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 175

post #5221 of 5570
^ What is your opinion on the quality of this release?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

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.

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.

I'm really not interested in the semantic debate. There is nothing PJ himself could say that will change my opinion of this release. A statement from him might change my respect for him as a film maker, but will not change what's on the discs.
post #5222 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

I'm really not interested in the semantic debate. There is nothing PJ himself could say that will change my opinion of this release. A statement from him might change my respect for him as a film maker, but will not change what's on the discs.
I'm amazed at how many of you on here are far less concerned about what's "correct" or "intended" and instead are more concerned about what you personally prefer/like.

At least you're honest about your disregard for a filmmaker's intent. The eye candy tier thread should be right up your alley - you'll find plenty of people there with the same lack of respect for artists.
post #5223 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

I'm amazed at how many of you on here are far less concerned about what's "correct" or "intended" and instead are more concerned about what you personally prefer/like.

At least you're honest about your disregard for a filmmaker's intent. The eye candy tier thread should be right up your alley - you'll find plenty of people there with the same lack of respect for artists.

I'm amazed how anyone can be 100% behind anything at all, 100% of the time, no matter what.

I am all about artistic intent, and being able to see what the artist intended. Except when the artist makes an absolutely horrible mistake, as would be the case if this was the intention of PJ. I don't care that this is what he wanted, if it is in fact what he wanted. It looks horrible, makes no sense and is just a bad mistake.

But.......I can't imagine what it would take for me to believe that he did intend it to look this way. It just makes absolutely no sense, and there is too much to show that it wasn't intentional.
post #5224 of 5570
The only thing that suggests anything unintentional is the low/greenish white point. If you correct for that, you've still got a completely different looking transfer.
As far as the overall color grading differences and increased gamma, there's nothing to suggest it wasn't completely intentional. Scene-by-scene color grading doesn't happen by accident.
post #5225 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I am all about artistic intent, and being able to see what the artist intended. Except when the artist makes an absolutely horrible mistake

Hear that, artists? Just want to do the right thing and you can always do whatever you want!
post #5226 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The only thing that suggests anything unintentional is the low/greenish white point.

If you think that's the only thing that suggests an error, you've got about 175 pages of thread to go back and re-read.
post #5227 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I am all about artistic intent, and being able to see what the artist intended. Except when the artist makes an absolutely horrible mistake

I agree - if George Lucas decided to re-release the original Star Wars trilogy with all-inverted colors, and said that was his intent all along, I'm pretty sure I would not be watching that version. Artists have been known to go crazy from time to time. Darth Vader yelling "No" at the end already upsets me, but not enough to not watch the movie.

People cry out for George Lucas to release the original theatrical versions where Han shot first. I'm sure lots of them respect artistic intent, but most probably don't respect Lucas's artistic intent.

Regardless of what Jackson says (although I'm also on the side of this being a mistake), I will still watch FOTR with TV adjustments made, as my personal opinion prefers that over what's on the disc.
post #5228 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

If you think that's the only thing that suggests an error, you've got about 175 pages of thread to go back and re-read.
Unfortunately, I've read almost all of it.
That someone doesn't like the color grading does not suggest it was unintentional.
post #5229 of 5570
Thread Starter 
Having watched it very recently, to me, to my eyes, FOTR screenshots look worse than the actual product. And frankly, there are many other things to like in this release, but to each his own.
post #5230 of 5570
Steeb - I'm actually more concerned about the possibility that PJ and Lesnie sat down to remaster it and weren't able to finish the job completely and consistently. It is my theory that what we ended up with was an inconsistent re-grading job, due to time or budget constraints not their artistic ability which I have great respect for - despite WB's official statement about meeting the artists' intent and all that.
Edited by AVfile - 1/30/13 at 2:00pm
post #5231 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

That someone doesn't like the color grading does not suggest it was unintentional.

