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 179

post #5341 of 5568

I wouldn't say so--there are no disputable assertions there to argue about. That site makes no claims on either side of the pointless "is it intentional or not?" debate that seems to be lighting up the thread. It merely offers a way for people to achieve something closer to the original look of the film, and appears to do a pretty impressive job of it. The author may very well feel that this goes against everything the filmmakers intended, just that, if it does, what the filmmakers intended sucked.
post #5342 of 5568
There is no fix for things that are not yours. Gasoline on the fuel biggrin.gif
post #5343 of 5568
I did something like that shortly after the discs came out, didn't mess with the gamma or saturation (too much subjectivity involved and I like the new grading better anyway), just applied a linear adjustment so the maximum brightness on the disc actually corresponds to full RGB white. Posted the instructions somewhere in the bowels of this thread. Eventually deleted it though, I just don't see the green tint in real-world viewing and the extra brightness isn't worth the transcoding quality hit..
post #5344 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I did something like that shortly after the discs came out

Seems to me your posts were the one(s) I saved somewhere. Still haven't looked at my set and with your post will also likely not bother with tweaking, thanks!
post #5345 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

The changes are new to us because this release was the first time the completed version was ever released.

Umm, so what about the dvd extended versions release with the original color timing that came out a couple years prior to the BR set?
post #5346 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Umm, so what about the dvd extended versions release with the original color timing that came out a couple years prior to the BR set?

I was under the impression that the original color timing was, so to speak, the "wrong" one, since they couldn't complete it as intented prior to the theatrical release.
post #5347 of 5568
The original color timing was on the 35mm prints. I don't consider DVDs an authoritative reference.
post #5348 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Umm, so what about the dvd extended versions release with the original color timing that came out a couple years prior to the BR set?
They used an old master. If they had used the new one, the color timing would look like it does on the new BD set, right? Is this really that complicated?
post #5349 of 5568
Steeb,

Drop the comments.

S~
post #5350 of 5568
I just love, LOVE when people call DVD's framing or color timing as "original"!
post #5351 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The original color timing was on the 35mm prints. I don't consider DVDs an authoritative reference.

That's what I meant by "original" btw.
post #5352 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Umm, so what about the dvd extended versions release with the original color timing that came out a couple years prior to the BR set?
These are two different color spaces, although the color gamut is the same. SD uses the 601 color space. HD uses the 709 color space. The higher resolution also allows for more subtle color variations. 709 also has a different Y' RGB weighting than 601. 709 also better defined the gamma curve. There are a lot of variables which make it difficult to compare.

S~
post #5353 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The original color timing was on the 35mm prints. I don't consider DVDs an authoritative reference.

I agree the 35mm print of either the theatrical *or* extended release is and should be considered the reference, but my point was more or less that the dvd release basically reflected the color timing of the film(s) as released in theaters.

FWIW, we're getting to the point where there will be no 35mm print for new releases to reference.
post #5354 of 5568
I don't think anyone is saying that any DVD looks exactly as any director intends a movie to look, or that the colors are accurate to a 35mm print. But for the sake of argument, saying the colors on a dvd are accurate, when speaking in general terms, and not specific to color space, is not ridiculous.
post #5355 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

I agree the 35mm print of either the theatrical *or* extended release is and should be considered the reference, but my point was more or less that the dvd release basically reflected the color timing of the film(s) as released in theaters.

FWIW, we're getting to the point where there will be no 35mm print for new releases to reference.
Okay, but how does that point relate to the out-of-context sentence you quoted from my post?
post #5356 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I don't think anyone is saying that any DVD looks exactly as any director intends a movie to look, or that the colors are accurate to a 35mm print. But for the sake of argument, saying the colors on a dvd are accurate, when speaking in general terms, and not specific to color space, is not ridiculous.
It's much more than some video color gamut issue. Analog film and video are very different animals. With all of its photochemical quirks and non-linearity, the theatrical print responds to the colors on the intermediate element it's being printed from much differently than a telecine would. You can get in the ballpark, but capturing all the subtleties of photochemical color, contrast, and tonality is not trivial, and old video transfers from the pre-DI days usually didn't, because the technology wasn't there yet. It's like some Photoshop filter you can slap on a digital photo to emulate the look of a transparency film like Fuji Velvia or whatever, you can add some saturation and grain to a digital shot but that's just not enough to really capture the unique photochemical mojo of whatever film you're trying to emulate. And the differences between the FOTR transfers are well within the range of what some old-school video transfer would get wrong.

