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

[DetroitSportsFan]

I just watched the first disc of FOTR.

There is a very slight layer of green, but you really have to look for it and it isn't noticeable in most of the shots. It's nowhere near what some of those screenshots displayed, and not distracting at all.

Overall, to me it's a great looking transfer.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I'm a big supporter of the new color correction, but that's a ridiculous statement. The debate of revisionism can be kept alive be it sort of is. Just because it *might be his original vision doesn't mean it's not revisionist.

George Lucas says his changes all reflect his original vision, but I certainly think of it as revisionism.

PJ felt the same way you do in 2009 (Go 4:08 for his comment on changes to LOTR) http://tv.digg.com/diggdialogg/peterjackson

[EVOLVIST]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Yes, his color changes are more extensive than the slight tint, and in situations like you mentioned, make noticeable improvements. He confirmed those changes some time ago. The only thing people were debating (or should have been debating) over the last two weeks was whether those color changes included the slight tint. Until yesterday, it wasn't clear whether the tint was a part of the new color grade, or possibly a separate issue. It's now been confirmed that the color changes and tint are both intentional.

Rivendell looks especially different, not because of the tint, but because saturation isn't as overpowering and the base tones have been adjusted

Right, and I'm digging on this. Yet, in the case of the green face on the DVD, if there is an overall cyan/green tint on the EE BDs, shouldn't her face have been ever greener?

Another instance of a slightly green face is Bilbo finding the ring in his pocket, and as if to say, "thank my lucky stars," he puts his hand to his forehead and sighs. On the DVD his face has more of a murky green tint, because of the shadows. On the BD? Well, it's the same tint. Haha! No change (or if there is a change the naked eye can't catch it).

But back to the point that the green face of the woman should be greener if the whole film contains a fine patina of green throughout; are we saying then that her shot was corrected sometime between the DVD release and the BD version? But wait, that would make no sense. The only way to make sense out of it is to say that PJ and Co. corrected just her face while leaving the rest of the film green? In other words, "oh, we have to correct just her face, because this global green we've made makes her look too green now."

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

So you're suggesting that the green tint is corresponding with other colours in the colour wheel and it responds differently to different scenes?

I guess that makes some sense. I suppose I'll eat my own crow here; you're probably right. My apologies.

Yes, exactly.

What you need to keep in mind while you're watching this, though I understand why you wouldn't want to, is that the green tint is constantly affecting everything. There is not a single pixel of color in this movie that is not being altered by its combination with the green tinted overlay. So all those specifically regraded scenes in the film that now look better than the DVD version, like the Council of Elrond, are being further altered by the green tint. Were the green tint removed, they would still look way better than the DVD, they just would no longer suffer from their interaction with the green tint.

And the fact of the matter is that the picture quality on this release is not as good as it could and should be in terms of detail, because that over-powering green tint, no matter how unnoticeable it may be in some scenes, is eliminating fine detail, which is a fact that can be noticed as soon as you do a manual color correction on a scene and find that, even though the colors now appear correct, there are rough patches in the image.

Let me give you an example using the famous Second Breakfast scene. I went ahead and did a manual color correction on it using the Theatrical Edition as my guide. Now, mine isn't absolutely perfect, but it's pretty damn close considering how quickly I did it.

Here is the image showing the untouched EE version (top), my corrected EE version (middle), and the untouched TE version (bottom). Notice the troublesome patches in the clothing and the loss of fine detail in the faces compared even to the less than amazing quality of the FOTR TE blu-ray.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3438608...in/photostream

Take care,
HeKS

[-RONIN-]

Originally Posted by cvm

After watching FOTR, I can say that it looks amazing. I agree with previous posters that the green tint is not near as bad as people made it out to be. I believe that the color changes actually help the movie. I have yet to see a "bad" scene. These films come highly recommended sure to their superb qu ality.

This is nice to hear. I had a feeling all the crying was way overblown and silly since most hadn't even seen the final result and were going off of screen shots. I'm sure as more and more people get the set we'll hear similar comments to yours.

[42041]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Right, and I'm digging on this. Yet, in the case of the green face on the DVD, if there is an overall cyan/green tint on the EE BDs, shouldn't her face have been ever greener?

Another instance of a slightly green face is Bilbo finding the ring in his pocket, and as if to say, "thank my lucky stars," he puts his hand to his forehead and sighs. On the DVD his face has more of a murky green tint, because of the shadows. On the BD? Well, it's the same tint. Haha! No change (or if there is a change the naked eye can't catch it).

