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 151

post #4501 of 5568
Y'know, if PJ and/or Lesnie would simply sit down for a few minutes with some online journalist and just explain why the new transfer looks the way it does, it would put a lot of our doubts to rest. Technically, all we've gotten so far is a short little statement from WB saying that basically translates as "trust us, it looks exactly the way it's supposed to." The fact that we've gotten zero elaboration on that is reason enough to think there was a screw-up in the mastering process.

Even if it is a screw-up, consider this:

If they fix it, even if they don't bother with a recall/replacement/running-production-change and simply wait until the next big blu-ray release "ultimate edition" or whatever, if they fix it, that would be an admission that they had screwed up this current release. They might not want to deal with the angry customers who bought the 2011 blu-ray and would now know they have a defective transfer.

For this reason alone, I fear we might be stuck with FOTR looking like this indefinitely .... even if it's not supposed to.

ETA: Also, some of us are still waiting for a transfer of the theatrical versions without all that horrendous DNR in the interior house scenes (Bag End, Orthanc, The Inn at The Prancing Pony, The Golden Hall in both TTT and ROTK, etc). I don't know what it was about those scenes that made them turn the DNR dial up to 11, but they look pretty terrible on the theatrical blu-rays.
post #4502 of 5568
I have been kind of holding out hope that once the Christmas season is over they will then do a quiet exchange program. They want the Christmas sales, and most buyers will never notice a thing wrong.

I haven't bought it yet anyway lol. I waiting for it to hit 30 bucks before i bite.
post #4503 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Sony has been pressing the Blu-ray Disc Association to adopt new standards for an "uber" 4k version.

TDK has created a multilayer Blu-ray disc that may be able to fit the bill and the people behind the RED digital cinema camera have come up with a proprietary, virtually transparent video compression wavelet algorithm that works at 4k resolution. Sony has expressed interest in it.

This new format was also talked about during the unveiling of their prototype 4k consumer LCOS projector. Unlike the JVC D-ILA unit, this one is a true 4k x 2k panel that accepts native 4k signals.

Some highlights:

4096 x 2160p

Real possibility of 12 bit color (already dubbed DeepColor in consumer hardware parlance).

A chance for a slightly wider color gamut than the IEC 709 consumer HD standard.

No word on whether Universal will release 10 year old DVD masters and pass them off as newly minted 4k re-masters.

I can't imagine (in this economy) a new home video format could get traction and doubt the studios would be gung-ho about creating 4k masters.
Of course, Universal and WB would try to take advantage of early adopters...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Y'know, if PJ and/or Lesnie would simply sit down for a few minutes with some online journalist and just explain why the new transfer looks the way it does, it would put a lot of our doubts to rest. Technically, all we've gotten so far is a short little statement from WB saying that basically translates as "trust us, it looks exactly the way it's supposed to." The fact that we've gotten zero elaboration on that is reason enough to think there was a screw-up in the mastering process.

Even if it is a screw-up, consider this:

If they fix it, even if they don't bother with a recall/replacement/running-production-change and simply wait until the next big blu-ray release "ultimate edition" or whatever, if they fix it, that would be an admission that they had screwed up this current release. They might not want to deal with the angry customers who bought the 2011 blu-ray and would now know they have a defective transfer.

For this reason alone, I fear we might be stuck with FOTR looking like this indefinitely .... even if it's not supposed to.

Precisely.
I would be surprised if PJ will discuss this issue any time soon.
He would likely give a "No Comment" response....it is simply about $$$, nothing more.
post #4504 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by hms173 View Post

I just got this last week from Amazon when they dropped the price. What I'm seeing on FOTR does not look anything like the various images posted having the green cast. Mine looks pretty normal to me. My projector is reasonably calibrated so I know it's not so far off as to be able to erase green from an image. So what's going on here?

I since compared it to the DVD and also took my own screenshots of that scene of the ring in the snow. Looking at my screen the DVD snow is white and the BD slightly blueish (unlike the screenshots posted). Looking at my own screenshots the DVD is still white but the BD now looks quite greenish (just like the screenshots posted). Conclusion is that the problem persists but the image on screen may not be nearly as bad as the screenshots would indicate.
post #4505 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avliner View Post

Not sure whether this has been discussed before, but I started to watch the LOTR trilogy early this week and noted that the only way to get 6.1 HD audio is only thru bitstream. I normally have my BDP-80 set to LPCM and no way whatsoever to get the 6.1 audio track though.

