The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 157

I think the above pretty much sums up the problems with the EE FOTR - slight green shift, questionable black crush. I got mine last month and have compared it with the DVD and on my display there just isn't a huge difference. I do see some green & blue and a little more darkness in the BD in places but nothing like you'd expect from some of the comments and screenshots posted. Those screenshots look downright Oz-green but I see only a mild greenish (actually more bluish) cast. And I see about the same detail in dark scenes like in Moria. But what's minor to one person can be major to another.

I just purchased the new version from my local Best Buy. It had a special slip cover on it saying something about improved colors thanks to customer feedback. I don't see any of the issues everyone is complaining about. Here is a screenshot. Sorry, it is in highly compressed JPG format and downscaled, but you should get the idea about the improved colors and black levels, etc.

http://i39.tinypic.com/9tdahe.jpg

^^^haha, I fell for it just for a sec

Looks pretty darn green to me.

I still have the gut feeling that Jackson and the DP did not personally oversee the new 2k color timing for Fellowship and the telecine artist went overboard with their tweaking and botched it.

Too bad they can't go back to the original film elements and do a proper 6k scan with a 4k timing or something like that.

If real 4k Blu-ray ever comes around, LOTR will forever be stuck at 2k resolutions.

Yes, The Hobbit, given the trailers, looks "otherworldly," but somehow the color timing seems polished and looks great. Not like Fellowship EE on Blu.

Except we know - beyond a reasonable doubt - that this isn't true.

Back in June, when this set was released, Bill Hunt said at the Home Theater Forum that he'd confirmed Lesnie actually went so far as to check the final discs.

Not that this isn't still a head-scratcher. The green tint over the stuff that should register pure white is the biggest evidence that there was a screw-up.

Who knows? Maybe they really intended FOTR to look this way.

I just wish we could get a transfer of the theatrical cut without all that blasted DNR. A movie like Fellowship of the Ring simply should not end up with a tier 4 transfer.


So will most of the movies made over the past decade.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


It supposedly is coming next year, but I won't be upgrading any time soon. I have too much invested in 1080p. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-def-2013.html

If anything, I will buy the player and start buying the discs assuming they can be downsampled to 1080p, but I won't replace my current movies like I did for DVD, except maybe a few.

4K bluray will never make it......neither will 3D and WORLD PEACE.....

Shoot. I can't even convince most of my friends and family to get into Blu-ray...

Just show them this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...sound+of+music

good one!

How much storage space will be needed for 4K?

Exactly how much more resolution above 1080p are we talking about here?

I don't mind upgrading my hardware for 4K, but I definitely will NOT spend more than the current BD release prices.
Sorry, but a return to LD pricing won't cut it with me.

True that. I still have some family and friends using converter boxes for their old CRT TVs. When pushed, they simply reply "If we really want to see something in HD, we'll just come over to your house."

I guess it's nice to be needed.

Effectively 4X the resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Full aperture 4K is 4096×3112, so the actual amount of pixels will vary depending upon AR. I'm not sure if TVs will still be in 16x9 configurations or if they'll get brave and offer 2.40:1 displays...? I guess we'll know in a couple years as these displays trickle down.

As I understand it, 100GB BDXL discs are capable of 4K feature-length films (with comparable PQ to current Blu-ray discs).

The math says you're losing something, though. 4X the pixels, but only twice as much space.

Hey, I hear ya. But most of them have 40" sets and they sit 10-11' back and don't see any difference

:0

Most movies are finished at 2k in the DI stage, 4K will only exist for showrooms. My guess is that HDMI can't even pass it.

A 'back of the envelope' calculation says that an 8K4K|120p encoded movie takes (less than) 32 times the space occupied by the same movie on BD (25 GB - 50 GB), i.e., under 1600 GB; let's call it about 1 TB (because better compression can be achieved). And we might expect prices for (still future) 4th generation optical disks to have dropped low enough by 2020-2025 for 4K2K|60p (or perhaps 8K4K|120p) disks to cost about the same as current consumer BDs.

I like bigger discs, but content shouldn't necessarily inflate with it. Saying that we should keep increasing resolution indefinitely is silly. Human eyes and ears have limits. Going past those limits is pure cost and no benefit. Let's determine what those limits are and go no further for the sake of bandwith and convenience. You'd need a screen the size of a wall to see the benefit of 4k and I'm pretty sure you'd need the eyes of a predatory bird to see 8k of pixels.

HDMI 1.4 allows for 4096×2160p (~1.85:1 4K resolution).

