The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 174

wouldn't that 'auto correction' for color balance also apply in a home theater?

Yes, in a dark room where the disc's image sets the reference white point for your eye. Which is why the green tint is a non-issue for me, though I could see how it could be a bigger problem depending on the viewing environment.

To answer "IanD"'s post from yesterday, there doesn't seem to be anything below 16 IRE. Not that it matters, this "black crush" thing is a farce. The only thing I gather is that a lot of people here have poorly set up equipment.
Edited by 42041 - 1/26/13 at 11:56am

i'm not sure that "black crush" is the right term. if you watch FotR and then either TTT or RotK right after, it is fairly easy to notice that the 2nd two film are much brighter overall than FotR

They are brighter, but that doesn't mean FOTR is problematically dim. To me "black crush" means that something is pure clipped black. That this is inherently a transfer flaw is nonsense, as films often have "crushed blacks" in their theatrical appearance... it's the usual HT forum malaise of applying some completely arbitrary objective standard to a subjective visual parameter. Brightness is an artistic consideration. Do you see any lights in the Moria reveal?
In almost every instance in FOTR, what is solid black in the EE is also solid black in the old transfer. Worst case scenario, you're missing some faint crevices of a rock you can barely see either way. It pretty consistently has a higher gamma, but once again, calling that a flaw seems arbitrary.

FOTR's post-production process was very different from the other two films, being a hybrid analog/digital workflow, so the parallels there are pretty sketchy.

I'm not sure if you're trying to state that the EE has no problem with it's dimness or that the black levels are not FAR too low, but if you are, you couldn't be more wrong and I would say that your video playback equipment is either flawed greatly, or set up incorrectly to a very large degree.

I think what I'm saying is quite clear... it's dimmer than the other films. It's not problematically so. And how are the black levels "FAR" too low? Please quantify "FAR too low" as something other than your opinion about a subjective quality of an artistic work, no different than me saying "I don't like this additional scene in the EE"? Don't think I'm trying to make any excuses for flaws here, you should realize this is a legitimate question if you're aware of how older films looked theatrically: elevated brightness is seriously the most common modification of pre-DI films' theatrical appearance that I see on video. It's mastered for TV, and films are made for theaters. So what reason do I have to believe that a crappy DVD-era HD master is some kind of master reference for the film's look? Since the film is eminently watchable on my setup, and the best I've seen it look in any theatrical or video iteration, I'd say the problem ain't on my end.
Edited by 42041 - 1/26/13 at 11:41pm

Wow and I do mean wow.
This thread is still going after more than 2 years?
JHC.

"One thread to rule them all, one thread to guide them" Things are never quiet in Middle Earth......

That is funny! LMAO

Al

You saying that the dimming of the film not being problematically low, is as subjective as me saying that the black levels are FAR too low......except that the black levels in the film being compared to the black levels in the other two films, the theatrical release, cable and network tv showings, and the dvds tell me that the black levels are FAR too low. How you can make any argument against this is beyond me. You are welcome to your opinions, as I am to mine, but the question of black level and green tint being problematic are not opinions at this point, until PJ comes out and says that he deliberately made the blu ray EE vastly different looking than any previous release.

Sure they are, especially since it's only "problematic" to a tiny, tiny percentage of the BD buyers out there.

I would be surprised if there were more than a few hundred people (a thousand at the most, but I'm guessing that that's pushing it) - total, over all of the HT enthusiast sites - who are both aware of and bothered by the changes made to FOTR. And then there's the fact that a significant portion of that group is made up of people who have never actually watched the discs in question, yet have already condemned it...
The sad reality is, that wouldn't help, at least not with all of you. As I've said before, Peter Jackson could release a video with him not only confirming that the changes were done at his behest, but also showing, scene-by-scene, what was changed and why, and there would still be screams of "shill" and "he's just toeing the company line" by those who refuse to consider that the conclusion they've drawn may be incorrect.
Edited by Steeb - 1/27/13 at 4:24pm

A small percentage of a population voicing their opinion about something or noticing that same thing, in no way means that problem doesn't exist. A non calibrated display is obviously wrong, but to 99% of the population, it is not a problem. I've watched the disc, and it was immediately apparent to me that something was very wrong, but my brother in law didn't notice it until I pointed it out to him. Although his sister(my wife) also noticed it from the first few frames. This isn't evidence to me that the movie doesn't have a green tint and black level problems. Especially when I can see that it does and to what extent.

I don't think anyone would be happy for the simple fact that the movie look bad because of it, and the change, no matter what the explanation, is unnecessary and not a good change at all. It not only breaks the visual continuity of the trilogy, but just looks bad. It masks detail and impairs the beauty of the movie. He'd have to come up with an insanely compelling reason as to why it was done intentionally, but that wouldn't mean I would care. Especially seeing as how after watching the Hobbit in 48 fps, I've lost a huge amount of respect for him as a filmmaker anyway.

That was my reaction after seeing his King Kong. It wasn't awful; in fact, parts were pretty good. But as an homage to the movie that made him decide to be a filmmaker, I was disappointed for several reasons.