... but that it involves (among other things) an unprecedented blanket value-change applied across the entire film and that it also impacts elements not modified in typical practice (the credits, etc.) does rather suggest as much, doesn't it?
post #5232 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

... but that it involves (among other things) an unprecedented blanket value-change applied across the entire film and that it also impacts elements not modified in typical practice (the credits, etc.) does rather suggest as much, doesn't it?
The only thing that suggests is that the blanket value-change was unintentional. It's probably the result of something applied at pretty much the last step of the process, like print film emulation or color space conversion. If you get rid of the blanket tint, the color grade is still completely different.
post #5233 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The only thing that suggests is that the blanket value-change was unintentional. It's probably the result of something applied at pretty much the last step of the process, like print film emulation or color space conversion. If you get rid of the blanket tint, the color grade is still completely different.

The only thing I think people are upset with, and the only thing everyone is saying is not intentional, is the blanket tint+darkening. At least that's all I consider a mistake. Removing just the tint/darkening through TV settings, I very much like and agree with the other changes made.
post #5234 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

If you get rid of the blanket tint, the color grade is still completely different.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the timing isn't supposed to be different at all. The question is whether or not the tint/green-value-of-white and associated lowered dynamic range were intentional.
post #5235 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Steeb - I'm actually more concerned about the possibility that PJ and Lesnie sat down to remaster it and weren't able to finish the job completely and consistently. It is my theory that what we ended up with was an inconsistent re-grading job, due to time or budget constraints not their artistic ability which I have great respect for - despite WB's official statement about meeting the artists' intent and all that.
Do you have any evidence to support that "theory?" Because from here, that seems like a whole lot of baseless conjecture...
post #5236 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The only thing that suggests anything unintentional is the low/greenish white point. If you correct for that, you've still got a completely different looking transfer.
As far as the overall color grading differences and increased gamma, there's nothing to suggest it wasn't completely intentional. Scene-by-scene color grading doesn't happen by accident.

The blanket tint and lowered black levels, and the fact that they make the movie look a lot worse than it's ever looked in those areas, combined with the fact that the other two movies don't suffer from those changes..........those don't suggest it wasn't intentional? At all?
post #5237 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

the opinion that they make the movie look a lot worse than it's ever looked in those areas
Fixed.

Like I said, I don't believe the lower brightness (that is, the white point, not "black levels" or whatever; as far as I can tell the image is compressed within the RGB range, not shifted down, if that makes any sense) is intentional, though perhaps a side-effect of something that was.
I do believe the new color grading, minus the lower brightness and green shift, is completely intentional.
Edited by 42041 - 1/30/13 at 3:21pm
post #5238 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Fixed.

Like I said, I don't believe the lower brightness (that is, the white point, not "black levels" or whatever; as far as I can tell the image is compressed within the RGB range, not shifted down, if that makes any sense) is intentional, though perhaps a side-effect of something that was.
I do believe the new color grading, minus the lower brightness and green shift, is completely intentional.

So you believe that the lowered brightness and green tint are unintentional.......if so, then where exactly are we in disagreement?
post #5239 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

So you believe that the lowered brightness and green tint are unintentional.......if so, then where exactly are we in disagreement?

The difference is he says the lowered brightness and green tint could be unintentional (or an unintended side-effect of an otherwise intentional process), which is different than saying they are flat-out unintentional. If you care about intent, that's an important distinction.
Edited by CatBus - 1/30/13 at 3:59pm
post #5240 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

So you believe that the lowered brightness and green tint are unintentional.......if so, then where exactly are we in disagreement?
I don't believe it is significantly detrimental to the film on a high-end display in a dark environment. Hell, chances are the average cinema screening was dimmer than FOTR on my TV. And I don't think the overall higher contrast/higher gamma/whatever, which pushes the shadows closer to black, can be called a transfer flaw, unless your standard is how closely it matches the old transfer.

Films always have more latitude in the highlight and shadow parts of the image than ends up on the cinema screen. That's just how the analog process works: the DP might want a scene very dark, but he would likely expose the negative normally and make it dark in the printing process. Then some telecine colorist will scan the film back in and make it look all nice and bright and neutral for palatable TV viewing.
Edited by 42041 - 1/30/13 at 4:30pm
post #5241 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

Do you have any evidence to support that "theory?" Because from here, that seems like a whole lot of baseless conjecture...

