The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 2

Originally Posted by paku

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

Originally Posted by tfoltz

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.

Originally Posted by Franin

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.

Originally Posted by Milt99

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

Can I clean up without getting killed?

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

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).

Originally Posted by coolscan

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.

Originally Posted by mbrennem

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.

Originally Posted by nick_danger

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?

Originally Posted by nick_danger

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?

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

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.

Originally Posted by ChuckZ


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

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

Originally Posted by ChuckZ

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

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

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

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.

Originally Posted by umr

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.

Originally Posted by ChuckZ

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

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

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.

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

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

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

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.