Believe this is a flaw in the mastering process though... I'm I right on my assumption??

Anybody, please?
post #4506 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Well, yeah. DVD producer Michael Pellarin was interviewed by the Bits in April 2010 and he talked about the ├╝ber-set then. Jackson has some definite ideas for the eventual 'Ultimate' boxset, but the great thing is that whatever comes along we've got the theatrical and EE versions right there on Blu.

That's something to be applauded, not lamented, no matter how contentious the AV quality may be. Star Wars has been shamefully neglected on DVD and Blu-ray, and continues to become more deformed with every passing iteration and no attention is paid to preserving the past. At least we have that with LOTR, so even if Jackson goes batshit insane on LOTR: Ultimate Even More Extended Edition the prior versions are there to be enjoyed in HD.

i disagree, both star wars and lotr were not as good of br transfers given that they are both cinematic gold. they both have transfer issues and not up to the a/v expectations for these br releases given the quality of the material.
post #4507 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

i disagree, both star wars and lotr were not as good of br transfers given that they are both cinematic gold. they both have transfer issues and not up to the a/v expectations for these br releases given the quality of the material.

I was talking more about having ready access to the award-winning theatrical versions & EEs of LOTR, in light of any further additions Jackson makes. The theatricals may not represent the pinnacle of video quality, but they beat the hell out of an old non-anamorphic Laserdisc master, that's for sure.

As for a 'quiet' fix to gloomy-green FOTR whenever the next version comes out, I wouldn't be surprised because that's exactly what Lucasfilm did with Star Wars after assuring us that the flopped music in the surrounds and missing force fanfare on the DVD were "deliberate creative decisions". Lo and behold that stuff got fixed for the Blu-ray, although they still ignored plenty of other flubs and even added a few more for good measure, natch.

Like I said, folks should be thankful that we've got both versions of LOTR in HD.
post #4508 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by hms173 View Post

I since compared it to the DVD and also took my own screenshots of that scene of the ring in the snow. Looking at my screen the DVD snow is white and the BD slightly blueish (unlike the screenshots posted). Looking at my own screenshots the DVD is still white but the BD now looks quite greenish (just like the screenshots posted). Conclusion is that the problem persists but the image on screen may not be nearly as bad as the screenshots would indicate.

My wife bought me a copy when the price dropped and I can confirm after taking screencaps that there is definitely still a color balance issue on mine when compared to the theatrical edition. On a casual viewing it would probably go unnoticed, but with the knowledge that it exists it is a little harder to ignore.
post #4509 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avliner View Post

Not sure whether this has been discussed before, but I started to watch the LOTR trilogy early this week and noted that the only way to get 6.1 HD audio is only thru bitstream. I normally have my BDP-80 set to LPCM and no way whatsoever to get the 6.1 audio track though.

Believe this is a flaw in the mastering process though... I'm I right on my assumption??

I have a BDP-83. On the BDP-83 using LPCM forces the player to decode using the DTS 5.1 core. Bitstream lets the AVR do the decoding. See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=21284052
post #4510 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by hms173 View Post

I since compared it to the DVD and also took my own screenshots of that scene of the ring in the snow. Looking at my screen the DVD snow is white and the BD slightly blueish (unlike the screenshots posted). Looking at my own screenshots the DVD is still white but the BD now looks quite greenish (just like the screenshots posted). Conclusion is that the problem persists but the image on screen may not be nearly as bad as the screenshots would indicate.

It is extremely evident on properly calibrated TV's. Depending on your color/brightness/contrast settings and be barely noticeable to clearly evident. On my projector on my calibrated setting, the green is tint is there and visible throughout. Switching to a "cooler" setting or to some of the projector's default themes, it is not as evident. The crushed blacks are there throughout.
post #4511 of 5568
How many times are we gonna beat the dead horse that was beaten to death last year, fell off a cliff the day before and was shot that morning. I just re-watched all 3 blurays for the second time on my calibrated jvc rs35. Yes it can be evident if you're only looking for it. If your watching the movie, its nog noticesble. lThere are far worse blurays out than this. It's not a gladiator screwup.