You're right: my statement is every bit as subjective as your statement, because there's IS no objectivity to be had here. You're confusing an artistic parameter with a technical one. The DP-approved answer prints would provide some semblance of objectively "correct", but that's not a resource we have. So how can I make an argument against the black levels being "FAR too low"? Because I don't find them too low, or low at all for that matter. I find them quite normal, and claims of problematic "black crush" farcical.
And let's be frank here: no one's comparing it to the theatrical release (produced using a very different process than the other two films, mind you), because that's not a reference available to probably 99.9% of the people on this board. You are comparing it to a very old HD master, which is the basis for the other things you mention. I've seen many very old HD masters and I've seen many old 35mm prints, and boy is it a rare occasion when they look anything like each other.

But if you think my Kuro Elite's setup is why I don't think this disc is a colossal unwatchable failure, Robert A. Harris has even helpfully provided the calibration docs for his projector:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/312235/a-few-words-about-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-extended-edition-in-blu-ray#post_3822239

(Speaking of The Hobbit, you must've enjoyed the scenes in Gollum's cave that were lit up like a stadium for no apparent reason...)
Edited by 42041 - 1/27/13 at 9:14pm

A few questions for the inerrant arbiters of correct black levels among us:
is this too dark? I feel it's a bit dark, but it's from the second movie which apparently has perfect black levels. http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/screenshots/sets/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers/0cd29439-b572-436a-a9a4-2dce2f266217/d9648c94-ab61-4916-a19c-fbd4bdb086b0
i don't feel i'm seeing enough detail in those mountains, is this too dark, or is this still the right amount of dark? http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/screenshots/sets/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers/0cd29439-b572-436a-a9a4-2dce2f266217/eed3a5e5-faeb-4757-b7ed-b900d107978f
Surely this must be too dark? Nah, it's from the third movie, can't be... http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/screenshots/sets/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/77c9068a-9f22-4c49-a609-8435541417cd/d32b2880-81ac-4502-83bb-de8e587fd00e

We get it, 42041, you don't believe that there is an adequate reference from which we can infer the approximate correct levels. We understand that thoroughly now. However, those of us who do think there is an adequate reference from which we can infer the approximate correct levels cannot answer your questions without a reference. Kinda by definition. In other words, show the frame from the theatrical version as reference, then the same frame from the EE, and then yes, we will be able to say with the same certainty that we've been using about FOTR:EE if it's noticeably darker or not.

Yes, you're correct--it's technically possible that all previous video transfers of this movie, and the transfers for the EE's of the other two movies, are simply too bright and not green enough, and the FOTR EE disc is the only release that has the correct levels. Simply calling all the other video releases a reference because of nothing more than their striking consistency with one another is arbitrary to some extent, and we could just as easily call this single outlier a reference too, or say there is no reference at all. If that it your point, consider it made already. Please.
Edited by CatBus - 1/28/13 at 10:57am

So black crush is only black crush when it's more black crushy than the old black crush. Got it.

(I think it's also perfectly fair to wonder if the digital transfers ROTK and TT accurately match the theatrical prints, since the print stock the DI was printed on has its own sensitometric response and would have to be emulated to replicate the look on video, especially how it handles the extremes of light and shadow, where film has a very non-linear response. Nowadays they have tools to do that, but these are very old DIs, relatively speaking)

You're right, I've belabored the point enough. Hope you black level crusaders never need to endure a theatrically correct version of Se7en or something.
Edited by 42041 - 1/28/13 at 12:52pm

Not quite. More black crushy than the old black crush is merely further from correct.

I hope I never have to endure that movie again at all. /ducks

And who gets to determine what is "correct?" Especially when we're discussing a film that had only received a partial DI and was only partially graded for all other home releases?

Then there's this quote, which always gets dismissed or ignored: I mean, we already have at least one poster who's all but admitted that he doesn't care if these changes were intentional, since he doesn't like them.


Oh, and please tell me that you're not one of the sad people around here bashing a title you've never actually watched...

It's all probabilities and likelihoods. It's POSSIBLE that they found out they'd been using the wrong color grading for the trilogy all along, fixed it for FOTR:EE, and then promptly forgot how to do it for the other two EE's. But it's not likely. Like I already said earlier, it's possible that this single outlier is correct and all the other releases clustered around a different timing are wrong. In other words, it is possible they got eleven releases wrong in more-or-less exactly the same way and they got one right, and if that were the case you would be vindicated, congratulations.

Why on earth wouldn't you dismiss or ignore that quote? Intention is irrelevant. Director's intent arguments can easily justify any BS revisionism. It doesn't matter if you like the change or not, the argument is if a change has been made or not. My answer is that, yes, it appears a change has been made.

I've seen it, coincidentally on a calibrated Kuro like 42041, but I don't own it (because of that viewing). I'm sorry you're so sad you haven't watched the film you're cheerleading for.
Edited by CatBus - 1/28/13 at 1:01pm

Nice strawman. It's a shame you can't remain intellectually honest in these discussions. Oh, well - what can you do?

