Lord Of The Rings Extended Editions on Blu-Ray

jaykhunter

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.

I know what you mean but looking at the ropey imperfections & moving pubic hairs on an unfocused screen (that's very large, but we're also far away) is overall much worse looking than on a Blu-Ray on a HDTV at home. I'm sure the theatrical release would look great (better than blu-ray, relatively) on your home TV if such a thing could be done.

But honestly watching HD at home completely blows away theatrical visual clarity and makes me quite reticent to go to the cinema when I can have a better 'experience' at home a few months later.

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

I know what you mean but looking at the ropey imperfections & moving pubic hairs on an unfocused screen (that's very large, but we're also far away) is overall much worse looking than on a Blu-Ray on a HDTV at home. I'm sure the theatrical release would look great (better than blu-ray, relatively) on your home TV if such a thing could be done.

But honestly watching HD at home completely blows away theatrical visual clarity and makes me quite reticent to go to the cinema when I can have a better 'experience' at home a few months later.

I'm a big fan of watching films in the comfort of my home but at the same time for certain films cinema always wins. Say what you will about Avatar but on the big screen it really is something to behold, an absolutely jaw dropping experience adn while the Blu Ray looks absolutely astonishing is loses a lot of its impact on a 52" screen.

Phony Scott

Deleted User wrote: »

we could have an indepth and boring discussion regarding the two but it would completely drag the thread off topic.

Maybe we should start a thread in the film production forum? It's a topic I want to know more about (boring as it may well be) and get answers on.

Voodu Child

Sad Professor wrote: »

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.

Yes, just to clarify, I brought up that point more to just explain why some relatively old movies can look amazing on Bluray, better even than the LOTR movies which are only ~10 years old.

With film, you can go back and rescan it at a higher resolution, do all your processing at the high resolution and then downscale it for the Bluray. Which is what they have done for many old movies. Scanning at high resolution and then downscaling to 1080p always looks better than if you had just scanned at 1080p to start with. That's why we've seen some old movies that look spectacular on Bluray...good film stock really does capture an amazing amount of detail. It also means you have a 4k or 8k scan for future formats or just for preservation purposes.

Whereas with LOTR, you've got your 2k digital masters and that's it. You can't get any more out of it without going back to the negatives, re-scanning then and then basically re-doing all the post production.

Phony Scott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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

That bugs me more than seperating the films on two discs. Again I'll go back to what I said earlier about fitting all the extras onto one Blu-ray in standard definition. I don't see that as unreasonable as I only tend to watch extras maybe once or twice and then never again. But at €60 I can live with that. I was expecting something crazy like €90 when I saw 15 disc set!

Added: With reguards to the intermisson, I hope they find a better spot to bridge 'The Two Towers' than they did with the DVD's.

I haven't seen them in a while, but I remember it being a pretty bad place to stop the film. Didn't the DVD's just suddenly cut to black instead of fade out?

johnny_ultimate

Watched Two Towers extended last night, and it does cut off at a rather awkward point - didn't notice any particularly obvious narrative gap to do it really well though. Still, far from a pain given that I'd already been watching for two hours at that point!

I've said it before, but with intervals it's all about when they are. I was in a cinema that had an interval and served food during it. Was watching the Social Network, and there was a perfect gap to take a break. But instead it went on for maybe thirty seconds more, into the lead-up of the lengthy dean meeting. That was a pain. It's all about getting that healthy break where it doesn't suddenly jerk the audience out of the film.

Phony Scott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

didn't notice any particularly obvious narrative gap to do it really well though. Still, far from a pain given that I'd already been watching for two hours at that point!

That's what I figured, which is a shame. I still do hope they choose to (if possible) fade to black instead of simply cutting out.

Rsaeire

Voodu Child wrote: »

Whereas with LOTR, you've got your 2k digital masters and that's it. You can't get any more out of it without going back to the negatives, re-scanning then and then basically re-doing all the post production.

That's the thing. Provided the studio do the required work in ensuring that digital tampering is kept to a minimum, e.g. DNR, EE etc, then 2K will be fine, but it's when studios start using older masters created with DVD in mind and adding all these digital manipulation techniques to increase the detail that we start seeing unwanted ringing and other visual anomalies appearing which take away from the viewing experience.

I for one am looking forward to watching the EE of LOTR, as I have them on already on DVD and prefer them to the TE, but I would've much preferred for each of them to appear on one disc. It will be interesting, however, to see just how much of a difference in image quality there is between LOTR 1 TE vs. LOTR 1 EE; fingers crossed for no more waxy faces!

Butch Cassidy

razorblunt wrote: »

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!

