The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 173

It's irrelevant compared to the inconsistent and incomplete color retiming job Jackson did and the black crush. They should have called it the NTSC (never twice same color) edition.

...sigh

Peter?

Clearly not, since I'm not claiming absolute knowledge of how this film's color grading (an artistic consideration, not a technical one) should look, though you apparently have the inside scoop...

Not this debate again.

Whether the transfer on the BR is incorrect is debatable, but it is disingenuous to argue that it is an unwatchable travesty that other releases have succumb to.
Definitely mileage will vary but for someone who is often a stickler on color and contrast changes this does not bother me to the point of not enjoying FOTR.

Pick your method of anxiety relief. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

People keep missing my point, so this time with more carriage returns.

I too think the green tint debate is pointless, and have never debated THAT issue. So please put down your dead horse pictures.

Why?

Because, if we are going to talk about color at all, there are much more distracting issues with the new master, which 99% of the posts in this thread do not mention or confuse it with the green tint issue.

Am I still able to enjoy the BD overall? Hell yes, it is still impressive! There are many modern movies with a much more severe teal push.

I am sure that Jackson did the best he could in the time available, but if you would permit me to hazard a guess I would say they simply ran out of time. Green or not, the new color timings are by no means consistent, and at one point near the end of the movie the distracting changes suddenly stop MID SCENE and it appears stable through to the end.

Some will cry artistic intent, but it isn't helping the whole fiasco, and dwarfs the green tint issue IMO.
Edited by AVfile - 1/22/13 at 7:45pm

I tried to find any posts you might have made about your re-encode technique, to no success, but I did save You_Too member's instructions with the idea that I'd try re-encoding someday. I suppose I should just watch the whole thing first to see if it bothers me in any way.

I don't think anyone here has made any attempts to alter the presentation on a sequence-by-sequence basis? Which is certainly do-able but no doubt a heckuva lot of work to ID and assert to Avisynth.

Green tint gate will never end will it?

Writing the avisynth script would be a huge waste of time for me, because I don't have a lot of experience color-correcting commercial Blu-rays using avisynth. But for someone who's a bit of an expert on the subject (You_Too), it might not be so bad. Plus, once the script exists, people like me could re-encode the disc without having to do any of the hard work, and that would certainly not be a waste of my time. I've re-encoded Blu-rays before when the commercial release deviated too much from the theatrical release (in my case, deleting an inserted scene), and yeah, it's an unpleasant job, but you only do it once, and then you never have to watch the commercial release again.

its pretty interesting going back to page 8 in the thread and see the whole green/teal tint issue start to explode. page 15 is where people that went to see the FotR EE presentation at AMC theaters start to chime in that the tint was not present there...

When the inevitable box set containing all three Hobbit movies and all three LoTR movies is released, and if the color timing on Fellowship has been changed again... Then and only then we might have a spark of hope that this debate will finally end.

Of course LOTR will be re-released on Blu-ray. Jackson has to fix the GGI for Gollum in Fellowship and the flashback scene with Bilbo and Gollum with new footage from The Hobbit. See why it was best to wait?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Of course!
When a non-green tint version is released.

Eventually there will be a remaster done yet again, probably up to 4K or 3D or something, and then we'll see if the tint is still there.

No doubt (about the "remaster" anyway). Then I'll have to buy the set again, at which point I'll have TWO box sets I've never watched (the EE BD set and the DVD set, still in shrink wrap)!!!



What's the smiley for "not cool"?

It might be easier simply to use the chroma from the Theatrical edition and the Luma from the Extended edition and merge the two together. This would only leave the extended sequences to have the green tint removed, so less chance of fine adjustment being required. Or am I missing something?

The EE black crush (more serious than the green tint IMO) wouldn't be fixed by this, and frankly I'm not sure if that issue can be entirely fixed using either set as a source. i.e. the EE set may have clipped data, and the theatrical set would be missing scenes. But certainly the theatrical version could be used as a reference to create the needed color adjustments.

so how long will people continue to repeat the same points for? Kind of ridiculous now, it is what it is.

This is not the first time you've posted about this thread. Maybe you should ignore the thread? As long as the green tint and crush exist and people buy it, people will continue to complain about it. People that can't/won't see the problems will continue to defend it. People that are optimistic will continue to wait for a new release.

here is the PJ introduction to the AMC theatrical screening of the remastered FotR EE (which had no tint/crush issues)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QSDb2l7N2U&feature=feedu


the part at the beginning is missing but i recall him specifically saying that what was being shown was the remaster done for the bluray release
Edited by mcantu1 - 1/25/13 at 9:15am

Proof?
I can find you a hundred posts saying FOTR:EE on BD has no tint or crush issues. But if you have the 2K frames from the DCP lay em on me...

um, i was talking about the AMC theatrical screening of the BD release

I know. Tons of people claim their discs don't have the green tint too. But as far as anyone's seen, there is exactly one set of discs. There is nothing to suggest the theatrical screenings weren't every bit as green and "crushed", whatever that means, and that people didn't notice the supposed problems for the same reasons they don't notice them on the blu-ray.

ah ok. i got you.

i was one of the people that went to the AMC screenings specifically looking for any color weirdness and i saw none (as i said way back on page 14). however, i am one of those that notices the tint/crush/whatever issue on the FotR BD and that it is not there on the TTT or RotK BDs

It amazes me that some of you, even after all of the explanations and qualifications, seem incapable of comprehending the difference between:

1) someone seeing the changes yet not being convinced that the changes weren't intentional (especially in light of the fact that the fully-graded film was never seen on home video before this release) and
2) someone being unable or unwilling to see/acknowledge the changes in the first place.

Does anyone know for sure if this is merely lowered in brightness below IRE 16 (so the data is still available if brightness is increased) or lowered and also clipped at IRE 16?

As for the AMC or any other screening in a theater, in a darkened environment if you use your eyes or a camera, the colour balance is going to be automatically "corrected" and alter perception of the objective film frame. The only objective way to demonstrate absolute tint issues is to show the digital frame near a reference white background (such as a browser window): anything else is clouded by subjective and relative perception.
Edited by IanD - 1/25/13 at 7:21pm

I think when people say "black crush" they really mean "higher gamma". I'd have to skim through the disc but I don't recall much solid blackness where detail should be, usually the shadow regions are pushed a bit closer to black than the old transfer but there's still detail there.
But it's nice that so many people here apparently own original 35mm prints of Fellowship and know the precise amounts of shadow detail the film should contain. An old-school video transfer is a pretty questionable reference for theatrical accuracy, especially in that regard, so I'd love to see a calibrated scan of these prints.
Edited by 42041 - 1/26/13 at 12:51am

The whole thing is slightly darker because of the tint, but the new master is probably also contributing to that. It wouldn't be out of the question for them to have adjusted the film's overall brightness/gamma to take advantage of the broader color space that Blu-ray offers over DVD, and I won't fault them for that as long as no detail is lost. To be honest, I haven't even looked to see if any detail is lost. I've only seen the new FOTR once, and the differences, to my eyes, were noticeable. That's probably more the result of having read about this issue.. since I knew it was there, and how to look for it, that's why it stood out. I imagine that's the reason why it looks "fine" to some people.