The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

Why all the debate if Peter Jackson did all the editing an wanted it this way
why argue yes everyone has a certain view on the restoration but this is how he wanted to do it...

So why not say that's cool he's the director this was his intention, man its not like he put a fake Jabba the hut in the movie then I could see a complaint then.

Its sad this post is just becoming

I disagree. The technical discussion is fascinating. Warner needs to allow the filmakers the freedom to comment, directly, about their reason for the changes people here are puzzled about. Nothing, short of that, will settle this.

[NYorker]

...And so continues The War of the Green...

[Jimmy Bro]

So are they going to re-release the Theatrical versions with this green tint transfer?

Cos I'm thinking of buying both the Theatrical and the EE's (cos I like having the option to watch both) and it might be weird if one looks different due to not having tint :P

Also, why not include the theatrical version on the same disc with seamless branching? Like they did with Avatar.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bro

So are they going to re-release the Theatrical versions with this green tint transfer?

Cos I'm thinking of buying both the Theatrical and the EE's (cos I like having the option to watch both) and it might be weird if one looks different due to not having tint :P

Also, why not include the theatrical version on the same disc? Like they did with Avatar.

Because if New Line (Warner) used seamless branching then they wouldn't make as much money as having two sets of releases.

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Reasonably "good-natured." I have a problem when Penton, representing Sony Studios, makes liberal attacks against Warner Bros. If Sony wishes to send a message to the public, for whatever reason, they should simply do it directly, and not use their on-line mouthpiece.

Whether this is a way for Sony's in-house color facility to try to take business away from Warner by making it appear that Warner doesn't know what it's doing, or whether a personal hatred by Penton against anything non-Sony would seem irrelevant.

The use of a public thread by someone who identifies himself as being a Sony executive, to make negative remarks about another studio is incomprehensible, but apparently approved by Sony.

RAH

What's the subject you are talking about?

[BluRayFiend]

Oh ray I agree a 100% but some things people post are the same thing over an over , an like i said before why no comments on the other two films I havent watched them yet but Id love to hear about them an if they have any issues?

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

What's the subject you are talking about?

See post 8495. Edit: The posts by RAH and posts quoting his posts have been deleted. Not surprising. The RAH posts were inflamatory, and not at all good natured.

[StormCrow]

Originally Posted by Falcon Eddie

I finished watching the 2nd disc of Fellowship and I still did not have any green tint. All looked fantastic on my set. The menu book changed colors though from disc 1. On my set disc one's menu book was the slightest hint of mint green on the pages and the menu bar was a little darker green. The disc 2 menu book was the slightest hint of cyan for some weird reason, but the menu bar was still the same intensity green as disc one. I am still not getting any of this green tint like was shown earlier in those screenshots throughout Fellowship. Don't know what to say to those that are having that problem though.

Your copy has the open book on disc2? On my set, the second disc is only a black screen, with menu options, continue film, etc., at the bottom displayed in white text.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

Oh ray I agree a 100% but some things people post are the same thing over an over , an like i said before why no comments on the other two films I havent watched them yet but Id love to hear about them an if they have any issues?

Red flag raised over blanket green tint on FOTR only.

[BluRayFiend]

oh i know its all about the green but im looking to see if the other two have something wrong with them or if anyone noticed anything off about them
cause i didn't get to watch them yet

[StormCrow]

Regarding the FOTR having even the menu/open book greenish.

Could someone do side, by side screen caps of all three?

To me, this aspect of the green FOTR issue, has a smoking gun quality.

As part of a box set... 2 features menu page look identical, the other does not. It has a green tint, while at the same time, a controversy exists due to a green tint in the feature itself.

[KrugStillo]

OK I don't own the EE's yet, I do own the TE's but that's not really relevant to my point. My point is if this is in fact a Director approved change than I wouldn't hold your breath for an exchange. I'm not sure if many of you remember the controversy over what William Friedkin did to The French Connection. However if that change, as drastic as it was, was never corrected because it was Director's intent than this will probably not be corrected. If in fact it is Peter Jackson's intent than I guess we'll just have to live with it. That being said I do plan on getting the set but I may hold off to see if anything is done about this before plunking down the cash. Just figured I'd bring up some of the similarities I noticed between the 2. I guess we won't really know until Peter Jackson himself addresses it.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by BleedingEdge

HeKS,

I made a post many pages back in response to your initial recolorings. I think you were suspended at the time, and it got lost in the mix. It didn't help that I didn't have the time to post proper screenshots.

I used the screenshots on Blubrew.com, assuming they were correct. If they are not, I can try this again with some direct frame rips provided. I pulled the shots into one of my coloring programs to see exactly what was done to the image.

Image 1 - Theatrical Edition:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5896696498/

Notice how the histogram shows color spread across the entire luma range. This is generally what scanned film looks like (standard exposure without color filters, with perhaps a B&W brand or similar ND filter being used which have the tendency to lean warm) or digital footage that has been prepared for grading. Also note the vectorscope (the circle with color proportions) leans halfway between BLUE and CYAN.

Image 2 - Extended Edition
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5896696450/

The first thing you'll probably notice (besides the visual color change) is the 20% drop in the master gain on the histogram. Look carefully at the RED channel. The pedastal has been lowered an additional 10%, clipping the entire bottom end (notice the waveform similarities to the other two color channels and where it has been cut). Everything below 0 here is unrecoverable. Also, look at the vectorscope in comparison to the original color scheme. It definitely leans into CYAN territory.

