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 165

post #4921 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

Irrelevant and presumptuous. You have no idea whether or not the most vocal people have not "seen the title." My monitor is just another viewing device. What if I told you that my monitor is where i watch the majority of blu-ray movies? I have seen clips that have been captured directly from the discs without any color manipulation. Why can't you accept that as soon as I saw the clips on my movie watching hardware, I noticed that it was too green and dark??

If I go out and rent the movie (wasting $ I shouldn't have to) and watch the entire first movie on my monitor, and then tell you that the color and darkness bothered me, would you believe me?

So the answer is no, you haven't actually watched what's being discussed, outside of screenshots and Youtube videos on your PC monitor.

As to "You have no idea whether or not the most vocal people have not "seen the title." " - sure I do. Many of you have openly admitted that you've never watched the disc and that you have no intention of doing so. I just think it's important to clarify that when you're bashing a given title. That way, people know whose opinions are based on actually watching the disc in their home theater versus those who base their opinions on looking at screenshots and Youtube clips on a PC monitor. YMMV.
post #4922 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

That way, people know whose opinions are based on actually watching the disc in their home theater versus those who base their opinions on looking at screenshots and Youtube clips on a PC monitor.

My PC monitor actually has better color reproduction than my theater display.

Regardless, it has been said, tried, and even confirmed just a few posts back that viewing the screenshots fullscreen is the same as pausing the real disc, on a calibrated display. Doesn't matter if its PC or Theater or what.
post #4923 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

So the answer is no, you haven't actually watched what's being discussed, outside of screenshots and Youtube videos on your PC monitor.

Have you actually looked at a paused frame of the movie on your calibrated theater and compared it to one of the 1080p screenshots here shown fullscreen on your calibrated PC monitor?

If not, how do you know its any different?
post #4924 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

Irrelevant and presumptuous. You have no idea whether or not the most vocal people have not "seen the title." My monitor is just another viewing device. What if I told you that my monitor is where i watch the majority of blu-ray movies? I have seen clips that have been captured directly from the discs without any color manipulation. Why can't you accept that as soon as I saw the clips on my movie watching hardware, I noticed that it was too green and dark??

If I go out and rent the movie (wasting $ I shouldn't have to) and watch the entire first movie on my monitor, and then tell you that the color and darkness bothered me, would you believe me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

So the answer is no, you haven't actually watched what's being discussed, outside of screenshots and Youtube videos on your PC monitor.

As to "You have no idea whether or not the most vocal people have not "seen the title." " - sure I do. Many of you have openly admitted that you've never watched the disc and that you have no intention of doing so. I just think it's important to clarify that when you're bashing a given title. That way, people know whose opinions are based on actually watching the disc in their home theater versus those who base their opinions on looking at screenshots and Youtube clips on a PC monitor. YMMV.



well bottom line here is that for whatever reason, unless something has changed in the last 2 months, you can't rent the extended bd. so
the studio makes it impossible to view the flick without spending $75 to buy it.

and i give the members on this thread the benefit of the doubt. the majority clearly believe this is a a defective transfer, and i'll never know until i can rent or borrow this trilogy from someone thanks to the studio.
post #4925 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

well bottom line here is that for whatever reason, unless something has changed in the last 2 months, you can't rent the extended bd. so
the studio makes it impossible to view the flick without spending $75 to buy it.

and i give the members on this thread the benefit of the doubt. the majority clearly believe this is a a defective transfer, and i'll never know until i can rent or borrow this trilogy from someone thanks to the studio.

There you go. Am I supposed to go out a buy such an OBVIOUSLY flawed movie? I've seen the screen shots and watched clips. I don't need to buy the dang thing to see the issues. The issue was apparent from frame 1.

Steeb, if you had been paying attention, you'd have seen that I already said that I had not watched the entire movie....again..irrelevant.
post #4926 of 5568
I'll go ahead and repost what Spectator said earlier, as it bears repeating:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Cycling through a couple of screenshots on your tv is not the same experience as watching a movie, with natural scene-to-scene transitions, in motion.

