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

[motorheadache95]

If the screenshot provided by Bill Hunt is any indication, I for one am actually relieved. I was a bit worried about this release, because I thought those earlier screen shots looked like the color-timing used on the Matrix films, but the actual legit image didn't look like that all. It was a little bit more "bluish", but it was much less noticeable and offensive than the earlier green images.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by MEB

The featurette they are referring to is a discussion of the digital color grading done for the original theatrical release (in theaters), NOT for the extended edition on Blu-ray!

That's a very important distinction. If Jackson went to such careful lengths to get the color exactly how he wanted it the first time, why is he monkeying with it now?

Something just doesn't smell right in this whole thing.

Here is the featurette they are referring to:

YouTube - ‪LOTR Digital Color Grading Part 1 of 2‬‏

Mark

The interesting thing about this featurette is that it touts the region-by-region, face-by-face, hill-by-sky color grading that can be done. It seems to undermine the idea of tinting an entire image, as is being shown in the various shots and grabs making the rounds.

Still, until Jackson speaks to the Blu-ray as it is, the debate will not be settled. He could have approved the transfer exactly as it appears. Or he could have approved a transfer that was then mishandled on its way to the disc. There are several steps between it leaving his eyes and arriving on home theater screens. At this point, without any word from him, it is and will remain anyone's guess.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The interesting thing about this featurette is that it touts the region-by-region, face-by-face, hill-by-sky color grading that can be done. It seems to undermine the idea of tinting an entire image, as is being shown in the various shots and grabs making the rounds.

Still, until Jackson speaks to the Blu-ray as it is, the debate will not be settled. He could have approved the transfer exactly as it appears. Or he could have approved a transfer that was then mishandled on its way to the disc. There are several steps between it leaving his eyes and arriving on home theater screens. At this point, without any word from him, it is and will remain anyone's guess.

But Ken some has said who has seen it in the theaters now says they look like the BD screenshot with little tint applied


here is a really good shot where the BD EE looks miles better then the TE

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/59855

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by mredman

But Ken some has said who has seen it in the theaters now says they look like the BD screenshot with little tint applied


here is a really good shot where the BD EE looks miles better then the TE

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/59855

Oh yeah, I'm not debating any of that. I'm just saying there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and neither should be dismissed casually. I think a simple statement from Jackson or Lesnie on the Blu-ray edition as it is would clear everything up. Jackson is well aware of the controversy, so the relative silence on the matter strikes me as odd. Not suspicious - he's a busy guy - just odd when a simple "yep it's right guys, now please calm down" would still most of the rippling waters

[MEB]

Originally Posted by mredman

someone is lying over at avsforum about the theatrical release this is what he says:
I, too, am now 100% firmly in the camp that believes there was a screw up with the color timing/grading of FOTR EE Blu-ray. While I believe it is true that Peter Jackson approved new color grading for FOTR, I think what he approved is NOT what ended up on the new Blu-ray discs.

There are members here (and elsewhere) that went to the theatrical showings of FOTR EE specifically looking for the teal/green/cyan tint. They didn't see any. The image was reportedly absolutely gorgeous. The theatrical showing should have been EXACTLY what we would see on the new Blu-ray. It seems obvious that they are not the same.

Something had to happen between what Peter Jackson approved and what ended up on the Blu-ray disc.

FWIW, the original theatrical version (theater/DVD/original Blu-rays) of FOTR had a slight magenta cast. If you remove magenta from an image you move the image toward teal/green.

Somewhere, somehow, somebody went too far. And nobody is going to convince me that this teal look is what Jackson wanted until the point in time that Jackson is standing in front of a calibrated display that's showing the actual FOTR EE Blu-ray, pointing to the snow and clearly stating that he WANTED the snow to be that godawful teal color.

Mark



Wow he really is lying through his teeth over there yet he hasn't been banned from the thread but i was for saying that PJ approved of the new PQ on the EE BD. And they sais it was a lie. And we all know it was not a lie because he said it in front of the theatrical EE presentation. What a lowsy board. Looks differently on posters over there.