But back to the point that the green face of the woman should be greener if the whole film contains a fine patina of green throughout; are we saying then that her shot was corrected sometime between the DVD release and the BD version? But wait, that would make no sense. The only way to make sense out of it is to say that PJ and Co. corrected just her face while leaving the rest of the film green? In other words, "oh, we have to correct just her face, because this global green we've made makes her look too green now."

I don't have the EE DVDs so I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about, but this film was apparently newly color graded from the 2K digital scans. I don't know if they actually archive the ungraded footage (maybe Penton-Man would know), or what the EE transfer is derived from, but I doubt they're working from the original EE colors as a starting point.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Yes, exactly.

What you need to keep in mind while you're watching this, though I understand why you wouldn't want to, is that the green tint is constantly affecting everything. There is not a single pixel of color in this movie that is not being altered by its combination with the green tinted overlay. So all those specifically regraded scenes in the film that now look better than the DVD version, like the Council of Elrond, are being further altered by the green tint. Were the green tint removed, they would still look way better than the DVD, they just would no longer suffer from their interaction with the green tint.

And the fact of the matter is that the picture quality on this release is not as good as it could and should be in terms of detail, because that over-powering green tint, no matter how unnoticeable it may be in some scenes, is eliminating fine detail, which is a fact that can be noticed as soon as you do a manual color correction on a scene and find that, even though the colors now appear correct, there are rough patches in the image.

Let me give you an example using the famous Second Breakfast scene. I went ahead and did a manual color correction on it using the Theatrical Edition as my guide. Now, mine isn't absolutely perfect, but it's pretty damn close considering how quickly I did it.

Here is the image showing the untouched EE version (top), my corrected EE version (middle), and the untouched TE version (bottom). Notice the troublesome patches in the clothing and the loss of fine detail in the faces compared even to the less than amazing quality of the FOTR TE blu-ray.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3438608...in/photostream

Take care,
HeKS

I think that may have been the worst-looking scene in the film though, so it may not be a fantastic reference point. I would make the argument that, when the green tint works (which I think it does most of the time, honestly - although I understand it's a YMMV situation), it works very well. Some sequences, to me, looked incredible and far more detailed than they ever have before. Others, of course, looked like they could use some improvement.

That being said, I appreciate the darker tone to Moria especially. The Shire doesn't look as bad as I expected, and I only felt the tint was pervasive in a few shots.

I am thrilled that it looks as good as it does. However, I can understand why and how it could look better. I just don't think it ever will at this point.

Keep in mind, as well, that Fellowship was never exactly the best-looking film of the three either

On another note: I'm currently watched ROTK. Just incredible PQ. I feel like it could be my new live-action demo disc - up there with Pirates of the Caribbean, in all honesty. Most of it is simply jaw-dropping.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Right, and I'm digging on this. Yet, in the case of the green face on the DVD, if there is an overall cyan/green tint on the EE BDs, shouldn't her face have been ever greener?

No. I would guess that was one of the scenes in which Jackson and Lesnie changed the color grading. Even with the slight green tint, her face would still appear much more natural. Not because of the tint, but because of the fact that they made her face look much more natural through region-specific color grading, tint or no. (It's also important to remember that SD color space is narrower than HD color space. That can account for some minor discrepancies as well.)

But I think you may be misunderstanding what is being referred to when people are mentioning green tint. (Which is understandable, since people have so many different impressions as to what to expect.) A slight green tint doesn't make everything look green. Throw in any Blu-ray (other than FOTR), and increase the green levels on your TV by a small two or three points. Blues still look blue, reds still look red. But notice how the blue of the blues and the red of the reds looks ever-so-slightly different. Mixing in a bit of green doesn't make everything green. Even pure whites are only a tiny bit green, so it stands that other colors wouldn't be nearly as impacted.

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Another instance of a slightly green face is Bilbo finding the ring in his pocket, and as if to say, "thank my lucky stars," he puts his hand to his forehead and sighs. On the DVD his face has more of a murky green tint, because of the shadows. On the BD? Well, it's the same tint. Haha! No change (or if there is a change the naked eye can't catch it).

Again, the color timing of this scene was clearly changed. If you watch the Appendices color grading featurette (or on YouTube), you'll see how Jackson and Lesnie are able to color grade, lighten, darken, or alter specific highlights, faces, or regions of the image. In this scene, it's clear they simply changed the way the light and shadow falls on his face. Another improvement attributable to their new color grade. Again, though, the slight green tint is separate from those changes. (Even though it's just as intentional, as WHV's statement indicates.)

