films on to a single disc if they wanted to. But there's an assumption that people who buy Blu-ray want the best possible quality and squashing a 4 hour film with it's various commentary tracks onto a single disc wouldn't have provided that.

Tbh if getting up off their seat at the 2 hour mark to swap discs is too big inconvenience for some people then physical media like Blu-ray probably isn't for them.

Get ya now, I thought people were saying it took more than 3 discs for the 3 movies, (like Goodfellas) that would annoy me.

Deleted User wrote: »

They could fit them on one disc but it would mean that the overall quality would be greatly reduced. By spreading it over two discs allows for better picture and audio. I really don't see the big issue with putting it on two discs tbh, each of them is the best part of 3 and a half hours and is the inconvenience of getting up and putting in another disc that annoying? I'm surprised that people aren't demanding all three films on one disc.

The one thing I've never understood about Blu Ray is why the smaller companies aren't putting a number of DVDs onto Blu ray discs and then selling them at knock down prices. I'd happily pay 10 or 20 euro if it meant getting a number of films of DVD quality on one disc.

Now I'm confused again, 3 movies on 2 discs or is it 6???

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

Now I'm confused again, 3 movies on 2 discs or is it 6???

2 discs per film.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

2 discs per film.

I'm afraid it really is an inconvenience. Great that they're not sacrificing quality and all that, but I'd prefer to watch each film in one sitting, so I doubt I'll be buying this version either. Pity.

Sad Professor

Is it really that big an inconvenience? The Extended Editions are like 4 hours long. Surely you'll be getting up take a pee or something during that time. Couldn't you swap the discs then? It only takes about 10 seconds.

L'prof

Sad Professor wrote: »

Is it really that big an inconvenience? The Extended Editions are like 4 hours long. Surely you'll be getting up take a pee or something during that time. Couldn't you swap the discs then? It only takes about 10 seconds.

It really is, I'm not buying it. Sorry.

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

I'm afraid it really is an inconvenience. Great that they're not sacrificing quality and all that, but I'd prefer to watch each film in one sitting, so I doubt I'll be buying this version either. Pity.

They are near 4 hour films, surely at some stage you will want to go to the bathroom, make a cup of tea, etc and as such the break between discs is the perfect opportunity. Remember that in most cinemas there was an intermission for all three films during the normal versions and that the extended DVDs were spread across two discs a piece so it's not like you were ever able to watch the films in one sitting. In fact the more you think about it having the break between discs is actually replicating the cinema going experience to a greater degree.

razorblunt

Have to say 2 discs per film is a bit of a disaster IMHO. Will the 2nd test have all those stupid warnings you'd see at the start of normal discs, if so then it's even worse!

Sad Professor

razorblunt wrote: »

Will the 2nd test have all those stupid warnings you'd see at the start of normal discs, if so then it's even worse!

No. It should start almost immediately like the DVD.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

They are near 4 hour films, surely at some stage you will want to go to the bathroom, make a cup of tea, etc and as such the break between discs is the perfect opportunity. Remember that in most cinemas there was an intermission for all three films during the normal versions and that the extended DVDs were spread across two discs a piece so it's not like you were ever able to watch the films in one sitting. In fact the more you think about it having the break between discs is actually replicating the cinema going experience to a greater degree.

I hated intermissions too, go figure. You have no idea how delighted I was to finally buy Goodfellas on BluRay and not have to turn the disc over. Apparently they had to split the movies over 2 discs to fit in the audio commentary? Great, I never turn them on anyway!

To all the people complaining about the fact that its going to be 2 disc per film perhaps it may be worth leaving Blu Ray alone and sticking with DVD as the only reason to upgrade is for the best possible picture and sound and if you're going to complain so much about a company attempting to deliver the best quality possible, what's the point? Maybe we can have them put VHS rips of all three onto one DVD discs and that way there's no need to even change discs for the next part.

razorblunt

Sad Professor wrote: »

No. It should start almost immediately like the DVD.