Okay end of rant
post #4512 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony A. View Post

nog noticesble

Latin is not allowed in this forum.
post #4513 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Latin is not allowed in this forum.

What he said is correct.

It's noticesble by nogs.
post #4514 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastan View Post

It is extremely evident on properly calibrated TV's. Depending on your color/brightness/contrast settings and be barely noticeable to clearly evident. On my projector on my calibrated setting, the green is tint is there and visible throughout. Switching to a "cooler" setting or to some of the projector's default themes, it is not as evident. The crushed blacks are there throughout.

It is not "extremely" evident on my properly calibrated PJ. And I have a 2.8 gain High Power screen to boot. That green tint should be knocking me around the room, but it ain't. When I really think hard about it, I notice it. Otherwise, it really is an overblown issue.
post #4515 of 5568
An interesting visual comparison in the Robocop Trilogy thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19017349 where the Criterion and MGM DVDs are upscaled and overlayed with the Fox Bluray.

The Fox Bluray has a green tint suspiciously like the FOTREE Bluray.

Is this significant in some way?
post #4516 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Latin is not allowed in this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

What he said is correct.
It's noticesble by nogs.

Way too funny.
post #4517 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by dundakitty View Post

I have a BDP-83. On the BDP-83 using LPCM forces the player to decode using the DTS 5.1 core. Bitstream lets the AVR do the decoding. See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=21284052

Hey dundakitty,

thanks a lot for showing exactly what I was looking for
post #4518 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

An interesting visual comparison in the Robocop Trilogy thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19017349 where the Criterion and MGM DVDs are upscaled and overlayed with the Fox Bluray.

The Fox Bluray has a green tint suspiciously like the FOTREE Bluray.

Is this significant in some way?

There was an post way back that had a link to a page with screenshots from around 20 recent movies. Almost all had the green tint. There is something in the modern processes that just applies that look, possibly after the director has approved the product.
post #4519 of 5568
Green is the new black
post #4520 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

An interesting visual comparison in the Robocop Trilogy thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19017349 where the Criterion and MGM DVDs are upscaled and overlayed with the Fox Bluray.

The Fox Bluray has a green tint suspiciously like the FOTREE Bluray.

However, a big difference between FOTR and this Robocop shot (as well as all those other movies posted before) is that you actually have a pure white color. Look at the light on the ceiling - it is green, but the middle is white. In FOTR, there is no pure white, even the areas that are supposed to be white are tinted green.

It could be that the green tint was intended as stylistic, but because of the bad white level it is much stronger than it should have been and effected whites too (because whites weren't the brightness they should have been).

I (and others) noted awhile back when adjusting my projector's contrast control to compensate for the low white level, that the green tint was much less distracting once white gain was set properly.
post #4521 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Green is the new black

Well, maybe for 2011, but according to this, 2012 will be orange.
post #4522 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I was talking more about having ready access to the award-winning theatrical versions & EEs of LOTR, in light of any further additions Jackson makes. The theatricals may not represent the pinnacle of video quality, but they beat the hell out of an old non-anamorphic Laserdisc master, that's for sure.

As for a 'quiet' fix to gloomy-green FOTR whenever the next version comes out, I wouldn't be surprised because that's exactly what Lucasfilm did with Star Wars after assuring us that the flopped music in the surrounds and missing force fanfare on the DVD were "deliberate creative decisions". Lo and behold that stuff got fixed for the Blu-ray, although they still ignored plenty of other flubs and even added a few more for good measure, natch.

Like I said, folks should be thankful that we've got both versions of LOTR in HD.




agree about the lack of the original theatrical release of the ot in br format.

that's george failing to heed the pleas of the millions of fans of his movies.

but i'm not thankful that both the theatrical and extended lotr are available on br as they screwed up both transfers. you'd think they would at least have gotten one of them right. the theatrical brs in particular were really nasty looking.
post #4523 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI View Post

However, a big difference between FOTR and this Robocop shot (as well as all those other movies posted before) is that you actually have a pure white color. Look at the light on the ceiling - it is green, but the middle is white. In FOTR, there is no pure white, even the areas that are supposed to be white are tinted green.