Just on the warnings etc. DVD was billed as being more flexible in terms of navigation compared to VHS. With VHS you had to either watch or fast forward through the trailers, ads, warnings and so on. With DVD they were forced on many discs thus negating the whole promise of versatility. It has been rectified somewhat with some blu-ray discs - Warner discs as far as I know always start up on the film.

slave1

Very interesting thread and to me I don't care about 1 disc or 2 as I'll be ripping on a 1:1 basis and joining.
What interests me is how there's always someone on another forum who has already seen these EE BR's, how do we know these statements are true or even if they are the final final prints.
I'm going to wait and see after general release, it's not as if I don't know what happens

jaykhunter

slave1 wrote: »

Very interesting thread and to me I don't care about 1 disc or 2 as I'll be ripping on a 1:1 basis and joining.

So you'll have maybe a 70-80GB file? What will you run it off?

Agricola

jaykhunter wrote: »

So you'll have maybe a 70-80GB file? What will you run it off?

1tb external harddrive?

Sad Professor

Re: the split/intermission:

On the DVD, as I recall, the split in The Two Towers happens after Frodo and Sam get captured by Faramir's men. The second disc then picks up with Aragorn/Eowyn et al travelling to Helms Deep (with Gimli falling off the horse, etc). It's very poorly placed.

The perfect spot would have been at the end of the Galadriel voice-over sequence which is about 15-20 minutes later. The second disc then would have started with Faramir and his men discussing the two pronged attack on Gondor.

I can't actually remember when the split in ROTK happens. Does anyone recall? It was sometime in the middle of the siege, wasn't it?

Voodu Child

Sad Professor wrote: »

I can't actually remember when the split in ROTK happens. Does anyone recall? It was sometime in the middle of the siege, wasn't it?

There's a closeup of a pig-battering-ram thing and then the scene cuts to a bit where a boat is pulling up. The disc change is right at the scene cut.

I've got the two DVDs merged into a single MKV and its pretty seamless - goes to black and the audio cuts out for a split second but its close enough to a normal scene transition.

slave1

jaykhunter wrote: »

So you'll have maybe a 70-80GB file? What will you run it off?

At the minute I have a HTPC with 9TB and a DAS with 8TB so I rip everything and use XBMC via a PJ onto a 10' screen, took years of planning but finally got there just before Xmas last year, if you're really bored....

s_carnage

slave1 wrote: »

At the minute I have a HTPC with 9TB and a DAS with 8TB so I rip everything and use XBMC via a PJ onto a 10' screen, took years of planning but finally got there just before Xmas last year, if you're really bored....

Wow, just wow!!!

Really interesting read there also going through the whole set-up process.

L'prof

slave1 wrote: »

At the minute I have a HTPC with 9TB and a DAS with 8TB so I rip everything and use XBMC via a PJ onto a 10' screen, took years of planning but finally got there just before Xmas last year, if you're really bored....

How much do you charge??? Seriously impressive setup there man, I'm very jealous!

jaykhunter

slave1 wrote: »

At the minute I have a HTPC with 9TB and a DAS with 8TB so I rip everything and use XBMC via a PJ onto a 10' screen, took years of planning but finally got there just before Xmas last year, if you're really bored....

wow, thanks for posting! wow, from bare walls to the ultimate man-cave. Stunning! how much are tickets lol

- You had me at hello.
- I didn't say hello!

s_carnage

So I see this has finally been released. Has anyone come across any good deals on it. Cheapest I have seen so far is £60.

Voodu Child

There's a bit of controvery over Fellowship of the Rings.

It was the one with worst quality in the Theatrical Bluray set, and the quality is vastly better this time around.

But for whatever reason they have given it a strange green hue all the way through the movie. Some say it was an artistic decision, others say it was a mistake. I've seen it and it didn't bother me hugely.

Sad Professor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8

Comparison video that shows the green tint. The chosen scene isn't a good example as there is already a lot of green in it. But this same green tint has been applied to the entire film in equal measure. Flashback scenes to FOTR in the other two films don't have it. Massive f**k up!

EDIT: and for anyone still in doubt, have a look here. Even the closing credits have a green tint.

L'prof

Sad Professor wrote: »

Comparison video that shows the green tint. The chosen scene isn't a good example as there is already a lot of green in it. But this same green tint has been applied to the entire film in equal measure. Flashback scenes to FOTR in the other two films don't have it. Massive f**k up!

EDIT: and for anyone still in doubt, have a look here. Even the closing credits have a green tint.

At least it's the highest possible quality of green tint due to being split over 2 discs :P

Rsaeire

L'prof wrote: »

At least it's the highest possible quality of green tint due to being split over 2 discs :P

It still could have fit on one disc; just looks like more of a waste now that the green tint is spread across two discs! lol

Rsaeire

Rsaeire wrote: »

It still could have fit on one disc; just looks like more of a waste now that the green tint is spread across two discs! lol

The reason it's spread over two discs is to ensure the best possible picture quality possible, putting the film on one disc would have lead to more compression and as such the film would not look half as good. Look at the recently released Drive Angry, in the US it\s a 5 star demo disc in regards picture quality. Over here it's nowhere near as good looking due to the fact that they stuck both the 2D and 3D versions of the film on one disc meaning that the over all quality of both versions suffered.

