or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord Of The Rings Extended
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 2

post #31 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post

Four hours on one disc would be fine, too bad Warner suffers from dubitis. Also isn't like 30 minutes of ROTK the credits?

No sh!t
I sat through them once and noticed this:
"Guy who was banned from the set but swept the loo anyway"
post #32 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

I don't really want 2 discs per film, but I guess it's ok if video/audio quality would suffer by being on 1 disc.

If it's necessary to use two 50gb BD disks for each EE in order for WB to put out an excellent presentation, I'll take it.
It's better than having a repeat of the video quality of the Theatrical BD releases....
post #33 of 5576
I just want 2 disks so I can watch the first half one night and the second half the other. Gone are days I can stay up and do ROTK EE.
post #34 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I just want 2 disks so I can watch the first half one night and the second half the other. Gone are days I can stay up and do ROTK EE.

Oh my, yes!
post #35 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

No sh!t
I sat through them once and noticed this:
"Guy who was banned from the set but swept the loo anyway"

There is a homage to that in" Push".

Quote:


Can I clean up without getting killed?
post #36 of 5576
Since a 2.35:1 movie has 25% less image area then a 16:9 movie we need 25% less peak and 25% less avarage bitrate if everything else is equal. So LOTR with 30 peak and 24 avarage would equal 40 peak and 32 avarage on a 16:9 movie. So how many here havnt bought a 16:9 movie with 40/32 ratio because you feel that it is bitstarved?
post #37 of 5576
A new 4K scan will yield a better image with low bitrate than a 2K DI/scan with high bitrate from early 2000!
post #38 of 5576
I wonder if they will ever start to regrade and recomposite some of these early DI titles, and if it's even possible.
post #39 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post
I wonder if they will ever start to regrade and recomposite some of these early DI titles, and if it's even possible.
Well, there's an original negative stored somewhere...
post #40 of 5576
The Two Towers and Return of the King are stuck at the resolutions they were mastered at (presumably 2K). Most of Fellowhip is stuck at a certain res also (again, presumably 2K).
post #41 of 5576
This is exellent news. Another site had summer 2011...not sure how accurate.
post #42 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

The Two Towers and Return of the King are stuck at the resolutions they were mastered at (presumably 2K). Most of Fellowhip is stuck at a certain res also (again, presumably 2K).

Very Wrong!!!

How do you think they could release a new better looking BD version of Gladiator? A movie that was produced around the same time.
By doing a new 4K scan of the source film!!

A movie shot on film are only stuck at the scan resolution that it is feasible to pull off each frame. That is usually 4K for Super 35mm.
post #43 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Very Wrong!!!

How do you think they could release a new better looking BD version of Gladiator? A movie that was produced around the same time.
By doing a new 4K scan of the source film!!

A movie shot on film are only stuck at the scan resolution that it is feasible to pull off each frame. That is usually 4K for Super 35mm.

Gladiator wasn't digitally color graded though, while the majority of Fellowship was, and the entirety of the 2nd and 3rd films (and if memory serves, LOTR uses visual effects much more extensively). I imagine the much greater flexibility of digital color grading tools would make re-doing it much more involved and expensive.
post #44 of 5576
Exactly. Gladiator didn't have a DI at a fixed resolution, so they could go back to the original negative and get a juicy 4K scan done of the completed film. The LOTR movies were finished at 2K ( effects, colour grading, everything) and I'm not sure that an original negative even exists (in the conventional sense) for a DI show.

Is the camera negative ever actually cut together or is it simply stored once scanned? I presume that a complete, fully graded negative gets filmed out from the digital files for purposes of making prints, but again it's hamstrung by that 2K resolution.

This situation is somewhat analogous to rebuilding Star Trek TNG for HD; it's not like it can't be done, but it'll require a lot of time, money and effort to do so.
post #45 of 5576
Didn't we all watch this 2K version projected onto a huge screen at the theater, far bigger than anyone has at home? Seems like it should be just fine for Blu-ray as long as they do a good job of compression/encoding, which of course is the big question mark.
post #46 of 5576
I'm not convinced that the extended versions of LOTR and the Star Wars collection are both going to come out right around the same time of each other.
post #47 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

Didn't we all watch this 2K version projected onto a huge screen at the theater, far bigger than anyone has at home? Seems like it should be just fine for Blu-ray as long as they do a good job of compression/encoding, which of course is the big question mark.