As far as I can tell, the Robocop ceiling light is green tinged in the middle as well: it's definitely not pure white. It looks to be the same process as was applied to FOTREE.

Do the editing consoles have an "eu de nile" preset, because it sure looks like the technician activated it for many of the encodes?
post #4524 of 5568
Tell you guys what. I just watched the collectors extended of avatar. 2 things. One why wwas this not reviewed as it should have been far and above the original release of avatar. The quality is sick, by far the best blu available audio and video.

And 2 star wars, and both lotr should be feel shamed putting out crap like these when compared to that.
post #4525 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

As far as I can tell, the Robocop ceiling light is green tinged in the middle as well: it's definitely not pure white. It looks to be the same process as was applied to FOTREE.

You're right, its actually teal/cyan (not green), but its so close to white its hard to tell.

Here are the photoshop color picker values from the brightest white in that light:
R: 253
G: 255
B: 255
Saturation: 1%

Here are the values for the brightest white I could find in this image:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post20641922

R: 195
G: 214
B: 186
Saturation: 13%

The skew of the green is much more in FOTR on all whites, in addition to the white level being significantly reduced.

Just for kicks, attached is small patches of those 2 images side by side.
LL
post #4526 of 5568
Here come 20 posts saying, "it doesn't look like that on MY display!"


post #4527 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post

I just watched the collectors extended of avatar ... The quality is sick, by far the best blu available audio and video.

And 2 star wars, and both lotr should be feel shamed putting out crap like these when compared to that.

FOTR was released in 2001 shot on film, Avatar in 2009/2010 shot on digital. 8 years is a huge difference in terms of technology, Blu-ray was still in prototype in 2001. Hard drive space, processors, and digital cameras/workstations from 2009 are far more advanced than in 2001. Digital Intermediates and color grading were the hot new thing back then, now the process is much more refined.

Star Wars Episode III Blu-ray is reference quality, IMO. Episode II was digital, but the camera used to shoot it wasn't even full 1080p.
post #4528 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Here come 20 posts saying, "it doesn't look like that on MY display!")

Kidding aside, take for example:


If someone had a calibrated display and a calibrated monitor, and they viewed one of the red spirals on their display and the other on their monitor, chances are good they will swear up and down on the forums one is orange and one is magenta even though others on the forum post photoshop color picker values and show the 2 reds side by side are the same. "They aren't the same on MY 2 calibrated displays!"

The truth is, however, their minds do indeed see the two differently even though they are the same. They are making statements here based on what they SEE, not what it actually is.

And some people's minds don't see the green tint because of the brain's white balance adjustment, even though it is there and it is as strong as all the side-by-side comparisons here have shown. Things look different side by side than they do independently.

I say ignorance is bliss. If you don't see it independently or it doesn't bother you, you are lucky.

Here's a couple more examples:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...and-the-green/
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/ade..._illusion.html
http://www.archimedes-lab.org/color_...llusions.html#
post #4529 of 5568
I, for one, have never said there is no green tint. I know its there.

I just don't care.

If I say the sky is blue, and you prove that it is actually green, I will admit it is really green.

I will then continue to enjoy the "blue" sky. What I won't do is stay indoors and refuse to look at the sky until it is changed to a provable "blue". Then, one day, when and if the sky is changed to a "provable" blue, I will enjoy it all the more.

Many people think that if they watch FOTR the image they see is going to look like all these screenshots. It won't...not even close. You can demonstrate the "illusion" that makes this look the way it does, but that doesn't eliminate the effectiveness of the trick. People expecting to see this thick green all over the place will quickly see that the actual appearance doesn't look nearly as bad as some would have you believe it does.

Should a new transfer be done? Sure. Does this transfer look terrible?Hell no. As far as I'm concerned, the green isn't as much of a problem as the overall softness, which is a MUCH bigger issue. The transfer looks pretty damn good, IMHO, but it is easily the lesser of the three films. It is, however, a HUGE improvement over the previous theatrical Blu-ray editions.
post #4530 of 5568
I suspect that some people wish fervently that everyone else was as up in arms about the green issue as they are, because they have the idea that would increase the chances of the issue being fixed.
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