Of course it is conjecture, and I already gave my reason but people just want to hear the same old green tint debate. Given all that's been said about it, we should encourage some new ideas not beat them down.
post #5242 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I don't believe it is significantly detrimental to the film on a high-end display in a dark environment. Hell, chances are the average cinema screening was dimmer than FOTR on my TV. And I don't think the overall higher contrast/higher gamma/whatever, which pushes the shadows closer to black, can be called a transfer flaw, unless your standard is how closely it matches the old transfer.

If I can't see the orcs at work in the new transfer but I could in the old transfer that's a problem.
post #5243 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I don't believe it is significantly detrimental to the film on a high-end display in a dark environment. Hell, chances are the average cinema screening was dimmer than FOTR on my TV. And I don't think the overall higher contrast/higher gamma/whatever, which pushes the shadows closer to black, can be called a transfer flaw, unless your standard is how closely it matches the old transfer.

Films always have more latitude in the highlight and shadow parts of the image than ends up on the cinema screen. That's just how the analog process works: the DP might want a scene very dark, but he would likely expose the negative normally and make it dark in the printing process. Then some telecine colorist will scan the film back in and make it look all nice and bright and neutral for palatable TV viewing.

As long as you don't believe it. But I do. I only watch movies in a darkened room, and my TV is no slouch in the black level area, and I can tell you that the problems with this transfer are very detrimental for me. Particularly when you've watched the dvd so many times. Now if I had never watched the dvd, or not used it as a reference of sorts, then I could see not taking issue with the way the blu ray looks. Similarly, if there was a significant change to TFE or the second POTC, I'd notice those immediately. I've also come to discover that I'm seemingly far more discerning when it comes to audio and video than most people around these parts, and that might play into it as well. But for me, the darkness and green tint are jarring.
post #5244 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Of course it is conjecture, and I already gave my reason but people just want to hear the same old green tint debate. Given all that's been said about it, we should encourage some new ideas not beat them down.
Why on Earth would we want to encourage people to make up stories to justify their beliefs and/or points of view? What possible good could that do?

Imo, we should be encouraging people to seek out the truth, not to attempt to mold the facts to fit their pre-determined conclusions.
post #5245 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

As long as you don't believe it. But I do. I only watch movies in a darkened room, and my TV is no slouch in the black level area, and I can tell you that the problems with this transfer are very detrimental for me. Particularly when you've watched the dvd so many times. Now if I had never watched the dvd, or not used it as a reference of sorts, then I could see not taking issue with the way the blu ray looks. Similarly, if there was a significant change to TFE or the second POTC, I'd notice those immediately. I've also come to discover that I'm seemingly far more discerning when it comes to audio and video than most people around these parts, and that might play into it as well. But for me, the darkness and green tint are jarring.
Yeah, that must be the explanation....
post #5246 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

Yeah, that must be the explanation....

Most people here don't have their displays calibrated, take no issue with transfers that have obvious DNR and EE artifacts, and ask other people that have the same set as theirs for their calibration settings so that they can apply it to their set. Not to mention how many people have their sharpness up way too high still, motion interpolation on, and have no issues with watching movies with the brightness turned up way too high.

And many people around here think Transformer two, three, and Avatar are great movies....so yeah, it is many times.
post #5247 of 5570
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

If I can't see the orcs at work in the new transfer but I could in the old transfer that's a problem.
Which scene has missing orcs?
post #5248 of 5570
Well, I scanned through every orc scene I could find, compared it to the old transfer, and I'm happy to report that all my orcs are intact. And scanning through it I was once again struck by how lovely the EE looks in comparison. So yeah, no problems over here.
post #5249 of 5570
This one:



http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=3&vergleich=lord_of_the_rings_1_bd1&lossless=0#auswahl


Fire and foliage detail is also lost here:



http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=7&vergleich=lord_of_the_rings_1_bd1&lossless=0#auswahl


In this scene near the end of the movie, the EE has one last distracting tint change (the water and trees suddenly change from green to blue) then the rest of the movie is relatively stable:

post #5250 of 5570
That scene is dark (it is night, after all) but perfectly visible. The river scene? That's really reaching... it's color graded along the narrative arc anyway. The second Sam gets pulled out of the water, the colors are warmer and more saturated, coinciding with the music cue.
Edited by 42041 - 1/30/13 at 9:25pm
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