Well that at least is a little comfort!
Have to say I'll just get the regular Blu Ray's now.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

To all the people complaining about the fact that its going to be 2 disc per film perhaps it may be worth leaving Blu Ray alone and sticking with DVD as the only reason to upgrade is for the best possible picture and sound and if you're going to complain so much about a company attempting to deliver the best quality possible, what's the point? Maybe we can have them put VHS rips of all three onto one DVD discs and that way there's no need to even change discs for the next part.

Ridiculous and sweeping statement, I love BluRay and the quality that it brings to movies. That's not to say that I can't be disappointed with the way they had to transfer this version. They'll eventually be able to get them onto one disc and I'll wait until then thanks!

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

I hated intermissions too, go figure. You have no idea how delighted I was to finally buy Goodfellas on BluRay and not have to turn the disc over. Apparently they had to split the movies over 2 discs to fit in the audio commentary? Great, I never turn them on anyway!

Pretty sure the special edition DVD of Goodfellas was on one disc and not a flipper like the original release. I'd happily take a two dics Blu Ray of Goodfells if it meant the best quality picture and sound imaginable, after all why rebuying a film on Blu Ray if the manufacturer isn't going to exploit the technology to its advantage.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty sure the special edition DVD of Goodfellas was on one disc and not a flipper like the original release. I'd happily take a two dics Blu Ray of Goodfells if it meant the best quality picture and sound imaginable, after all why rebuying a film on Blu Ray if the manufacturer isn't going to exploit the technology to its advantage.

I don't think so, I don't have them here with me, but I'm pretty sure I bought the special edition too assuming that it would be contained on one disc, but was disappointed. I could be wrong about that though!

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

Ridiculous and sweeping statement, I love BluRay and the quality that it brings to movies. That's not to say that I can't be disappointed with the way they had to transfer this version. They'll eventually be able to get them onto one disc and I'll wait until then thanks!

It really isn't, ou say you love Blu Ray for the quality yet you would rather they sacrificed quality for convenience? surely something of a contradiction. It's going to be a long time before they are able to put each film on one disc, that is if they are ever able to. May be next-gen equipment before that happens.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

It really isn't, ou say you love Blu Ray for the quality yet you would rather they sacrificed quality for convenience? surely something of a contradiction. It's going to be a long time before they are able to put each film on one disc, that is if they are ever able to. May be next-gen equipment before that happens.

Where have I said this? I said I'd wait, plain and simple. I know what you're saying, but you seem to be completely ignoring what I'm saying and just assuming I'm saying something else! If it takes until a new generation of technology for them to be able to put each film on one disc I'll be more than happy to wait until then, I've waited this long without buying them! There's also the strong possibility that I'll turn to digital media for this particular film.

L'prof

L'prof wrote: »

Where have I said this? I said I'd wait, plain and simple. I know what you're saying, but you seem to be completely ignoring what I'm saying and just assuming I'm saying something else! If it takes until a new generation of technology for them to be able to put each film on one disc I'll be more than happy to wait until then, I've waited this long without buying them! There's also the strong possibility that I'll turn to digital media for this particular film.

Sorry if I'm wrong but did you not heavily imply that if the films were on one disc a piece you would buy them, even if it meant a loss of quality? If it was annnounced tomorrow that low quality Blu Ray would be released but that teh films would be each on one disc, would you buy it then?

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry if I'm wrong but did you not heavily imply that if the films were on one disc a piece you would buy them, even if it meant a loss of quality?

No, show me where I said this?

Deleted User wrote: »

If it was annnounced tomorrow that low quality Blu Ray would be released but that teh films would be each on one disc, would you buy it then?

If I was aware that the quality was reduced then I'd give that a miss too.

Phony Scott

€60 is a snap as far as I'm concerned, dispite my reservations about the extras spread over a numbe of DVDs. I'll wait though to see a review to see if the picture quality is up to snuff before purchasing.

jaykhunter

i think everyone here loves blu-ray, but we're not crazy about the apparently poor transfer. so now i'll wait another few years for a proper transfer/release......