And he's right - it's not. What you guys* are doing is the same as someone who's bashing a song (or an entire theatrical soundtrack) based on hearing clips from the song that are 1/24th of a second long. The fact that some of the people in this thread think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do astonishes me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

well bottom line here is that for whatever reason, unless something has changed in the last 2 months, you can't rent the extended bd. so
the studio makes it impossible to view the flick without spending $75 to buy it.

Amazon has a great return policy - and that's all I'll say on that matter.






*"You guys" being those who are openly bashing (and claiming Peter Jackson should be ashamed over) a disc they've never actually watched. You know, the people who think whether or not you've actually seen the item you're trashing is irrelevant.

ETA - And with that... I'm out. Maybe I'll go review some equipment that I've never actually used, but read about (and watched videos of) on the internet...
post #4927 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

I'll go ahead and repost what Spectator said earlier, as it bears repeating:


And he's right - it's not. What you guys* are doing is the same as someone who's bashing a song (or an entire theatrical soundtrack) based on hearing clips from the song that are 1/24th of a second long. The fact that some of the people in this thread think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do astonishes me.

That's not a good analogy. Still frames from a film give you lots of information regarding the transfer quality. For instance, you can tell that this is a far crisper, more detailed, and less filtered image than the TE disc.
When people give me grief about using a frame of a film to determine if it looks like a frame of film, I can't help but think they're on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve
But colors are not a good thing to judge from screenshot comparison, since humans perception of color is very relative.
post #4928 of 5568
Also if the frames immediately preceding and following the still frame have the same issue than it doesn't matter. If the whole shot has incorrect timing, it doesn't matter if you just look at one frame or three hundred
post #4929 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

I'll go ahead and repost what Spectator said earlier, as it bears repeating:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Cycling through a couple of screenshots on your tv is not the same experience as watching a movie, with natural scene-to-scene transitions, in motion.

Then in that case, I will once again respond the same way I did:
It is NOT the experience that is in question here, it is the way the film looks and whether or not it is distracting to each individual. People who have the disc and have calibrated displays have looked at both and determined you do not need the disc to see what's going on here if you have a fullscreen screenshot. Have you actually looked at both?

Quote:


the same as someone who's bashing a song (or an entire theatrical soundtrack) based on hearing clips from the song that are 1/24th of a second long.

Video and audio are completely different, and that analogy breaks down fast. How many museums have still paintings you can look at for hours? How many have 1/24th second audio clips you can listen to over and over for hours?

Quote:


Amazon has a great return policy - and that's all I'll say on that matter.

That's another thing that has been discussed over and over. Amazon's website says:
Partial refunds/Restocking Fees:
Any CD, DVD, VHS tape, software, video game, cassette tape, or vinyl record that has been opened (taken out of its plastic wrap): 50% of item's price.
As far as I know, no one posting here has yet to risk their money against the written policy.
post #4930 of 5568
This whole "if you haven't seen the actual disc on your own HT display you don't know what you're talking about" argument is a tad ridiculous. Think about it, how much variance is there in the multitude of HT displays out there vs. how much variance is on the Blu Ray pressing of this disc? 1 disc, millions of displays. You might see something perfectly fine due to the way your player/display handles the source, but the source isn't changing and the flaws in the source are documented and verified by many people unrelated to each other in a personal or business sense.

The disc has been confirmed to show a constant green cast and crushed shadow detail/contrast boosting. The green cast has been confirmed in everything including the opening credits which should be pure white. It's there if you see it or not and it robs those who can see it of what they should be getting for their money.

As to intent there has been no confirmation of such from Jackson.

Instead of just standing their ground and trying to win an internet argument that's not even in their own best interest, some people should take a step back.
post #4931 of 5568
I was going to respond as well, but it seems you guys said what needed to be said....and with that we rest our case....again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

And with that... I'm out.