This Mark states that ALL who have seen the theatrical EE says they all looked for the green tint or teal and did not find anything.

Here he is lying because all said they could not remember because they were so into the movie and had no screen comparisons there to look at.

But now 2 (JLTucker and Harlock)here has said the theatrical EE look just like the BD screenshots. So why is Mark lying what does he get out of it

Wow, that Mark guy sounds like a real numbskull. Is he the one that has the Booth Bijou Garage Theater?



BTW, it's called an OPINION!

Mark

[Petyr_Baelish]

How would the transfers be accidentally turned green? That makes less sense then asking why they would intentionally do it.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Oh yeah, I'm not debating any of that. I'm just saying there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and neither should be dismissed casually. I think a simple statement from Jackson or Lesnie on the Blu-ray edition as it is would clear everything up. Jackson is well aware of the controversy, so the relative silence on the matter strikes me as odd. Not suspicious - he's a busy guy - just odd when a simple "yep it's right guys, now please calm down" would still most of the rippling waters

yep lets hope there is something like that on. Like he did for the theatrical EE where i have heard he said he approved this and its like that on the new EE BD. So it would be nice if he did the same for the BD's as well to clear everything up once and for all.

[frogmort]

Frodo smash blue snow mountain!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

How would the transfers be accidentally turned green? That makes less sense then asking why they would intentionally do it.

I don't know, how does the audio accidentally get out of sync on Saving Private Ryan? Since I've never created a blu-ray transfer from a 2K DI, I wouldn't know where either such error could be introduced. But if someone who does do blu-ray transfers says it's a ridiculous notion, that'll settle that.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

How would the transfers be accidentally turned green? That makes less sense then asking why they would intentionally do it.

A series of steps occur in between a transfer's approval and its placement on a final retail disc. And a series of adjustments can be made while putting any transfer on a disc. It isn't as simple as take file A; place on disc A; mass produce. Like anything, mistakes can be made. It isn't a common issue, but it does happen once in a great while.

There are certainly color timing changes, though. Rivendell proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, as does of course Peter Jackson's confirmation of such changes. The tinting issue, if it doesn't trace back to Jackson and Lesnie's new color timing (and that's a big if), is separate from the new color timing and changes. That's why a BD-centric statement would be nice. Not something about the master, approved transfer or color timing, but something issued once Jackson or Lesnie have viewed the discs as they are. Something that clarifies whether the full-frame greenish tint, specifically, is intentional, like all the other color changes that have been made.

Sorry, really not trying to be argumentative in all this. I just think the debate would be more productive if people understood both sides have legitimate points

[Cook]

The only effective way to get any head way in the matter is to contact WB. Fussing and fighting and bickering in this thread is getting nobody anywhere.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I'm just saying there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and neither should be dismissed casually. I think a simple statement from Jackson or Lesnie on the Blu-ray edition as it is would clear everything up. Jackson is well aware of the controversy, so the relative silence on the matter strikes me as odd. Not suspicious - he's a busy guy - just odd when a simple "yep it's right guys, now please calm down" would still most of the rippling waters

Not really, I guess.

That would only serve to clarify the "who" and "why", but it would not help much in making it "right".

I am not opening the old can of worms about the creator's entitlement to tinker with his/her creation, I am not getting into that.

But obviously, just knowing for a fact that Jackson himself dictated the new color grading is not going to make it ok to me, meaning that no matter whether Jackson had some kind of Lucas-like epiphany and decided to tint it green, I still find it wrong, distracting, and an unacceptable alteration of the original.

And yes, I know I don't need to explain this to you, Ken, I know you for the reasonable reviewer and poster that you are, but to those who don't share those traits, I don't mean to claim the right to "approve" or "disapprove" Jackson's or any other film maker decisions, I don't give or deny a permission they don't need, but I can firmly state my disagreement with those decisions, I can even think they are wrong for the material, and, as stated above in a previous post, I DO find such revisionism unacceptable from an intellectual and film-history point of view.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Not really, I guess.

