The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 19 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #541 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 12:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 30,664
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2235 Post(s)
Liked: 1472
OOOOOOKay....unless I am mistaken, this forum is dedicated to the best current home AV technology possible (BD).
But we complain WB decided to put these long EEs on 2 disks????

True....we have yet to compare these with the original Theatrical BDs.
Still, I gotta believe the encodes will be superior, otherwise 2 disks is illogical (added expense to WB).

Then again....what the heck do I know?

Only girly-men push The Red Button.
oink is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 01:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Two disc is not the same thing as quality. And the movies are not that long as some would think. Since BD is 16:9 format its not just the length of the movie that matters but the number of active pixels. Thats a 25% difference. So a 4 hour movie is closer to a 3 hour movie when its 2.35:1.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #543 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 01:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 30,664
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2235 Post(s)
Liked: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Two disc is not the same thing as quality.

I didn't mean to imply 2 disks AUTOMATICALLY means better AV.
However, it seems a reasonable bet WB intends to take advantage of the 100gb.

Of course, we can only sit back and wait to see if that will be the case...

Only girly-men push The Red Button.
oink is online now  
post #544 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 01:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Desert
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

+1

Looking forward to this, but I may have to put some blankets over my speakers to muffle the HD audio on these pesky dynamically mastered blu ray gems. :P

GamerTag= Phaleronic
Rogozhin is offline  
post #545 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 06:11 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 25,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 202
pepar is offline  
post #546 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 12:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Kentai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And the movies are not that long as some would think.

Fellowship of the Ring is two minutes shy of three and a half hours. Return of the King is over 4 hours. How long does a film need to be before you think it should be split across two BD-50s?

Besides, just because scope films take up "less bitrate" due to the bars doesn't mean that encoding them at higher bitrate isn't still advantageous to preserving whatever information is on the source. I don't expect every film to get a 40 MB/s CBR encode, but you cant argue that doing it would have any sort of negative impact on the transfer.
Kentai is offline  
post #547 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Put them on 3 discs, I don't really care. Just no filters, please.
nick_danger is offline  
post #548 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
elario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Two disc is not the same thing as quality. And the movies are not that long as some would think. Since BD is 16:9 format its not just the length of the movie that matters but the number of active pixels. Thats a 25% difference. So a 4 hour movie is closer to a 3 hour movie when its 2.35:1.

It is true that a larger frame requires higher bitrate for the same PQ (assuming everything else is equal), but it is not a linear relationship.
elario is offline  
post #549 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Keep in mind the extended running time for the EEs includes the ~20 minute extended credit sequence to include the entire LotR fan club. Something like that does not require much of a bitrate.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #550 of 5665 Old 03-30-2011, 06:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentai View Post

Fellowship of the Ring is two minutes shy of three and a half hours. Return of the King is over 4 hours. How long does a film need to be before you think it should be split across two BD-50s?

Besides, just because scope films take up "less bitrate" due to the bars doesn't mean that encoding them at higher bitrate isn't still advantageous to preserving whatever information is on the source. I don't expect every film to get a 40 MB/s CBR encode, but you cant argue that doing it would have any sort of negative impact on the transfer.

The problem with focusing on bitrate is that people take a very complex issue with 100 of variables and tries to narrow it down to 2-3 variables. The other problem is that we usually miss the most important aspect of PQ and thats the role the source plays in this. A good source is more important then any other factor. Split up the movie on how many disc you want, it will still look inferior to a modern master on one disc.

If everything is equal more bitrate will of course give us just as good or better PQ. But bitrate isnt the only thing that effects the PQ or it of course wouldnt be any need for 2 or 3 pass encodings. We never see people argue that an encode needs more work hours on the third pass of an encode, because we cant see how much time each movie is getting. I think its safe to assume that not every movie out there gets the same amount of encoding time.

Now there is two real reasons why LOTR movies get split on two discs.

1. Marketing, the more discs a release have the better it sound. 6 disc editions, 9 disc editions etc. Despite that the total amont of data could fit 2-3 disc in many cases.

2. The movie has a natural intermission in them.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #551 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 12:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
dgkp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

2. The movie has a natural intermission in them.
While I'm very happy with the two discs as I tend to watch them over 6 nights, I'm not sure that any but the first film has a natural intermission--the cuts in both the 2 and 3 seem increasingly clunky to me. Nevertheless I'm just happy these are coming to blu much sooner than I thought they would.
dgkp is offline  
post #552 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 12:59 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 25,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post
The problem with focusing on bitrate is that people take a very complex issue with 100 of variables and tries to narrow it down to 2-3 variables. The other problem is that we usually miss the most important aspect of PQ and thats the role the source plays in this. A good source is more important then any other factor. Split up the movie on how many disc you want, it will still look inferior to a modern master on one disc.

