The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 171

edit: I am not debating the green tint, we are well past that now, please try to keep up.
Edited by AVfile - 12/7/12 at 11:43am

No, the whole film is many different colors. A few scenes are greener than others. Others are bluer or redder or purple-er. "Objectively" the overall green shift may be a flaw, but fortunately I don't watch movies objectively, and subjectively I don't notice it when watching the film, thus it's a non-issue. I even did a re-encode of my disc to fix the white point and the result looked pretty much the same in the end, except with another generation of compression, so I just deleted it. A "serious" flaw in my mind is the ugly DNR smearing Two Towers is larded with, though of course that's a post-production choice.

*Yawn* indeed. Bunch of people talking past each other.

Is there any PQ/AQ/Extras difference between the Amazon 2011 Bluray release and the 2012 Bluray release, apart from the almost 50% price difference?

I never rely on Amazon's specifications, but they suggest a small aspect ratio change and different subtitle languages.

Obviously from this thread they didn't correct the green tint.

If you're asking if the Individual releases of the BDs of the Extended Editions are the same as the ones in the Trilogy boxed set, the answer from all reviewers is "Yes." 5 discs per movie (2 BDs for the feature film + 3 DVDs of special features apiece), but with different packaging (and possibly different disc labels/images). Which is why I bought the EE boxed set when it was on its one-day Amazon sale for $39.99, as I was getting the exact same thing content-wise and transfer-wise, green tint and all (but in a single box), as I would be getting were I to buy each of the EEs in their full 5-disc individual package editions.

And it looks like that price has come back! So get it without delay!
Edited by eweiss - 12/11/12 at 12:00pm

They didn't even bother to "correct" the transfer for the individual releases when they had plenty of time to do so.

Doesn't this spell out pretty definitively that the change was, in fact, intentional????

There is nothing to correct if it was done as it was intended. Which is, apparently, the case with the EE versions.

Proof? I have yet to see any proof that this is a flaw or error of any kind. What proof do you have that it was not done intentionally?

Attack of the Clones' blu-ray transfer suffers the same problem as Fellowship EE's. There's no "peak white" (or "absolute white," whatever it's called) in the transfer where there was in previous transfers and there seems to be too much teal/blue/green in the image and looks tinted. That movie is from the same era as FOTR (late '01 / mid-'02, they were released in theaters only five months apart). They're both from the beginning of the DI age. I must admit, the decision seems far stranger in Clones' example, since that was already a completely digital movie, unlike FOTR. But who knows. Perhaps this is simply a case of the HD telecine colorist taking liberties with the timing.

You are right, there is no proof on either side. Only evidence. The only possible proof is Jackson or Lesnie making a statement that they understand the complaint and it is indeed intentional, or it is indeed an error. IMO, the evidence points to a mistake, but not bad enough in Warner's eyes to justify the money to fix it.

There isn't any evidence pointing to an error either. Assumptions? Yes, plenty of those.

Nobody has assumed that peak white is only RGB value of 220 instead of the industry standard 235. It has been measured and proven.
Edited by BobearQSI - 12/11/12 at 11:03am

You're wrong. Yes, there's visible tint, but there's a lot of pure white in that transfer, lightsaber's cores are perfectly white for example.

No one has proven that to be unintentional either.

I don't think you're following me. I've already said there's no proof. That is not proof, it is evidence (which you said there is none).

Fact: The AVC/H261 encoding specifications set pure white at RGB level 235.
Fact: Every single transfer of every LotR movie in every version except FOTR EE Blu-ray has plenty of level 235 pure white.
Fact: The scenes in FOTR from all other versions (DVD TE, DVD EE, Blu-ray TE) where there is pure white, measure around 220 in the FOTR EE Blu-ray.

FOTR EE Blu-ray does not have any pure white as set by the specifications and used throughout the industry on all Blu-rays.

If you don't want to call that evidence, then fine, I'm not going to argue definitions with you. But that is what I mean when I say there is only evidence. No one else does that sort of thing with white levels.

The only thing people are making assumptions on are: a) it is a mistake, b) it is intentional. For that, there is no proof.

Amazon has this for $39.99. I love the trilogy. I don't have any of the movies. Is this a buy or pass?

I could get the regular individual blu-ray versions for the same price as the EE blu-ray, which wouldn't have the green tint, but I wouldn't get the extra footage. What do you guys think?
Edited by p3Orion - 12/11/12 at 11:30am

While I don't like the green tint, this set is, IMO, still the best quality version available. Given a choice between watching DVD EE, Blu-Ray TE with heavy DNR, or this set with tint and brightness problems, I would choose this set every time.

YMMV, it depends on how much it bothers you.

Agreed, buy the EE trilogy for $40. If you happen to find the TE trilogy at your local Walmart for $9 then pick that up too.

The EE version of Fellowship destroys the TE in terms of image quality. If you want the movies, get em.

Thanks everyone. Picked up LOTR EE and Band of Brothers.

Actually no: there are 2 Trilogy EE boxsets on Amazon one released in 2011 for about $68 and one released in 2012 for the current $39.99

I was curious what the difference was that was commanding the much higher price for the 2011 release.

Bonus features, maybe?

One is sold by Amazon, one is sold by somebody else (they set their own price) and shipped by Amazon.

Nope!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007ZQAKHU/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0026L7H20/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_8?ie=UTF8&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

They were released in different years, yet seem to have similar features and extras (apart from minor differences in aspect ratio and subtitle languages).

I was wondering if the more expensive older version buys you anything over the newer cheaper version.

Older one has digital copies included whereas the new does not, everything else is the same.

Best Regards
KvE

The extras discs are dvd/sd correct?

Thanks for the clarification: I will now remove the expensive version from my Amazon Cart.

The reason I asked about this was because I have had the expensive version in my Cart for ages and wondered why forum members kept saying it was $39.99 when it has stayed around $68: I thought I just kept missing temporary price reductions, when in fact I had a slightly different item in the Cart.

Yes. All features are SD. Though New Line did shoot a lot of HD content during the films as did PJ, it was all finished in SD.

Does the cheap one still have black disc cases?

In Canada the Alliance version has blue cases... $44 at Walmart, but I would not buy it for they add annoying trailers and small French writing on the artwork.

I did the same thing!
Actually, I ordered Band of Brothers and as soon as I got it I ordered Lord of the Rings. I treasure both sets!

i'd say that TTT and RotK not having the same visible tint as FotR could be seen as proof of an error...