That would only serve to clarify the "who" and "why", but it would not help much in making it "right".

I am not opening the old can of worms about the creator's entitlement to tinker with his/her creation, I am not getting into that.

But obviously, just knowing for a fact that Jackson himself dictated the new color grading is not going to make it ok to me, meaning that no matter whether Jackson had some kind of Lucas-like epiphany and decided to tint it green, I still find it wrong, distracting, and an unacceptable alteration of the original.

And yes, I know I don't need to explain this to you, Ken, I know you for the reasonable reviewer and poster that you are, but to those who don't share those traits, I don't mean to claim the right to "approve" or "disapprove" Jackson's or any other film maker decisions, I don't give or deny a permission they don't need, but I can firmly state my disagreement with those decisions, I can even think they are wrong for the material, and, as stated above in a previous post, I DO find such revisionism unacceptable from an intellectual and film-history point of view.

At least the original color timing is preserved on DVD in a good state unlike the original unalterd star wars films. I know that is probably little consolation, but it is something.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

A series of steps occur in between a transfer's approval and its placement on a final retail disc. And a series of adjustments can be made while putting any transfer on a disc. It isn't as simple as take file A; place on disc A; mass produce. Like anything, mistakes can be made. It isn't a common issue, but it does happen once in a great while.

There are certainly color timing changes, though. Rivendell proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, as does of course Peter Jackson's confirmation of such changes. The tinting issue, if it doesn't trace back to Jackson and Lesnie's new color timing (and that's a big if), is separate from the new color timing and changes. That's why a BD-centric statement would be nice. Not something about the master, approved transfer or color timing, but something issued once Jackson or Lesnie have viewed the discs as they are. Something that clarifies whether the full-frame greenish tint, specifically, is intentional, like all the other color changes that have been made.

Sorry, really not trying to be argumentative in all this. I just think the debate would be more productive if people understood both sides have legitimate points

That's all good, but I like to stick with what I know. That is, whatever this remaster is supposed to look like, Peter Jackson has approved it. Until its been confirmed that there was an error made in the production of the blu ray, I will not assume that there was an error made in the transfer. Especially, if Peter Jackson says that the remaster is featured on the blu ray and has been released in the theater. I'm not on anyone's side though, because as it is for most people: some things in the new transfer look good to me and others not so much.

One thing I know I am unsure of is: how the color of a movie could unintentionally be regraded with a dominant green tint. It doesn't seem like its the same issue as a problem with audio synchronization. If there is indeed a problem, they will fix it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

That's all good, but I like to stick with what I know. That is, whatever this remaster is supposed to look like, Peter Jackson has approved it. Until its been confirmed that there was an error made in the production of the blu ray, I will not assume that there was an error made in the transfer. Especially, if Peter Jackson says that the remaster is featured on the blu ray and has been released in the theater. I'm not on anyone's side though, because as it is for most people: some things in the new transfer look good to me and others not so much.

One thing I know I am unsure of is: how the color of a movie could unintentionally be regraded with a dominant green tint. It doesn't seem like its the same issue as a problem with audio synchronization. If there is indeed a problem, they will fix it.

Normally I would not assume that, but it seems odd that literally every highlight in every capture that's supposed to be white, like bright flames, blown-out skies, white transitions, snow, etc, skews green to the point that you can apply the same white-balance adjustment to any of the captures posted and the resulting image would look more "correct".
I mean, it's entirely possible that they applied some one-size-fits-all color filter to it, it just seems strange to me.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by 42041

Normally I would not assume that, but it seems odd that literally every highlight in every capture that's supposed to be white, like bright flames, blown-out skies, white transitions, snow, etc, skews green to the point that you can apply the same white-balance adjustment to any of the captures posted and the resulting image would look more "correct".
I mean, it's entirely possible that they applied some one-size-fits-all color filter to it, it just seems strange to me.

Well if it is an error, they really need to hire someone to watch their dvds/blu rays to avoid these kinds of mistakes. If you are listening mr. movie Studio honchos, you can hire me: I'll be happy to do it.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Not really, I guess.