Some would argue you need a screen the size of a wall to really appreciate 1080p. But yes, you'll want a large screen and some great peepers to fully appreciate 4K+. Although I would love to have a 4K computer monitor...

Well, BDXL supports 128GB discs as well. 4X the pixels crammed into 2.56X the space would obviously have more compression, but only on encodes that take up the full disc... which is pretty rare in the first place. If your average film used 35-40GB of a 50GB Blu-ray - assuming no one used 25GB discs - and the audio track(s) used another 10GB, 100-128GB BDXL would be 3-4X the storage. Keep in mind that you can't get better than uncompressed or lossless audio, so file sizes for audio will remain unchanged unless they add many more channels. Given that in some scenarios of Blu-rays with higher bit rates than their HD-DVD counterparts you can't tell the difference, I would guess that efficient programming of proper codecs would still allow 4K BDXLs to be technically outstanding despite the math not scaling perfectly.

We need 4k (and then 8k) for the 5 wall, paint on screen of the future (well actually we'll probably start building special dome rooms in our basements) so that I can change the scenery at the touch of a button. Holodeck here we come.

Holodeck would be awesome... Sadly, I think we'll end up with something lame like the home videos from "Minority Report". Although I will say that it very realistically portrayed what 3-D video recorded from a Kinect looks like... LOL

The 3x-4x multiplier is of course [correctly] based on a 3840x2160@60p encode, but unfortunately (IIRC) HDMI 1.4 supports only 4096×2160@30p throughput . . . which is still nonetheless double the "pixels per second" of 1920x1080@60p. This might well provide "an opportunity" for 'early' 4K2K movies to "cheat" and to be encoded on BD at only 30p--with a consequent reduction in the required space to around 60GB.

[But the matching 4K2K players would still need some intelligent code to generate 'best quality' downscaling to 1920x1080@60p for consumers with only an 'old' HDMI 1.3 AVR and|or a 1920x1080 display! ]

What about 1.4b?

Thanx to all of you techno-geeks for the info.

Hopefully, Santa will drop by an 80" OLED next year to get me started on the march to 4K optical disks....

With apologies to Shakespeare: "4b, or not 4b, that is the question..."

If (link to) this news item (titled "New HDMI 2.0 Standard in 2012!") is correct, then HDMI.org is taking another shot at 'technology improvement' again this month (but 'skipping over' Standard 1.4b...?!) It's not clear what were HDMI.org's (past) expectations for the level of education and|or CE familiarity that consumers would need in order to comprehend product labeling, but dare we expect more comprehensible product labeling rules this time?

EDIT: At CES 2012, HDMI org said that their "target release date of the next version of the HDMI specification is the second half of 2012".

I ordered the trilogy here in Japan and I should get it later today. I hate to read here that the price is down to $50 in the US. I paid 20,000 yen for mine, or $260 USD! I'm used to paying more for Blu-rays in Japan, but this is a new personal record. I was in the US over the holidays too, but this is the price to get a disc with Japanese subtitles so I can watch it with my wife. Hope she likes it.

I hadn't heard of the green tint on Fellowship of the Ring until today. I'm not too concerned, but I wonder if my disc might have the issue fixed (if it was in fact an error in the first place). Different country, December release. If so, who would be willing to pay $260 for a better disc? US and Japan are the same region for Blu-ray.

Well, I'll tell you for $260 you're going to love it. Stop reading this thread and enjoy!

I watched mine and never really noticed anything. Nothing looked "wrong", in fact, I loved it and thought it looked great.

Well, that certainly affects my hardware upgrade plans for the year...

Thanks for the links.

Mike

I watched last night as far as the Mines of Moria and like you I didn't really notice anything. A scene or two had a greenish tint but which looked appropriate. It all looked like I remember it, with the title "Lord of the Rings" characters a perfect golden color.

I've watched these films 4-5 times in the theater each and the extended editions on DVD I think 5 times. I love these films, but I held off watching them for the past 3 years patiently waiting for this extended Blu-ray. With the passage of time and the huge upgrade in visual and audio quality, it's like watching it for the first time. In fact this probably beats the theater experience. I have a 1080p projector (Mitsubishi HC3800), a 90" screen, and 5.1 plus front height speakers with decoding of the lossless codecs. All this adds up to about $2000 in equipment (plus $270 for the movies ) and I'm just amazed at the quality one can get for that today and have it all at home. My neighbors might not have appreciated it last night as much as I did though.