Come on...you know you witnessed that thrashing.
post #4932 of 5568
well i have the ee trilogy recorded and saved on my dvr. certainly not the quality of what you can get from the bd, but better than spending having to buy the set with one of the movies messed up.

i'd love to watch the bds, but not available for rent.
post #4933 of 5568
Probably not a big deal, but I had this item saved in my Amazon cart and it is now reported as "no longer available" this morning when I checked. Hmmm....
post #4934 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdryyz View Post

Probably not a big deal, but I had this item saved in my Amazon cart and it is now reported as "no longer available" this morning when I checked. Hmmm....

According to this page,http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings...5278769&sr=8-1, it still appears to be in stock.
post #4935 of 5568
Very interesting. I'll have to look closer to see if there's a UPC code change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

According to this page,http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings...5278769&sr=8-1, it still appears to be in stock.
post #4936 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

Exactly....still unwatchable. I'll wait.

The third screenshot even misses a lot of detail in the snow. Awful.
post #4937 of 5568
I just got these Blurays as a gift. I popped in FOTR, and was thrilled and the sharpness of the transfer. Then the prologue ended and the Shire scenes began. It was even worse than the screenshots here would lead you to believe (at least on my TV). Midday shots looked like they were shot at dusk. Everything looked dull and stagnant. It was so bad I immediately switched to the DVD to compare. This is the first time I have ever gone from watching a blu ray to watching a DVD and breathed a sigh of relief. Sure there is no definition but at least the COLOR is there. Its such a shame...besides this horrific color change the blu ray transfer is excellent.
post #4938 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turrican4D View Post

The third screenshot even misses a lot of detail in the snow. Awful.

Millions of properly timed shots throughout film history "miss" a lot of detail.

Detail exposed on the negative =/= detail intended to be seen.
post #4939 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts View Post

I just got these Blurays as a gift. I popped in FOTR, and was thrilled and the sharpness of the transfer. Then the prologue ended and the Shire scenes began. It was even worse than the screenshots here would lead you to believe (at least on my TV). Midday shots looked like they were shot at dusk. Everything looked dull and stagnant. It was so bad I immediately switched to the DVD to compare. This is the first time I have ever gone from watching a blu ray to watching a DVD and breathed a sigh of relief. Sure there is no definition but at least the COLOR is there. Its such a shame...besides this horrific color change the blu ray transfer is excellent.

THis is exactly my experience as well, except I'd add that the crushed blacks are just as bad.

I know the blu ray has gobs more detail and information, but the dvd is just a more pleasant viewing experience. At least on my 65" inch display. The green and the blacks just make it a pain to watch and enjoy. I pop the dvd in when I want to watch this one.

I hate to keepbeating a dead horse, but apparently some people don't realizer it's dead. The Blu Ray is flawed, and anyone who says otherwise....I'd really like to see what their display is putting out, because it's unmistakable on mine, and another calibrated display on the other side of town that I frequently watch movies on. And yes, the movie looks just as bad in person as it does in the screenshots posted here, give or take a little in either direction. Anyone that is staying away from purchasing the disc based on the screenshots and anecdotal evidence posted here is saving themselves some money. Now I have no idea if a "corrected" version will ever be realeased, but I sure hope so. As it stands, FOTR is unwatchable for me. depending on your display, eyes and brain....your mileage may vary. But to say it just plain out isn't there, is wrong. And to chastise anyone for agreeing or staying away based on "just screenshots" seems pretty stupid to me. If all I ever relied on for my blu ray purchases was me actually going out and purchasing them, I'd be unhappier and poorer. I often come her before I make a purchase, to see if the transfer is up to snuff. I imagine many of us do. Speaking down to someone on a forum about audio and video excellence because they are agreing that what is on the forum shows a lack of said excellence is also stupid. But hey, do what makes you happy.
post #4940 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

And to chastise anyone for agreeing or staying away based on "just screenshots" seems pretty stupid to me. If all I ever relied on for my blu ray purchases was me actually going out and purchasing them, I'd be unhappier and poorer. I often come her before I make a purchase, to see if the transfer is up to snuff. I imagine many of us do. Speaking down to someone on a forum about audio and video excellence because they are agreing that what is on the forum shows a lack of said excellence is also stupid. But hey, do what makes you happy.