Rsaeire

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason it's spread over two discs is to ensure the best possible picture quality possible, putting the film on one disc would have lead to more compression and as such the film would not look half as good. Look at the recently released Drive Angry, in the US it\s a 5 star demo disc in regards picture quality. Over here it's nowhere near as good looking due to the fact that they stuck both the 2D and 3D versions of the film on one disc meaning that the over all quality of both versions suffered.

It's perfectly possible to have used a slightly reduced bitrate in order to fit the movies on one disc each. Can you really say you'd notice the difference between a 25 and a 30 Mbps video bitrate, for example? There's also additional audio tracks, bonus features etc that take up valuable space.

I'm all for a movie having an adequate video bitrate, but there are ways to achieve this without spreading a movie across two discs.

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason it's spread over two discs is to ensure the best possible picture quality possible, putting the film on one disc would have lead to more compression and as such the film would not look half as good. Look at the recently released Drive Angry, in the US it\s a 5 star demo disc in regards picture quality. Over here it's nowhere near as good looking due to the fact that they stuck both the 2D and 3D versions of the film on one disc meaning that the over all quality of both versions suffered.

Boy did Drive Angry suffer for it. Looked terrible in places

Sad Professor

Oh not the 2 disc debate again... seriously, people, get over it! It takes 5-10 seconds to get up and put the other disc in.

There's more important things to be worrying about now, like why does the film look like The Matrix?

jaykhunter

Em, you know the way this new blu ray is mastered from the original 2K source? What resolution is that? Like how much less res is blu-ray?

(Does that mean whenever super-duper imax discs for LOTR come out it'll look better?)

Also were LOTR2 & 3 also finished on 2k scans?

Cheers

Sad Professor

2k = 2048 pixels wide.
1080p = 1920 pixels wide.

So 2k is roughly equivalent to 1080p. And yes, all three films were scanned at 2k. In terms of resolution, the films aren't going to look much better. But as I've said before, if a film print taken from this 2k DI was good enough for the cinema then it should be good enough for home video as well. A lot of lower budget films are still scanned in at 2k.

Kess73

There is talk that the new version of the Fellowship is looking at a recall a la Gladiator. So much for the claims that it was going to be a big step up visually from the first release of the same film on blu ray.:rolleyes:


That green/blue tint is a joke. In later scenes on the extended version blu ray character's teeth seem to be glowing.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

There is talk that the new version of the Fellowship is looking at a recall a la Gladiator. So much for the claims that it was going to be a big step up visually from the first release of the same film on blu ray.:rolleyes:


That green/blue tint is a joke. In later scenes on the extended version blu ray character's teeth seem to be glowing.

Bar the green tint, its massive improvement. If there is a recall then it means that someone has been luring to us as it was supposedly overseen and added by Jackson

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

Bar the green tint, its massive improvement. If there is a recall then it means that someone has been luring to us as it was supposedly overseen and added by Jackson

The massive improvement on one front is pretty useless when the green tint takes away from it. What's the point is upgrading the picture quality from the version that was released earlier this year only to have that good work ruined by a weird tint.

The bright whites in the film (Especially in the clothing in any Rivendell scenes) seems to have a lime tinge to it and the bright pure whites now look slightly dirtied.

The Ring Wraiths black is now watered down thanks to the green tint and looks olive in colour.

Skin tones get really messed up at times as pink and reddish skintones have the green tint taken their colour away. And the weird blue teeth and bright eyes that seem to appear at random on some characters is almost offputting as it drags you out of the film.

There has been massive strides forward in terms of detail in the film and there are none of the blurring issues that the theatrical version suffered from.


What is also a bit annoying is that the three films still do not have a consistent level of PQ between them, and there is still a noticeable difference between them if watched within a day or two of each other. I do think if they got rid of that damned tint in the first one that a much better overall product would remain and that while not demo quality in terms of PQ (although the amazing sound across all three is defo demo quality) it would be a worthy purchase.

adox

Sad Professor wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8

Comparison video that shows the green tint. The chosen scene isn't a good example as there is already a lot of green in it. But this same green tint has been applied to the entire film in equal measure. Flashback scenes to FOTR in the other two films don't have it. Massive f**k up!

EDIT: and for anyone still in doubt, have a look here. Even the closing credits have a green tint.

Fook me that looks awful.

Goldstein

So anyway they released a promo picture from The Hobbit today featuring Nori, Ori, Dori and Mr. Anderson.

DirtyLeeds

Jesus wept

A green tint seems to be in effect in a number of recent Blu Ray releases.