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

i think everyone here loves blu-ray, but we're not crazy about the apparently poor transfer. so now i'll wait another few years for a proper transfer/release......

We don't know that it's a poor transfer yet though. We'll have to wait and see.

Phony Scott

Sad Professor wrote: »

We don't know that it's a poor transfer yet though. We'll have to wait and see.

Well Jaykhunter did say "apparently"

Sad Professor

What is the source for these poor transfer claims? Does anyone have any links? I haven't come across anything.

Phony Scott

Phony Scott wrote: »

Well Jaykhunter did say "apparently"

People keep going on about how poor the theatrical cuts look but really they don't look anywhere near as bad as you may think, Fellowship does look disappointing but Two Towers and Return look great. Granted both have a few problems but then again if you look hard enough you can find something to complain about in any Blu Ray image. The extended cuts will certainly look better than the theatrical cuts, as it's spread across two discs a piece there will be less compression.


For those who seem to believe the quality poor he is the Blu-Ray.com review of the theatrical versions, where they award the picture an overall 4 out of 5.

Alright, bad news first. The Fellowship of the Ring doesn't look as good as The Two Towers or Return of the King. At first glance, its pudgy 1080p/VC-1 transfer appears to hobble out of the Black Gate of Mordor with a presentation primed to please casual viewers whilst leaving the most ardent videophiles shaking their heads. However, identifying which issues trace back to the original source and which should be attributed to the transfer is a tricky proposition. I recently had the unique opportunity to view a theatrical print of Fellowship and compare it to Warner's new Blu-ray release. The results were most telling, so much so that I adjusted my video review and score.

The Blu-ray image is awash with overcooked colors, oversaturated skintones, and murky nighttime sequences. But since director Peter Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie adjusted the film's color timing before approving the new master used for this release, it's safe to assume the savory palette is faithful to their intentions. Detail is occasionally underwhelming though. Yes, Jackson employs a variety of shooting and post-production techniques throughout Fellowship that are meant to lend scenes a soft, somewhat hazy temperament. And yes, the filmmakers didn't have the same technological advantages that were afforded them on Two Towers and Return of the King. But any attempt to decipher where Jackson's intentions end and the studio's efforts begin can be as maddening as staring into a palantír. Minor smearing is present in the Blu-ray transfer that isn't present in the original print. Several closeups and long-distance shots appear to have been scrubbed, albeit to a lesser degree than I initially suspected. That's not to say all is lost. Many sequences -- primarily those in the Mines of Moria, the fellowship's visit to Lothlorien, and the landing (and subsequent battle) at Parth Galen -- still manage to make a reasonably strong impact, and the whole of the presentation handily bests its DVD counterparts and HD broadcast. The scenes are still softer than some might expect, but they're altogether more satisfying than the film's more problematic moments. Unfortunately, other issues exist that can't be brushed aside by pointing to the original source. A slight instability affects the credits and other early elements, the film's faint veneer of grain is occasionally little more than a soupy mess (look to the skies when the fellowship journeys into the snowy mountains for a burst of errant artifacts), a smidgen of edge enhancement has been applied throughout, and crush, flickering, and wavering are regular (albeit minor) offenders. Still, after taking the condition of the source and Jackson's intentions into account, the presentation isn't as flawed as some (like myself) will initially assume.

Fellowship's individual video score? Those who aren't typically bothered by its particular issues will push their scores as high as a 4.0. But with so many individual hiccups, it lands somewhere between a 3.0 and a 3.5 for me.