Then there is the issue that the video masters are not made to be seen exclusively in darkened theaters. They must be seen on all sorts of TVs in all sorts of environments, they will be cut with commercials, etc. Changes get made.
Edited by 42041 - 11/1/13 at 9:14am
post #5357 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

It's much more than some video color gamut issue. Analog film and video are very different animals. With all of its photochemical quirks and non-linearity, the theatrical print responds to the colors on the intermediate element it's being printed from much differently than a telecine would. You can get in the ballpark, but capturing all the subtleties of photochemical color, contrast, and tonality is not trivial, and old video transfers from the pre-DI days usually didn't, because the technology wasn't there yet. It's like some Photoshop filter you can slap on a digital photo to emulate the look of a transparency film like Fuji Velvia or whatever, you can add some saturation and grain to a digital shot but that's just not enough to really capture the unique photochemical mojo of whatever film you're trying to emulate.

The first Fellowship of the Ring DVD was released in 2002. Hardly the video Dark Ages. Studios had gotten the hang of making the colors on a DVD look like the theatrical prints well before then.
Quote:
And the differences between the FOTR transfers are well within the range of what some old-school video transfer would get wrong.

Many of us will disagree with that assessment. The coloring changes on the extended cut Blu-ray are significant and appear to be deliberate revisionism.
post #5358 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The first Fellowship of the Ring DVD was released in 2002. Hardly the video Dark Ages. Studios had gotten the hang of making the colors on a DVD look like the theatrical prints well before then.
I'll have to disagree with that. There are exceptions of course, but from my experience home video transfers that consistently look theatrically correct only became the norm when they really got DI's figured out, later in the decade.
I don't have the faintest recollection of FOTR's theatrical appearance, mind you. And I very much doubt most people arguing about this remember as much as they think they do. But it absolutely could have looked more like the new disc than the old one in 2001 (probably not the green tint, but in terms of contrast, gamma, scene-to-scene color grading, nothing about it would be out of reach in 2001).
Edited by 42041 - 11/1/13 at 10:41am
post #5359 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

Okay, but how does that point relate to the out-of-context sentence you quoted from my post?

No offense, but you're kind of going around in circles to the point it's a waste of time dragging this conversation on any further. You have your opinion, I have mine, let's call it a day and move on.
post #5360 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

No offense, but you're kind of going around in circles to the point it's a waste of time dragging this conversation on any further. You have your opinion, I have mine, let's call it a day and move on.

???

So you're unwilling or unable to explain to me how your point related to the out-of-context sentence you quoted from my post? And how, exactly, am I "kind of going around in circles?"

As I posted before, this isn't that complicated. The BD release of the EEs is the first time the new color timing was released on home video, despite the new DI/color timing being completed years ago, during the production/post-production of the last two films of the trilogy.
post #5361 of 5568
Am I the only one who thought green/cyan tint on The Hobbit was the ultimate, final proof that new color timing on Fellowship was intentional and done by Jackson and Lesnie?
post #5362 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Am I the only one who thought green/cyan tint on The Hobbit was the ultimate, final proof that new color timing on Fellowship was intentional and done by Jackson and Lesnie?
I'm more inclined to think it's the same technical "issue" with some part of Park Road Post's DI workflow than any conscious choice on their part... either way, doesn't matter much.
post #5363 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I'm more inclined to think it's the same technical "issue" with some part of Park Road Post's DI workflow than any conscious choice on their part... either way, doesn't matter much.
The Hobbit has the green tint, however, a big difference is that The Hobbit has the industry standard white level, where FOTR the whtie level is way lower. The side effect of this is that it intensifies the green. Taking a quick grab of the screenshots off of blu-ray.com and using photoshop's color picker, pure white in the Hobbit is about 7% green saturation, while pure white in FOTR is 13% saturation.

It could be that the white level being so low is the only defect. If Jackson/Lesnie purposely added a very slight green tint, they would of course say "the tint is intentional" but its possible that it is stronger than they desired on the Blu-ray. But that is just wild speculation.

