The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 160

Warner has never ever re--done an HD transfer - they'll still hawking National Lampoon's Christmas in various fluff packaging for BD that was originally done for an HD DVD 15GB. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest is on it's 3rd repackaging, still the original transfer, and they're doing an anniversary packaging for Unforgiven, of course with original transfer done for HD & BD with DD lossey audio.

And while they may re-release LOTR EE individually, they will be premium priced with all the extras. They've only done two releases of EE DVDs - one big box of all 3 like the current BD EE, and then premium packaged & priced DVD releases with all the extras.

I finally bit at the Walmart.com $34.96 price (now dead), under $11 each was my price point, flaws and all. I'll just throw away the 9 DVDs & big box, I already have that from the DVD EEs.

I'd say more like 1000's. JUST GIVE US AN EXPLANATION. The fact that there hasn't been a clear explanation suggests that either Jackson doesn't know (unlikely), doesn't care, or doesn't want to admit that it was a mistake. All three are lame.

You'll have better luck e-mailing the studio than posting here.

Full Metal Jacket.

Lethal Weapon, Lethal Weapon 2, Training Day...

All had faults and were remastered due to that.

Training Day was re-done?

The explanation that's making more and more sense to me is that this isn't a "screw-up" so much as it's just a victim of Warner's more recent bd mastering practices. Their transfers over the past year or so have looked a little ..... off. The commonality seems to be a slightly dimmer-than-expected picture, almost as if someone turned down the contrast a little. Is it just me, or did this start happenning when they switched to AVC with The Color Purple?

Lowered contrast is a good thing.

Too many films have been transferred way to high over the years. People complain about garbage mattes (those gray boxes) around visual effects shots..well you shouldn't see them most of the time if the contrast levels are correct.

+1

I agree with PeterTHX, brighter does not necessarily equate to better; far too many films have been remastered by 'improving' contrast but in actuality dynamic range has been reduced. Resulting in picture quality that frequently has oversaturated colors that are inconsistent with original intent, clipped highlights, crushed black level or shadow detail, and shallow or anemic fidelity in midtones.

Then there is the revisionist trend of converting older films to the current color timing trend of teal & orange, or shifting things to a cooler color temp.

The Harry Potter series early encodes need to be redone, various issues affect them but the most recent films look great.

Best Regards
KvE

Nope, mpeg 2 launch disc

lol, maybe not re-encoded, I kinda cheated there. However, the UK and other territories got a VC-1 transfer,(HD DVD port).

In the case of FOTR, "contrast" meaning "white level" rather than intra-picture contrast. The white level is what has been reduced, and therefore the dynamic range as well and also darkens the entire picture.

The way FOTR is encoded, it is exactly the same as if it were encoded normally but you went into your TV and adjusted the "Gain" control (also labeled "Contrast" on many sets) down about 12-15 notches.

Unfortunately, lowering the white level also increases the green tint - which if it were Jackson's intent, the white level might have made it far stronger than he wanted.

I disagree. HP6 is the worst modern transfer I've ever seen. So dark and lifeless I kept checking my settings. Ok maybe there's nothing technically dishonest with it and it's just artistic decisions but they suck. I would rather watch FOTR TE. I don't know why FOTR gets slammed so much for the smallest issue yet HP can get away with murder.

Agreed. I thought my PJ was busted

There are differences in your examples. HP6 presented on BR accurately replicates what is intended by the filmmakers, whether one approves of those creative choices is clearly a matter of opinion.

Whereas FOTR has plenty of references that the color grading has changed from the prior limited theatrical run of the EE and the DVD releases. The controversy is that many feel that those changes degrade the quality and experience of the BR presentation, as well may actually be mistakes not artistic intention.

What I was inferring to in regards to what Warner should rectify with new encodes of the earlier Potter films would provide greater fine detail fidelity along with resolving some other issues that crop up from time to time.

Best Regards
KvE

In the interest of science, I can agree with that.

However when we take off our white coats and kick back for absolute enjoyment it is a different matter.

Regards,
Stefan

Honestly, the reason they haven't commented on the issue is because 99% of the people watching it don't even know it exists. Pretty much like all of the "issues" that get discussed on this forum.

If what they had done had increased shadow detail, then that would be acceptable. You can't tell me that they current transfer doesn't crush blacks though. And the colors...they're not what I saw in the theaters.

1% of a million is still 10,000 people, and probably the most hardcore viewers. We deserve an answer.

Don't tell us, tell them.

Yes, HP:HBP looked absolutely terrible theatrically too, both in "normal" showings and IMAX. It was so bad I was embarrassed because I insisted we drive 40 miles to see the thing in IMAX and it was so underwhelming.

Insult to injury they had issues getting the show started and it was 40 minutes late to begin with. The touted "3D" was for only the opening sequence and a haphazard conversion at that. Biggest waste of money at the theater in years.

i could live with dnr. not the color degradation and crushed blacks that comes with fotr ee

Like me sending an email will matter.

It's more fun to gripe amongst me brethren of hate.

any changes on the rental front with the bd ee? still unrentable?

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw it in theaters?

I'd just like to point out that the most recent Hobbit video blog (#6) has a few seconds of footage from FOTR that appears to be from the extended blu-ray ...... And it still has the reduced white levels from what I can tell. It's about halfway through the video.

Before I make my statement, I guess I feel the need to say that I wasn't offended by the way the FOTR EE looks. I notice it, yes, but I don't think it's horrible, save for a few select shots in the film.

Anyway, this question seems to be the beginning of a straw man discussion. I think we can all agree that the film looked different in theaters, no?

That is what I would like to discover. I don't remember how it looked in theaters when I saw it a good number of years ago. No one's memory is that good; yes, they can speculate what it was but not know unless you have a certified photographic memory. Or, you compare the two at the same time.