In my view, no "green" has been added, but the overall luminance has been cut 20% and RED has been subtracted from the image, resulting in a mix of the leftover BLUE and GREEN (resulting in CYAN). I've tried normalizing the colors to appear similar to the TE, but the 10% loss in red is pretty well impossible to compensate for. Any attempts to raise the pedastal results in the shadows turning in unatural red color. I made no attempt at analysing or correcting contrast changes.

That's an interesting analysis. Would you mind using that software to check my re-broken image of Aragorn on the mountain and see what you get?

HeKS

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Here's my fix of a different screenshot (Blu-ray.com review screenshot)
>>>

What approach did you use for your fix?

HeKS

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by Troy73

Here's an idea for you, why don't you be pro-active with your complaining and petition for change at the source as in WB or Peter Jackson.

I would rather continue my/our analysis to determine whether "accident" really is the best explanation before I start petitioning for something.

[Ernest Rister]

Okay folks - here's my problem.

Six weeks ago, this was an easy choice on my top 10 most coveted blu-ray releases (#1 right now, as I imagine it is for many others, is Lawrence of Arabia).

Now? The controversey is so intense (and from where I sit hardly unwarranted) I don't even want the title. And worse, I've decided I no longer care. On the one hand, you have some of the most respected eyes in the business stating the green tint is either not there, or hardly noticeable. On the other, well. Green snow, rampant corrected screenshots, and a statement from a corporation assuring everyone the look is intentional.

Well, I come from a theater background, and on the stage, you use green lighting to make someone look either sick, undead, poisoned, or like Frankenstein's monster. There is a language to color - green is great for trees and nature, it is unnatural to human skin, hence the use of green for the conditions I just mentioned (on the stage). A three-hour movie that has been re-tinted a slight green from start to finish? And not just any movie, but perhaps, arguably the best home video release of all time (the LOTR EE of FOTR)? I understand the tint is supposed to be barely noticeable - almost subliminal - but is the audience supposed to receive a subliminal message that everyone in the movie is sick?

Ken stated that perhaps this is how Jackson wants the film to look now, versus how he wanted the film to look in 2001. Fair enough. But then there are all the other signs that point to this being a technical goof, with a filmmaker refusing to comment directly on the issue, and so I'm left at the end of the day with a choice...either the film is retimed in a way that is subliminally nauseating and that is how Jackson wants the film to look, or it is technically faulty...either way, I lose.

That's enough to make me pass on the title just on its face. Now, I don't even care. Maybe in a year, after all this has settled down and cooler heads are prevailing, I'll be able to reapproach it, but I'd rather spend the coin on some other titles for now. This embroglio has completely turned me off from purchasing the set. I know respected people have praised the set, but many of these same people also praised the SW DVDs from several years ago, with flopped surround tracks and blue-fuzz video noise around the Death Star explosion and pink lightsabres and the rest of that song. I'm lurking on the sidelines of this debate, I'm just saying the whole thing has completely turned me off from purchasing what was one of my most sought-after Blu-Ray home video titles. If Star Wars comes to Blu and the flopped surround tracks and all the other issues haven't been addressed, I'll pass on that as well.

The worst feeling any home video film collector has when looking at his or her collection (other than, 'God, did I really buy a Roland Emmerich film?') is that nagging longing...that feeling of, "If only", as in, this is ok, but if only the studio had cared more...if only the studio hadn't cut this or that...if only such or such had paid more attention and not approved it with lines of dialog missing...

I don't want to spend $70 on a Blu-Ray of LOTR just to place it on my shelf, look at it, and say to myself, "If only..."

And that's why I don't care about it anymore. I don't want the subliminal green tint version because I haven't heard Jackson himself address it, and I certainly don't trust PR statements from studios who can't even be trusted with reliable assertions of their weekend box office receipts, a studio Jackson himself had to sue because they lied about their actual profits from Fellowship.

So, I guess now maybe I can pick up that Watchmen: Ultimate Edition blu-ray that I've been wanting for over two years. Same studio as LOTR, but I haven't heard anyone complain Dr. Manhattan is slightly more turqouise this time out. I can't buy the EE on Blu under these circumstances. No "If only" on this set for me...I just can't do it. There's enough titles in my home video collection that bother me already, I don't need to add to the pile.

[Member-115369]

Finally got time to watch FOTR last night.

I thought it looked great and didn't notice any green tint.

But I freely admit I'm not a videophile at all. Just a movie fan who likes my movies in HD if possible but doesn't obsess over it nor own top end equipment.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by HeKS

What approach did you use for your fix?

HeKS

I corrected the exposure and altered the RGB levels (Color Balance > Highlights, Midtones) in Photoshop.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by Karl Murks

You can't fully restore what is lost in the original image due to the color processing. It's not that the color manipulation can be reversed without any trace. It's always a lossy process so if you go back and forth you get something close to the original but not quite. These 'fixed' images can only serve to show how the colors would be if the tint wasn't there but they come always at the price of some quality loss.

Aside from that, no, it doesn't look any more or less film-like. It's still a screenshot and the green image looks as much like a screenshot as the other two. From single images it's impossible to deduce how film-like it will appear in motion.

You beat me to the response. Thanks

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by cvm

Tomorrow we are having a marathon for all 3 movies. My wife is going to make homemade blue berry waffles and homemade syrup in the morning, there will be snacks through the day and BBQ at night. After the 12 hr marathon, it will be time for fireworks!

We have invited over a group of people. It is going to be great! I popped in FOTR and it looks amazing. It is going to be a blast tomorrow.

Yeah, this was awesome. We watched all three and all three films look amazing. After seeing all three, I would rate this set a 10/10. There is nothing that I can see that is wrong with this set.