Thankfully, tossing in The Two Towers and The Return of the King will soothe most of the disappointment Fellowship induces. Within minutes, The Two Towers' 1080p/VC-1 presentation makes a better impression than its predecessor, offering more natural skintones, stronger, more reliable contrast, and deeper, more satisfying blacks. Even though Andrew Lesnie's palette is noticeably bleaker than its lush Fellowship cousin, fine textures haven't been blotted away, tattered rocks and weather-worn cloaks are quite sharp, and hair and pores are largely intact. Note Gandalf's beard and pocky nose during his battle with the Balrog, Gollum's craggly cheeks when he first attacks Frodo, the muddy cocoons of the Uruk-hai, the grassy knolls and stony cliffs of Rohan, the countless leaves in the Ents' shadowy realm, and the worn walls of Helm's Deep. Soft shots dot the proceedings and a number of special effects sequences show their age (Merry and Pippin's travels with Treebeard remain an eyesore), but many of these wince-inducing moments trace back to the original print, not the studio's technical encode. Lingering complaints? First and foremost, edge enhancement rears its ugly head. While it only amounts to a series of thin white slivers in an otherwise respectable presentation, it's still noticeable. Second, smearing appears at seemingly random intervals, but it's less troublesome than it is in Fellowship. Finally, a few nighttime closeups suffer from spiking source noise (a shot of Elrond around the 1:45:00 mark being the most obvious instance). To its credit though, I didn't detect any significant artifacting, aliasing, or crush, and the image is quite clean.

Ultimately, The Two Towers earns a 4.0.

The Return of the King makes such a triumphant entrance that I almost forgot how confused I was after first watching The Fellowship of the Ring. Like The Two Towers, Jackson's third film and Warner's third 1080p/VC-1 transfer hits the ground running, offering a rich palette of wondrous colors, stalwart contrast, enticing blacks, and rewarding delineation. Detail tops the first two films as well. Be it Gandalf's beard, Aragorn's stubble, Frodo's grimy finger nails, Sam's rustled mop, Legolas and Gimli's fallen foes, Eowyn's flowing locks, a high hill glimpse at the cityscape of Gondor, the dank caverns of Dwimorberg, Dickson's impeccable costumes, WETA's marvelous CG battles, or the clashing armies of Pelennor Fields, everything from intimate closeups to sweeping shots of towering castles is blessed with more pleasing clarity. Several special effects show their seams -- the Hobbits may as well be standing against a green screen when the Gondorian crowd bows to them in the third act -- but any such shortcomings are hardly the fault of the technical presentation. Artifacting, aliasing, crush, and source noise never become factors, and ringing, though apparent on a handful of occasions, isn't as gaudy as it is in Towers. If anything, some slight smearing hinders the fun, and small white flecks will catch the eagle-eyes of screenshot-combers from time to time (look closely at Faramir's cheeks around the one-hour mark for one fleeting example). Ah well. As it stands, The Return of the King looks great and stands atop the trio with the best transfer of the bunch.

The Return of the King nabs a 4.25 from me. Trilogy average? A respectable 4.0.

If you really want a transfer to be disappointed by pick up the Game and watch in horror at what is an atrocious transfer.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

What is the source for these poor transfer claims? Does anyone have any links? I haven't come across anything.

There is no link just unfounded speculation.

The Fellowship theatrical transfer was poor in comparison to the others and as such many people seem under the impression that they are merely porting over the same transfer with the added scene thrown in. I also think that a lot of people heard the Fellowship looked poor and assumed that all 3 were of sub par quality and got offended that the studio was trying to trick them into double dipping.

Phony Scott

I really don't have a frame of reference about the theatrical cuts on Blu ray Darko, so I don't know what to think.

Sad Professor

Well, it's already been confirmed that Fellowship is getting a new transfer (see here), taken from the original DI, so the extended edition of that should look great.

I think people are maybe getting confused about the whole business of the DI only being 2K and not 4 or 8K. This is indeed an issue, but it was already an issue with the films in the cinema, and I don't remember anyone complaining about them looking bad then.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no link just unfounded speculation.

The Fellowship theatrical transfer was poor in comparison to the others and as such many people seem under the impression that they are merely porting over the same transfer with the added scene thrown in. I also think that a lot of people heard the Fellowship looked poor and assumed that all 3 were of sub par quality and got offended that the studio was trying to trick them into double dipping.

Well I am basing my opinion on the theatrical version on the fact that I own them and the Fellowship is very average to my eyes. It is all well and good saying The Game looks worse, but which film would have come with higher expectations?