When the screenshots are misleading regarding the actual viewing experience, I think it's only fair to warn people. It's unfortunate that you found it unwatchable (it's certainly possible that there's enough genetic variation in human color perception that some may be able to tune out the green tint better than others), but there are many people, including me, who found it quite pleasant to watch, and will swear that the shot with the ring in the snow looks bluish-white and not green at all when you're not viewing it in an internet browser.
post #4941 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

When the screenshots are misleading regarding the actual viewing experience, I think it's only fair to warn people. It's unfortunate that you found it unwatchable (it's certainly possible that there's enough genetic variation in human color perception that some may be able to tune out the green tint better than others), but there are many people, including me, who found it quite pleasant to watch, and will swear that the shot with the ring in the snow looks bluish-white and not green at all when you're not viewing it in an internet browser.

Except that on the whole, the screenshots aren't misleading. Do they accurately depict what everyone will see on their screens as they wacth the movie? Impossible to tell. Do they look like what the movie actually looks like for the most part? Yes! The screenshots don't look exactly as the movie does when I watch it, but it's close enough that arguing the point makes little sense, especially when the lesson that should be taken from the screenshots is that the movie has obvious, and many would say egregious, flaws. Now whether they bother you or if you're able to see them, that's a different story, but they are in fact there, and not far off from the screnshots in this thread. The movie is green and dark, that is in inescapable fact.
post #4942 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Except that on the whole, the screenshots aren't misleading. Do they accurately depict what everyone will see on their screens as they wacth the movie? Impossible to tell. Do they look like what the movie actually looks like for the most part? Yes! The screenshots don't look exactly as the movie does when I watch it, but it's close enough that arguing the point makes little sense, especially when the lesson that should be taken from the screenshots is that the movie has obvious, and many would say egregious, flaws. Now whether they bother you or if you're able to see them, that's a different story, but they are in fact there, and not far off from the screnshots in this thread. The movie is green and dark, that is in inescapable fact.

We'll have to disagree. The difference between "overbearing green tint" and "no overall green tint" is not a minor one, but that is what I see when I watch the film. It certainly seems some mastering screwup happened, but I also see why no one caught it. Considering how many Blu-rays have major issues I don't have trouble seeing, to me this is a battle barely worth fighting. Personally, I find the ugly DNR smearing in Two Towers far more egregious.
post #4943 of 5568
Oh it's worth fighting alright. Keep it alive boys.
post #4944 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Except that on the whole, the screenshots aren't misleading. Do they accurately depict what everyone will see on their screens as they wacth the movie?

They do, but the caveat is only if they are viewed fullscreen. If not fullscreen, they are put alongside a reference white (from other windows, the mouse cursor, etc) and thus the green stands out more.

These 2 images demonstrate this, if viewed fullscreen. Its very easy with most blu-ray players to slap these on a USB stick and view them full screen on your theater display.

For some people, the green even goes away completely viewing the first image only, but this is not the case for everyone. And just because someone else can't see it doesn't mean the disc isn't flawed in a way that ruins it for others.
post #4945 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI View Post

For some people, the green even goes away completely viewing the first image only, but this is not the case for everyone. And just because someone else can't see it doesn't mean the disc isn't flawed in a way that ruins it for others.

...and the crushed blacks are just as bad whether your eyes adjust to the tint or not. The screenshots are not any more misleading for this film than any other film. Anyone who uses screenshots to make purchasing decisions already should make some allowance for flaws that would be invisible when actually viewing the film, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to call these flaws above that threshold (and for someone else to call them below that threshold).