That would only serve to clarify the "who" and "why", but it would not help much in making it "right".

I am not opening the old can of worms about the creator's entitlement to tinker with his/her creation, I am not getting into that.

But obviously, just knowing for a fact that Jackson himself dictated the new color grading is not going to make it ok to me, meaning that no matter whether Jackson had some kind of Lucas-like epiphany and decided to tint it green, I still find it wrong, distracting, and an unacceptable alteration of the original.

And yes, I know I don't need to explain this to you, Ken, I know you for the reasonable reviewer and poster that you are, but to those who don't share those traits, I don't mean to claim the right to "approve" or "disapprove" Jackson's or any other film maker decisions, I don't give or deny a permission they don't need, but I can firmly state my disagreement with those decisions, I can even think they are wrong for the material, and, as stated above in a previous post, I DO find such revisionism unacceptable from an intellectual and film-history point of view.

Ah, yes. Just to clarify, my use of the term "clear everything up" was only meant to refer to the origin/cause of the green/cyan tint. I didn't mean to imply everyone would or should be satisfied with the changes that were made. I would just love to see the intention vs. error debate settled once and for all so the discussion can turn toward film revisionism and such

And thank you so much for calling me reasonable. Honestly, that's about the best compliment anyone could give to someone in my position. I don't claim to always be correct, so reasonable is most appreciated. I hope I continue to live up to that high standard.

[Nicanor]

Originally Posted by retablo

BUt the TE is way too red... why doesn't anyone see/acknowledge that the sky shouldn't be pink? Of course the new version looks green compared to the previous release, which was WAYYYY too red.

Intention or not .. if you look to various scenes from FOTR EE bluray you will notice that some scenes are more green, some are more orange, some are more blu, some are the same with TE. So it's not a green filter for ALL the scenes. It's in some certain parts.
And yes .. the TE had to much magenta. The EE has to much green in some places.
After reviewing more screenshots i can say that the improvements in color and detail are far superior for the EE that the little color flaws.
I say we shouldn't debate more on the subject. Some people like the new changes, some don't but when you will watch the movie at home on you BD without any screenshot comparison you will enjoy and love the movie as it is. You will not be bothered by this color change.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by Nicanor

I say we shouldn't debate more on the subject

I've never understood why some forum members try to end a debate
on a subject. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[Romansh]

Originally Posted by Harlock415

Well saw this last night and I tried looking for any sort of green tinting or "push." Now I'm not the most savvy person to comment on it but I may have been seeing it where it wasn't such as when Galadriel is tempted by the Ring and gets all scary. There is a bit of green, but I would have to go back and check the DVDs but it may have originally been there.

That scene always had some green to it. And not just a bit.

Originally Posted by Harlock415

Snow definitely looked white, especially at Cahadras. So no green version of the 2004 DVD of Empire Strikes Back and its blue snow.

Yet some say it was tinted:

Originally Posted by JLTucker

That scene looked great on the big screen. I noticed the new color grading there as well, but iI had to actively look for it and remember the screenshot comparison. Once the film started and the lights went down, I did not notice the new colors without actively searching for them. When the film reached Rivendell and Frodo woke up, I thought I was seeing white until I concentrated and, once again, remembered the comparison.

It's become somewhat certain that the Blu-ray has a tint to it, but I feel the absence of said tint in the remastered theatrical presentation hasn't yet been confirmed, even though some people would like to think so.

Originally Posted by MEB

I still refuse to believe that Jackson was behind this color grading change of that he even approved it. My reasons:

1) We have repeated reports that the EE version of FOTR shown theatrically (yesterday) does NOT have the teal/green/cyan tint. If Jackson wanted this new teal color shift, then that makes no sense. Why do it to the Blu-ray and not the theatrical showing of the EE?

There are reports of the contrary here and there. Granted, there are more people who say it's not tinted, but for something this subjective…

So while there is some evidence that the remastered theatrical presentation doesn't match the Blu-ray, I personally wouldn't rule it out just yet.