Phony Scott

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't remember anyone complaining about them looking bad then.

Most films on Blu-ray look ten times better than they ever did theatrically I guess. People's expectations are far higher nowadays. But, as has already been pointed out, if the special effects were done in 2k, there's little that can be done to improve them without re-doing the speical effects completely. Again I'll wait to see what the reviews say.

Personally I don't mind if Peter Jackson does a "George Lucas" and later rejigs the special effects. If anything I think Return of the King could do with less special effects, because it always struck me as overbearing at times with its cluttered action scenes and that bit with Legolas sliding down the elephant thingy (?!) always looked ropey to me, even at the time.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

Well I am basing my opinion on the theatrical version on the fact that I own them and the Fellowship is very average to my eyes. It is all well and good saying The Game looks worse, but which film would have come with higher expectations?

Once again they are redoing the Fellowship with a new transfer for the Extended editions so people need to stop saying that it will be poor quality, no one knows how it will look as no one has seen it yet. I think the Game would have come with pretty damn expectations, after all the quality of all previous David Fincher films has been superb and it is a film which looks fantastic.

Phony Scott wrote: »

Most films on Blu-ray look ten times better than they ever did theatrically I guess.

Theatrical is 9 times out of 10 a far higher quality as film is of a much higher resolution than Blu Ray.

johnny_ultimate

I am genuinely amazed that people consider two discs such a major issue. Oh I remember Final Fantasy 8 and 9 being on four discs and it didn't interrupt the experience one bit. Admittedly each disc was like ten hours in that case but you know what I mean. If you want really good quality, then two discs is the price you'll pay. If you're genuinely too lazy / stubborn to change the disc (and apologies, but those are the only words I can think of for it) then fair enough, but life's too frickin' short to get caught up in what is such a petty concern. Any three hour plus film I've ever watched - DVD or cinema - I have been delighted when the interval hits. Whatever about breaking your engagement with the film, there's only so much sitting in one place the human body can take before the fidgeting and bladder concerns begin.

The ludicrous amount of extra discs, now that's stupid.

Anyway, planning on rewatching the Two Towers tonight. I'm sure the snack break will be appreciated.

Phony Scott

Deleted User wrote: »

Theatrical is 9 times out of 10 a far higher quality as film is of a much higher resolution than Blu Ray.

That's not what I'm getting at. 'Aliens' on Blu-ray looks ten times better than it ever did in the cinema. My understanding is that film doesn't have resolution anyway, that's a digital term? Unless, of course, you're saying the Lord of the Rings trilogy was shot digitally?

L'prof

Phony Scott wrote: »

That's not what I'm getting at. 'Aliens' on Blu-ray looks ten times better than it ever did in the cinema. My understanding is that film doesn't have resolution anyway, that's a digital term? Unless, of course, you're saying the Lord of the Rings trilogy was shot digitally?

If all films were shown on digital projectors then you'd see just how good the quality is, but since they're not some do tend to look much better on BluRay!

Phony Scott

Phony Scott wrote: »

That's not what I'm getting at. 'Aliens' on Blu-ray looks ten times better than it ever did in the cinema. My understanding is that film doesn't have resolution anyway, that's a digital term?

When comparing the two it's easiest to talk in terms of resolution. Take 35mm film, the converted measure would be that a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, this all depends on type of stock, lens, etc. A HD image, Blu Ray frame has 2 million pixels or 1920 x 190. we could have an indepth and boring discussion regarding the two but it would completely drag the thread off topic.

It is getting harder and harder to tell them apart given how quickly shooting on digital has overtaken film in recent years but no matter how good a film looks on Blu Ray a good film print will always be superior, If you ever get the chance to see How the West Was Won or Zulu in the cinema jump at the chance though that said if you have yet to see either on Blu Ray then you're in for a treat given how gorgeous they look.

jaykhunter

Deleted User wrote: »

... Granted both have a few problems but then again if you look hard enough you can find something to complain about...

Ha ha ha! Brilliant.