Also a factor in purchasing is the quality of the DVD and the likelihood of a re-release. I bought Life of Brian knowing full well it was full of red push, DNR, and weird grain issues, because the DVD was so awful it was worth upgrading anyway, and I don't consider a reissue likely. FOTR:EE isn't the same story at all, the DVD is pretty much as good as the DVD format is capable of looking. Also with the Hobbit and possible 3D conversions on the way, there are lots of opportunities for the studios to find a convenient excuse for a reissue down the road. I can wait, I am patient. I have other Blu Rays I can spend my money on in the meantime.
post #4946 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Also a factor in purchasing is... the likelihood of a re-release. ...with the Hobbit and possible 3D conversions on the way, there are lots of opportunities for the studios to find a convenient excuse for a reissue down the road. I can wait, I am patient. I have other Blu Rays I can spend my money on in the meantime.

The funny thing is, I personally weighed this same factor very heavily and came down on the other side. I grabbed this blu-ray set--with all its flaws--specifically because I'm afraid it may be the last opportunity to grab this particular incarnation of the trilogy, unsullied by further tweaking. I expect the next set to have new footage which ties into THE HOBBIT, or a version of Gollum in FOTR that has been altered to be a closer match to the rest of the films. I don't want any further tweaks, THIS is the extended edition that made me a fan.

As for the quality, I've posted several times in this thread about how I'm able to alter the settings on my Panny AE4000 to make the quality of this blu-ray a virtual match with the dvd set in terms of color and contrast. It's very successful when done right. Should we have to knock our displays out of calibration in order to view a particular title correctly? Heck no... but it absolutely does work, and it's better than "throwing the baby away with the bath water", as my parents used to say.
post #4947 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

...and the crushed blacks are just as bad whether your eyes adjust to the tint or not.

On a calibrated display, yes. But Average Joe with an uncalibrated set might not notice them.

Back near release date, we analyzed the infamous mines of moria screenshots compared to the DVD and Theatrical BR. The blacks are not 'crushed' in the common usage meaning clipped, but rather shadow detail has been dimmed along with the rest of the image. The entire image has been dimmed (aka the sunglasses comments). It's just that dimming shadow detail has a much more profound effect down there where the (properly calibrated) gamma curve is flatter. Increasing the gain on the screenshots (or TV) showed that the same amount of shadow detail is visible and blacks are the same brightness as the other versions.

So its definitely possible that someone who had an improper black level calibration on their TV (like someone choosing the 'expanded' HDMI level in their Blu-ray player thinking it must be better), would not notice the lack of shadow detail, and would come on here reporting "Hey, I just got my copy and nothing's wrong with it." Or, you could also have the guy who thinks his set is 'calibrated' with a simple DVD, but doesn't realize the low-end gamma on his TV might be way off, and there's simply no way to get gamma correct with the available calibration discs.
post #4948 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

As for the quality, I've posted several times in this thread about how I'm able to alter the settings on my Panny AE4000 to make the quality of this blu-ray a virtual match with the dvd set in terms of color and contrast. It's very successful when done right.

I agree, as I did this as well. If your display has the right controls (you need individual Red, Green, and Blue gain adjustments), then the only artifact after adjustment is a slightly lower color bit depth (IMO not even noticeable).
post #4949 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

The funny thing is, I personally weighed this same factor very heavily and came down on the other side. I grabbed this blu-ray set--with all its flaws--specifically because I'm afraid it may be the last opportunity to grab this particular incarnation of the trilogy, unsullied by further tweaking. I expect the next set to have new footage which ties into THE HOBBIT, or a version of Gollum in FOTR that has been altered to be a closer match to the rest of the films. I don't want any further tweaks, THIS is the extended edition that made me a fan.

Agree with you there: The second revisions appear inevitable, I'll buy the flawed Blu Ray set, and rather than adjust my set I'll attempt to rip, adjust, and re-encode the FOTR video since presumably someone will have perfected a process by then. Yes I'll lose quality, but the principle of adjusting your set to watch one movie is just a hard one to get over.
post #4950 of 5568
Yeah, I calibrate my own set and I'm very familiar with the controls and have written down all the settings, so it's not a big deal for me. But I can see how someone who paid for a pro calibration wouldn't want to touch anything.

The quality lost re-encoding I would still consider better than it is now.
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