Very true. The same response arises when people start to moan that the last two Star Wars flicks were shot in HD. I think it's only when you look at the longer term implications (4K video standard etc) that the numbers start to become a factor.
post #48 of 5576
I knew the last two SW films were HD, but I didn't know LOTR was. Damn. So a transparent encode (subjective) on Blu-ray will likely be the best consumer version we'll ever get?
post #49 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

I knew the last two SW films were HD, but I didn't know LOTR was. Damn. So a transparent encode (subjective) on Blu-ray will likely be the best consumer version we'll ever get?

All of the LOTR movies were shot on film, not HD. However, they were color corrected at 2k and all effects work was done at 2k. This is absolutely typical of most Hollywood movies these days. Just about everything you see in theaters--even if shot on film or RED camera at 4k resolution--is color corrected at 2k in the "digital intermediate" stage. This "DI" step in the post production process creates a new 2k negative (or master) from which every theatrical print and every home video element is struck. One of the few exceptions to all this, I believe, was SPIDERMAN 3, which was finished at 4k. But it is very VERY rare for any Hollywood films to be finished at 4k or finished in the old-fashioned photochemical way at full 35mm resolution.

So, in short, it should not put LOTR at any disadvantage whatsoever that it was finished at 2k. But at least the image capture was on good ol' 35mm film, which is considerably better than the last two STAR WARS prequels, which will never be better than their 1920x1080 HD capture resolution.
post #50 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

I knew the last two SW films were HD, but I didn't know LOTR was. Damn. So a transparent encode (subjective) on Blu-ray will likely be the best consumer version we'll ever get?

Well, the first movie wasn't fully digital. Most of it was digitally color graded and recorded back to negative. The current digital master is probably made from the film master rather than the original digital data, so you get a lot more quality loss.
post #51 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

All of the LOTR movies were shot on film, not HD. However, they were color corrected at 2k and all effects work was done at 2k. This is absolutely typical of most Hollywood movies these days. Just about everything you see in theaters--even if shot on film or RED camera at 4k resolution--is color corrected at 2k in the "digital intermediate" stage. This "DI" step in the post production process creates a new 2k negative (or master) from which every theatrical print and every home video element is struck. One of the few exceptions to all this, I believe, was SPIDERMAN 3, which was finished at 4k. But it is very VERY rare for any Hollywood films to be finished at 4k or finished in the old-fashioned photochemical way at full 35mm resolution.

So, in short, it should not put LOTR at any disadvantage whatsoever that it was finished at 2k. But at least the image capture was on good ol' 35mm film, which is considerably better than the last two STAR WARS prequels, which will never be better than their 1920x1080 HD capture resolution.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...slisting.shtml

Be forewarned that a couple of those 4K finishes were uprezzed (like Speed Racer).
post #52 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post


http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...slisting.shtml

Be forewarned that a couple of those 4K finishes were uprezzed (like Speed Racer).

I was at Sony post about a year ago and they were doing everything at 4K that was 35mm in and printed at 4K out to film. They were very carefully trying to keep the resolution high.
post #53 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...slisting.shtml

Be forewarned that a couple of those 4K finishes were uprezzed (like Speed Racer).

Interesting link, and I think your disclaimer (mentioning SPEED RACER) is dead on. I think this is a list of films that had final deliverables prepared for 4k projection; I highly doubt that this many films were scanned and color corrected at 4k... especially titles like THE OTHER GUYS. Frankly, 2k is widely considered "good enough" for theatrical release, and is certainly the economic choice of studios.

However, even if every one of these listed titles (in the link) were actually scanned at 4k, then color corrected and output again at 4k, it is still only a tiny TINY fraction of the movies we watch on the big screen. It's the exception rather than the rule... although I'd love it if it became the rule.

So I guess my point goes back to the topic of this thread... the LOTR movies were shot on film with visual effects and color correction applied at the industry-standard 2k resolution, so the blu-ray image shouldn't have to suffer at all compared to most modern films we're used to seeing in HD.
post #54 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

Interesting link, and I think your disclaimer (mentioning SPEED RACER) is dead on. I think this is a list of films that had final deliverables prepared for 4k projection; I highly doubt that this many films were scanned and color corrected at 4k... especially titles like THE OTHER GUYS. Frankly, 2k is widely considered "good enough" for theatrical release, and is certainly the economic choice of studios.