If everything is equal more bitrate will of course give us just as good or better PQ. But bitrate isnt the only thing that effects the PQ or it of course wouldnt be any need for 2 or 3 pass encodings. We never see people argue that an encode needs more work hours on the third pass of an encode, because we cant see how much time each movie is getting. I think its safe to assume that not every movie out there gets the same amount of encoding time.

Now there is two real reasons why LOTR movies get split on two discs.

1. Marketing, the more discs a release have the better it sound. 6 disc editions, 9 disc editions etc. Despite that the total amont of data could fit 2-3 disc in many cases.
Perhaps it is easier to simply up the bitrate and spread the film over two discs than it is to spend more time on the passes?
Quote:

2. The movie has a natural intermission in them.
intermission would seem to be a device used by theaters to sell food and beverages, and to allow trips to the loo. Since these versions never played theatrically, there would be no "natural" intermission.

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #553 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 01:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Perhaps it is easier to simply up the bitrate and spread the film over two discs than it is to spend more time on the passes?
Of course its easier. But not automaticly better. But its a complicated relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
intermission would seem to be a device used by theaters to sell food and beverages, and to allow trips to the loo. Since these versions never played theatrically, there would be no "natural" intermission.
When I talk natural, im taking about it being there in the master, and not split up during encoding/authoring.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #554 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 01:39 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 25,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post
When I talk natural, im taking about it being there in the master, and not split up during encoding/authoring.
I'd guess that there had been some thought that went into were to place the disc change or maybe it is where it happened in the theatrical version?
pepar is offline  
post #555 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 02:08 AM
Member
 
makov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Guys, count yourself how much bitrate for video would be for ROTK if Warner release it on one disc.

It's around ~16Mbps for video, and it's assuming US release will have 1 lossless audio track 3 lossy tracks and 3 commentary tracks and that they fill whole BD50 disc with data which is unreal.
As we all know Warner makes one encode for whole world and CEE releases have ~10 audio tracks (not counting commentary tracks) so it would be left sth around ~13-14Mbps for video.

I agree that source is most important thing for quality, but on the other hand I don't believe that with such a low bitrate there won't be visible picture degradation compared to 25-30Mbps encode for a such complex movie (lots of long action scenes which eats huge amounts of space).
makov is offline  
post #556 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by makov View Post
As we all know Warner makes one encode for whole world and CEE releases have ~10 audio tracks (not counting commentary tracks) so it would be left sth around ~13-14Mbps for video.
Warner doesnt have the world wide rights to LOTR, so they wouldnt have to make an encode for the entire world.

Quote:
I agree that source is most important thing for quality, but on the other hand I don't believe that with such a low bitrate there won't be visible picture degradation compared to 25-30Mbps encode for a such complex movie (lots of long action scenes which eats huge amounts of space).
Remember that LOTR has 25% less image area. So a 2.35:1 movie that peaks at 30 mbs is equal to a 16:9 movie that peaks at 40mbs. And a movie that peaks at 30 doesnt need to go as high as 25 mbs for avarage.

Also action scenes isnt always harder to compress since the shutterspeed of the camera creates alot of motion blur. So while you get increase of motion you at the same time get decrease of detail.

We also must take into consideration how little detail on each frame our brain actually can register when we watch the movie in 24fps. Its one thing to pick out artifacts with still frames compared to picking them out on moving pictures. (actually some artifacts are easier to pick out when the frame moves, and some is easier when its a still frame, depending on what type of artifact it is).
MovieSwede is offline  
post #557 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 04:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Perhaps it is easier to simply up the bitrate and spread the film over two discs than it is to spend more time on the passes?intermission would seem to be a device used by theaters to sell food and beverages, and to allow trips to the loo. Since these versions never played theatrically, there would be no "natural" intermission.

Jeff
The EE versions did play in the theater briefly. At least the first two....I think it was right before the release of return of the King. I saw them and there was no intermission.
curlyjive is online now  
post #558 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 07:12 AM
 
SteveMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shop
Posts: 3,564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgkp View Post

While I'm very happy with the two discs as I tend to watch them over 6 nights, I'm not sure that any but the first film has a natural intermission--the cuts in both the 2 and 3 seem increasingly clunky to me. Nevertheless I'm just happy these are coming to blu much sooner than I thought they would.

Did you watch the special features? The big guys claim to have choosen the intermission times for each film.
SteveMo is offline  
post #559 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Put them on 3 discs, I don't really care. Just no filters, please.

+1

just don't give me the crap that was on the original release.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #560 of 5665 Old 03-31-2011, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
whitestang06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I wonder if the remaster of Fellowship of the Ring will involve matching the color timing with the other two, like was done with The Matrix.
whitestang06 is offline  
post #561 of 5665 Old 04-02-2011, 05:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Doug G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr6966 View Post

I will probalby wait for the extended Blu's to be released individually for $15 per movie without extras ( you know that's how it will be for Walmart ), and then buy. I still have both the theatrical and extended DVD's, so I have all these extras, and I don't envision ( even as good as they are ), watching them again, way too much time!