Again, for those who can understand what's being discussed, this release is the first time that FOTR was released on home video with a full-DI, and full grading, as opposed to what's been seen all along, which was a film with some scenes graded via a partial DI, and other scenes either completely ungraded or graded photochemically (if memory serves, they were just left ungraded, but I really can't remember at this point.)
Um, no it's not. It may be irrelevant to you, but not to those who respect the artists involved. And since the whole argument has been about whether or not the changes were intentional, I'd say that "intention" is most certainly not "irrelevant" in this discussion.
That's not what the argument's about at all. Clearly, there have been changes made. Are there really people who are denying that changes have been made? I mean, maybe there was some doubt when the set was first released, but I find it hard to believe that there are still any posters claiming that no changes have been made. If there are, they aren't the people you've been arguing with.

The argument is whether or not the changes were intentional. Have you seriously not been paying attention this whole time? I've owned the set for a while now, Einstein. Unlike many of the more vocal posters here, I don't bash titles I haven't watched.

And if you honestly think that I'm "cheerleading" for this title, then it's clear you're incapable of simple reading comprehension, which means there's really no point in discussing this further with you. It's pointless to argue with someone who's not really reading the posts they're responding to.

People tend to oversimplify the issue... replicating the theatrical appearance of a film is not a trivial thing, and the technology to do it has come a long way in the last decade. Film is not like your TV, each pixel responding nicely to a number between 0 and 255 and lighting up appropriately. The marriage of electronic imagery and a 60+ year old analog color process is a bit of an awkward one to begin with, even more so when you're trying to replicate the result on a television, where you get into practical considerations like the fact that people tend to watch TV and cinema in very different environments. There's like 20 different video releases of, say, Reservoir Dogs. You might think at least one of them would look like the theatrical prints in a calibrated home theater... but you'd be wrong. None of them are even close. I haven't had the opportunity to directly compare an original 35mm print of the LOTR movies to any video releases, but unfortunately these "possibilities" are not as remote as one might think.
Edited by 42041 - 1/28/13 at 1:27pm

Well then we're apparently of the same opinion where opinions can be had, except that I think this thread is more of a mess of unrelated arguments than you do. Listen, I check in on this thread every few months just to see if there's any progress to report (there never is), and there have definitely been more than a few who flatly deny a change has been made, even in the very provable case of one video release to the next. 42041 seemed to be taking the denial in a different direction, (paraphrasing) that all claims of "correct" were false because there's no reference--i.e. "we can't prove the new grading isn't theatrically more accurate than the previous grading, so shut up". I was arguing against that position, and I'm sorry you didn't understand.

EDIT: Please read 42041's post above to confirm that I was, in fact, paying attention. Unlike some

Never!

Well in the case of Reservoir Dogs (or many other examples of the same concept), the fact that there's so much variation, and no clear reference, would make me throw up my hands and say "Who the hell knows?", just pick the release I thought looked best in a subjective sense, and forget theatrical fidelity. And, in fact, I've done just that for many if not most titles. But I think LOTR is different precisely because there's so little noise in the signal. All of the previous releases certainly aren't identical, but they're extremely similar--except one version of one movie which is jarringly out of place. I think the lack of variation in the other releases is meaningful, but you may not. And, it's also not insignificant, I don't like the change--if I did, I'd probably already have swallowed the purist pride and bought it (or if I didn't like it, but could tolerate it like the changes to Raiders).
Edited by CatBus - 1/28/13 at 2:18pm

Wait, they added all this stuff to the sides of the picture in the Blu-ray! I never noticed that before! It's all... wide! Boycott!

Unfortunately, I think we're just wasting our time. He refuses to address, or even acknowledge, the fact that this is the first home video release to have the fully-graded version of FOTR that had a full-DI. He didn't even know what the argument was when he chimed in.

It's probably best to just let him wallow in his own ignorance. Nothing good can come from arguing with him, imo. Not that I'm trying to tell you what to do, or anything. Just sayin'...

Oh well, at least I think 42041 and I were able to get our points across to each other before the ad-hom troll decided to chime in and tell us our discussion was not actually about what our discussion was about. I'll come back in a few months and he'll be banned by then if he keeps it up, so it turns out this thread can bring good news after all.
Edited by CatBus - 1/28/13 at 2:56pm

I gave him a pass on King Kong for some reason. It definitely wasn't awful, but it wasn't good either.

I don't think any of those are too dark actually. But I'm also viewing them on my crappy work laptop.................

Everything is simply reduced in brightness by a percentage, but all the detail is essentially still there. But when you have barely visible shadow detail, and you reduce it's brightness, it becomes too dark to really see anymore with a proper black level, even though it you increase the brightness a whole bunch you can see that it is still there.

For example, values of RGB 235 (peak white) have been reduced to about 220. Values in the 20-30 range (shadow detail), are now in the 16-20 range, so while they haven't been technically "crushed," it pretty much the same as you can't see it like you can on all other versions.

Thus, the adjustment can be corrected for by raising your white level (usually the 'contrast' control) to stretch 220 to 235 while you watch.

(BTW, RGB level 16, the proper black level, is IRE 7.5)