Cross of Iron


Heat


Payback

Sad Professor

Heat looks okay to me. The film is supposed to be bluish-green.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Heat looks okay to me. The film is supposed to be bluish-green.

It suits the film but compared to the DVD there's a massive difference. The only film it really hurts is Payback, which is just plain odd looking. Compre that shot of the title card to the original version and there is an obvious difference, they look radically different.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Heat looks okay to me. The film is supposed to be bluish-green.

It suits the film but compared to the DVD there's a massive difference. The only film it really hurts is Payback, which is just plain odd looking. Compre that shot of the title card to the original version and there is an obvious difference, they look radically different.

Basq

s_carnage wrote: »

So I see this has finally been released. Has anyone come across any good deals on it. Cheapest I have seen so far is £60.

Amazon had it for £45 delivered yesterday but sold out quite quickly!

Seeing as Tesco have it for the same price (but don't ship it here) - it'll be available at a couple of retailers for that in the next week or two I'd say.

EDIT: From looking at the green tint in the EE, I've never been happier with my €15 Theatrical Trilogy!

http://blubrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/f27.jpg (Theatrical) VS http://blubrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/f28.jpg (Extended)

Sweet christ! :eek:

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

It suits the film but compared to the DVD there's a massive difference. The only film it really hurts is Payback, which is just plain odd looking. Compre that shot of the title card to the original version and there is an obvious difference, they look radically different.

Can't comment on Payback, but Blu-ray has much better colour reproduction than DVD, so often times you are just seeing colours that weren't visible before.

The Heat DVD transfer was crap anyway IMO. The Blu-ray is gorgeous though, very natural looking.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It suits the film but compared to the DVD there's a massive difference. The only film it really hurts is Payback, which is just plain odd looking. Compre that shot of the title card to the original version and there is an obvious difference, they look radically different.

Can't comment on Payback, but Blu-ray has much better colour reproduction than DVD, so often times you are just seeing colours that weren't visible before.

The Heat DVD transfer was crap anyway IMO. The Blu-ray is gorgeous though, very natural looking.

Heat looks very good but there's definitely been something added, saw it on the bug screen a few years back and there's a noticeable difference. Nothing detrimental but somewhat odd, still it's an amazing title and great looking transfer.

It's odd the manner in which transfers are played with, Don't Look Now is ruined by excessive machine noise. You can actually see under the noise just what a great looking transfer it is but the noise makes it unwatchable.

jcf

How the hell did this get past QA ?

Is that a real screenshot ? the green tint ?


jaysus!!

formatman

Havent had the opportunity to watch this release yet , but I think this is going to a be a case of a cheap tv and blu ray player not been able to handle the colour information properly

The people that are complaining on the web are proabably the same people watching blu ray films in stereo sound on a 399 32inch samsung with vivid colour settings

Phony Scott

Kess73 wrote: »

There is talk that the new version of the Fellowship is looking at a recall a la Gladiator.

Any word on this happening yet? I'm glad I didn't rrush out and buy the box set now.

Kess73

formatman wrote: »

Havent had the opportunity to watch this release yet , but I think this is going to a be a case of a cheap tv and blu ray player not been able to handle the colour information properly

The people that are complaining on the web are proabably the same people watching blu ray films in stereo sound on a 399 32inch samsung with vivid colour settings

Pretty much all the better blu ray review sites have commented on it, and many of the sites listed the equipment they viewed it on.


My own set up is pretty decent, and the green tinge is very obvious, more so when you watch the other two films that don't have it at all.



Here is one review that pretty much nails what is great about the extended trilogy release and what is not so great


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/4590/rings_extended.html

Kess73

Phony Scott wrote: »

Any word on this happening yet? I'm glad I didn't rrush out and buy the box set now.

Nothing official. It has been floating around a few review sites in the US that a recall/replacement similar to what was done for Gladiator may be organised for early 2012 for people who bought the extended versions.

formatman

anyone want to swap their green editions for Battlestar Box set then as per my ad?

http://www.adverts.ie/blu-ray/battlestar-galactica-blu-ray-the-complete-series-25-discs/709713

Phony Scott

Basq wrote: »

Seeing as Tesco have it for the same price (but don't ship it here) - it'll be available at a couple of retailers for that in the next week or two I'd say.

You can get it through Tesco's for £38.24 using the promo code below. Shame they don't ship here, so unless you know somebody over there...

20JULY15-1

Voodu Child

Deleted User wrote: »

A green tint seems to be in effect in a number of recent Blu Ray releases.

Yep, there is an annoying trend towards teal/orange in a lot of new movies and some old movies are being given a teal tint for their re-release. I think it's a fad among colourists at the moment, something to do with making skin tones 'pop out'.

I have a hard time believing that is the case here though, the fact that there is a green tint in 'white' text overlays suggests it was a mistake. Normally they are added after the colour grading.