Ditto.

I already own the platinum DVD EEs of all three movies. I'll just wait until I can pick up the EEs individually at wal-mart or amazon and then simply remove the DVDs and insert the BDs into the much nicer packaging. Everything else is the same so no way am I shelling out for the same extras all over again, even though they are fabulous as you say. (Glad I watched, I typically don't but was pleasantly surprised and amazed with everything down to the smallest details that went into the films.)

I hope they do address some of the shortcomings, the three EEs collectively represent an epic film, arguably the greatest of all time, comparable to classics like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, The Ten Commandments and Cleopatra, and deserves nothing less than the most faithful encode possible.
Doug G is offline  
post #562 of 5665 Old 04-02-2011, 06:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Ladic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
havent read the 19 pages, but is the PQ of this new EE the same as the regular bluray version?
Ladic is offline  
post #563 of 5665 Old 04-02-2011, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladic View Post

havent read the 19 pages, but is the PQ of this new EE the same as the regular bluray version?

1) They've said there's a new transfer for Fellowship, but not the other two.
2) No one's actually seen it, so we can't tell you.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #564 of 5665 Old 04-02-2011, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Ladic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
1) They've said there's a new transfer for Fellowship, but not the other two.
2) No one's actually seen it, so we can't tell you.
Thanks, I have not seen the regular BR ones, is the PQ on the TT and RotK good?
Ladic is offline  
post #565 of 5665 Old 04-02-2011, 06:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

The EE versions did play in the theater briefly ... I saw them and there was no intermission.

Ditto.
nick_danger is offline  
post #566 of 5665 Old 04-03-2011, 12:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 30,664
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2235 Post(s)
Liked: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladic View Post

Thanks, I have not seen the regular BR ones, is the PQ on the TT and RotK good?

Uhhhhh....not so much (IMO).

Only girly-men push The Red Button.
oink is online now  
post #567 of 5665 Old 04-03-2011, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chad Varnadore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Salisbury, NC
Posts: 1,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Forgive me if this has been covered somewhere in the previous 19 pages that I haven't the time to read, but...

Unfortunately, the current studio idea of remastering, too often seems to be tweaking the existing master, mostly by way of filtering video noise, to satisfy consumers whose display size is small enough that they won't see the loss of detail anyway, which is the vast majority, and who probably exaggerate natural levels of grain by setting their sharpness levels far too high.

I'm all for dividing each film onto 2 discs each, though I personally believe it to be more out of convenience, as the DVDs were already layed out that way, or even out of pretense (ala what Fox did with the first BD of Avatar) than necessity; but if they're going to utilize 2 discs per film, considering the differences in the EE and theatrical cuts with these films - how the EEs, while much longer, still omit portions of the theatrical films, making the EE's just as imcomplete for collectors as the theatricals themselves - I think they should provide both cuts of the film via branching.

As for the extras: regardless of whether they were actually created in SD or not, there is still absolutely no excuse not to at least take advantage of the BD formats interactivity and enhanced durability for a BD release. Based on the price premium, I think we're clearly paying for it. The price they're charging simply doesn't correspond to the effort or relative production costs compared to similar box sets, unless Warner really doesn't expect the set to sell well at all in light of the economy and so recently exploiting the fanbase with last years BDs of the theatrical versions. In fact the decision to feature the EEs only with this set, may even be as simple as Warner not wanting to seemingly devalue their property from what would no doubt result in a hord of theatrical editions flooding the resale market. I've come to learn that some major studios (specifically Disney) actually thinks it criminal to resell pre-recorded videos that were legally created for mass retail and that were legally purchased.

LOTRs are far and away my favorite films, so I'm one who will definitely be picking them up nomatter how egregious Warner's release. I can understand that in light of an eventual Ultimate set, under Jacksons direction, that Warner might not be able to justify putting as much into this release, and that it's more to appease fans and deliver on expectations of the EE's BD release than anything, expectations that the studio helped create, but there's no way to justify charging top tier pricing for a mostly regurgitated effort.

Chad Varnadore <><
ex-armchair quarterback
***************
Our HT
Chad Varnadore is offline  
post #568 of 5665 Old 04-03-2011, 11:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 30,664
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2235 Post(s)
Liked: 1472
^Where WB and BD meet I am always suspicous...

Only girly-men push The Red Button.
oink is online now  
post #569 of 5665 Old 04-03-2011, 03:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Penman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


how the EEs, while much longer, still omit portions of the theatrical films, making the EE's just as imcomplete for collectors as the theatricals themselves

This is news to me. Examples?
Penman is offline  
post #570 of 5665 Old 04-03-2011, 03:39 PM
Senior Member
 
HokeySmoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=765
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=768

Above is for FOTR, in which the entire beginning has a different feel to it. I like it, but it is different.
HokeySmoke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Blu-ray Software



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off