But I do definitely find it weird that the peak white level in FOTR is only around 221, even on the fade to whites, where the industry standard is 235. I haven't heard a satisfying argument yet about why that is.
post #5364 of 5568
I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread, but the 3D version of Transformers 3 has something very similar going on: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1364140/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-comparison-pix-and-vid#post_21589350
post #5365 of 5568
I recently watched one of the extras on the 3D Bluray of "The Hobbit: Extended" where they showed a few on-location shots and immediately followed it by the equivalent scenes from the movie itself: the teal tint was very obvious in the movie version, so much so that it looked completely wrong compared to the straight location scenes.

The tint appears to be intentional, but it just looks wrong if there is any other reference nearby and I loathe it.
post #5366 of 5568
Color grading to enhance teal and orange is commonplace in Hollywood.
See http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html for some other examples.
post #5367 of 5568
I watched Fellowship Extended last night for the first time - I honestly liked the new colouring.

I'm a novice learning photography at the moment, and I'm finding out just what it means to play with white balance, tint, contrast, etc. in photography and the effect it can have on the look and feel of your finished result.

The thing you have to bear in mind is that human vision has a remarkable capacity to compensate automatically for the lighting conditions you see things in. Otherwise you'd walk in and out of a room and get a massive headache from how much the colours of objects change when lit by incandescent light vs. sunlight.

When you present two differently colour-balanced versions of the same shot, you are going to notice the difference.

The simple fact is that Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie will have chosen the colouring in this new digital version to bring out the look that they feel works best in each shot, and I think it looks much more luscious and polished than the original release did. However, that is my personal opinion, and when you present people with two differently-coloured versions of the same shot, some will prefer one and some will prefer the other.

It is revisionism. We've seen so many filmmakers do it at this point: George Lucas with Star Wars, James Cameron with Terminator and Aliens, even Disney with films like Lion King and Beauty And The Beast. So I guess it's down to whether you agree with it or not. Personally, I just go with what the filmmaker wants to present to me, and make up my own mind. In this case I think the recolour of Fellowship is better than the original.
post #5368 of 5568
I get that, but coloring that sometimes flip-flops for a few seconds just looks like an unfinished work to me.

Last night I watched War Horse (it was Rememberance Day here) and there are drastic color / lighting changes, but they are persistent, and make obvious sense as explained by the cinematographer in the featurette.
post #5369 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Mike TJG View Post

I watched Fellowship Extended last night for the first time - I honestly liked the new colouring.

I'm a novice learning photography at the moment, and I'm finding out just what it means to play with white balance, tint, contrast, etc. in photography and the effect it can have on the look and feel of your finished result.

The thing you have to bear in mind is that human vision has a remarkable capacity to compensate automatically for the lighting conditions you see things in. Otherwise you'd walk in and out of a room and get a massive headache from how much the colours of objects change when lit by incandescent light vs. sunlight.

When you present two differently colour-balanced versions of the same shot, you are going to notice the difference.

The simple fact is that Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie will have chosen the colouring in this new digital version to bring out the look that they feel works best in each shot, and I think it looks much more luscious and polished than the original release did. However, that is my personal opinion, and when you present people with two differently-coloured versions of the same shot, some will prefer one and some will prefer the other.

It is revisionism. We've seen so many filmmakers do it at this point: George Lucas with Star Wars, James Cameron with Terminator and Aliens, even Disney with films like Lion King and Beauty And The Beast. So I guess it's down to whether you agree with it or not. Personally, I just go with what the filmmaker wants to present to me, and make up my own mind. In this case I think the recolour of Fellowship is better than the original.

I still think that whatever they (whomever "they" are) did to FOTR was heavy handed. Did Jackson like the look of The Matrix? Because it isn't just teal, it's TEAL!!!! I can't stand these new digital color timings on modern films... the push to amber and teal. It looks fake and noticeably graded and not something that can be easily ignored. I'd rather have the lighting and tinting for the shot primarily come from practical, in-camera sources as in the days before digital tools.
post #5370 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I still think that whatever they (whomever "they" are) did to FOTR was heavy handed. Did Jackson like the look of The Matrix? Because it isn't just teal, it's TEAL!!!! I can't stand these new digital color timings on modern films... the push to amber and teal. It looks fake and noticeably graded and not something that can be easily ignored. I'd rather have the lighting and tinting for the shot primarily come from practical, in-camera sources as in the days before digital tools.
Then the Lord of the Rings films (and the new Hobbit films, for that matter) aren't for you. It's as simple as that.

In fact, you'll probably be much happier watching films from the previous century if you don't want your films to be digitally graded. Of course, that's assuming that you're okay watching films that have been timed photochemically.
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