However, even if every one of these listed titles (in the link) were actually scanned at 4k, then color corrected and output again at 4k, it is still only a tiny TINY fraction of the movies we watch on the big screen. It's the exception rather than the rule... although I'd love it if it became the rule.

So I guess my point goes back to the topic of this thread... the LOTR movies were shot on film with visual effects and color correction applied at the industry-standard 2k resolution, so the blu-ray image shouldn't have to suffer at all compared to most modern films we're used to seeing in HD.

The resolution of the master isn't necessarily indicative of the resolution of the initial scan, though. I've read that oversampling is a pretty common practice with high-end DIs. I'm not so sure that the DI process for the Lord of the Rings movies was at that level.
post #55 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by umr View Post

I was at Sony post about a year ago and they were doing everything at 4K that was 35mm in and printed at 4K out to film. They were very carefully trying to keep the resolution high.

Do they print out with something like the ARRI Laser or the AatonK?
post #56 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

Do they print out with something like the ARRI Laser or the AatonK?

It was an ARRI Laser. From what I saw of their audio and video post they are doing a fabulous job.
post #57 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

All of the LOTR movies were shot on film, not HD. However, they were color corrected at 2k and all effects work was done at 2k. This is absolutely typical of most Hollywood movies these days. Just about everything you see in theaters--even if shot on film or RED camera at 4k resolution--is color corrected at 2k in the "digital intermediate" stage. This "DI" step in the post production process creates a new 2k negative (or master) from which every theatrical print and every home video element is struck. One of the few exceptions to all this, I believe, was SPIDERMAN 3, which was finished at 4k. But it is very VERY rare for any Hollywood films to be finished at 4k or finished in the old-fashioned photochemical way at full 35mm resolution.

So, in short, it should not put LOTR at any disadvantage whatsoever that it was finished at 2k. But at least the image capture was on good ol' 35mm film, which is considerably better than the last two STAR WARS prequels, which will never be better than their 1920x1080 HD capture resolution.

I thought Superman Returns effects were done at 4K dispite being shot at 2k
Also I think this shooting big films at 2k is stupid for the future, Gamer will be a show disc when the next format hits
post #58 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I thought Superman Returns effects were done at 4K dispite being shot at 2k
Also I think this shooting big films at 2k is stupid for the future, Gamer will be a show disc when the next format hits

Yeah, I certainly was not trying to put forth the opinion that "2k is good enough"; I was merely commenting on the common practice in Hollywood, and clearing up an earlier poster's misconception that the LOTR movies were shot in HD.

Personally, I would like to see everything captured and mastered at 4k or above. We'll get there eventually, and everything mastered at 2k will be a "quaint reminder" of this period in film, much like 70's film stock or 1.33:1 B&W! Who knows, maybe someday movies originated at 1920x1080 HD (like the last two STAR WARS prequels) will look as low-resolution to us as "28 Days Later" (shot in standard-def PAL) looks now.
post #59 of 5576
What! Already? What am I going to do with my $7.99 copies.
post #60 of 5576
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

Yeah, I certainly was not trying to put forth the opinion that "2k is good enough"; I was merely commenting on the common practice in Hollywood, and clearing up an earlier poster's misconception that the LOTR movies were shot in HD.

Personally, I would like to see everything captured and mastered at 4k or above. We'll get there eventually, and everything mastered at 2k will be a "quaint reminder" of this period in film, much like 70's film stock or 1.33:1 B&W! Who knows, maybe someday movies originated at 1920x1080 HD (like the last two STAR WARS prequels) will look as low-resolution to us as "28 Days Later" (shot in standard-def PAL) looks now.

Good 6k scanning is necessary to fully capture 35mm's grain structure, also for HD video camera shooting. 8k and above would be for 65mm and IMAX.

Though, I don't think B&W is "quaint"... it depends on the story, the mood, and the subject matter, and in some instances is actually better than color photography. I couldn't think of Schindler's List or Ed Wood in anything other than B&W, for instance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord Of The Rings Extended