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

But back to the point that the green face of the woman should be greener if the whole film contains a fine patina of green throughout; are we saying then that her shot was corrected sometime between the DVD release and the BD version? But wait, that would make no sense. The only way to make sense out of it is to say that PJ and Co. corrected just her face while leaving the rest of the film green? In other words, "oh, we have to correct just her face, because this global green we've made makes her look too green now."

I can't stress enough: a slight green tint will never make everything look green. This is a misunderstanding many people have had that has set expectations unnecessarily low. Toss in any film, bump up the green on your display by three points. You won't notice much of a change either, especially as the film plays. Yet it is still there, and overtop the entire film.

The same applies to FOTR. The debate isn't whether the slight tint is there. It is, and is measurable and verifiable. It isn't as noticeable or drastic as people believed it would be, but every objective measurement/analysis shows it is there, and is present in the entire film.

If it wasn't there, believe me, someone would have posted a properly captured screenshot that clearly shows it isn't there. No one has, presumably because none exist.

Hope that helps clarify! Again, I know exactly why you're so baffled by what you're seeing. So much misinformation and misunderstanding is circulating that it makes it difficult to set expectations. It doesn't help that it's easier to identify the tint in accurate static shots of the transfer than when watching the film. The numerous reasons for this have been detailed throughout this now monstrous thread

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by flodsby

I just love how certain people still try to drive the fact that there is an overpowering green tint down everyones throat to, I don't know, make them feel bad for buying a set that they themselves feel bad for throwing money down on, or just really really hate it. If that is the fact, I think you should just state your claim and move on instead of posting the same dribble over and over again. It gets really old.

That funny thing is, most of us who keep harping on the green tint issue are doing it in response to people who are simply making inaccurate statements about the issue.

If you like the look of it, hooray for you. I'm happy for you and I wish I liked it too. We all do. But none of this changes the objective facts that we have been repeating and that a number of the defenders have been denying.

If you like the end-result, fine, but there's no reason we should assent to inaccurate claims, like the screen shots aren't accurate, or it's a hoax, or we're making it up because we like to whine. When you do this, you're not arguing against us, you're arguing against objective reality. If you want to keep doing that, it's your business, but we reserve the right to point it out to you.

[flodsby]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Here is the image showing the untouched EE version (top), my corrected EE version (middle), and the untouched TE version (bottom).

I don't think you need to put your own "version" into the mix. I don't think it will help this forum in any way except to confuse. I don't mean to sound mean or ignorant.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

I think that may have been the worst-looking scene in the film though, so it may not be a fantastic reference point. I would make the argument that, when the green tint works (which I think it does most of the time, honestly - although I understand it's a YMMV situation), it works very well. Some sequences, to me, looked incredible and far more detailed than they ever have before. Others, of course, looked like they could use some improvement.

Just to reiterate one small point: the tint isn't responsible for the increased detail. The new 2K remaster is responsible for that. The tint is simply a part of the new color grade created by Jackson and Lesnie

[MarkWM]

Best Thread Ever!

Hundreds of posts claiming how right they and everyone else is a moron.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Just to reiterate one small point: the tint isn't responsible for the increased detail. The new 2K remaster is responsible for that. The tint is simply a part of the new color grade created by Jackson and Lesnie

Oh, should have started a new paragraph. Or be paying more attention to what I write.

I meant that regardless of the tint, the detail is incredible and I'm not really sure how much the tint would affect detail (if at all). You're an excellent man to ask; do you feel the tint affects detail or would that be the enhanced contrast?

Is the contrast a result of the new tint, like some people have insinuated?

Like I said; I don't mind how the release looks at all. Just curious.

[flodsby]

Originally Posted by HeKS

That funny thing is, most of us who keep harping on the green tint issue are doing it in response to people who are simply making inaccurate statements about the issue.

If you like the look of it, hooray for you. I'm happy for you and I wish I liked it too. We all do. But none of this changes the objective facts that we have been repeating and that a number of the defenders have been denying.

If you like the end-result, fine, but there's no reason we should assent to inaccurate claims, like the screen shots aren't accurate, or it's a hoax, or we're making it up because we like to whine. When you do this, you're not arguing against us, you're arguing against objective reality. If you want to keep doing that, it's your business, but we reserve the right to point it out to you.

I have never said anything against anything anyone has said, therefore your post makes no sense. I just said you don't need to keep repeating yourself which you have done again glorious: you are again.

[flodsby]

Originally Posted by HeKS

That funny thing is, most of us who keep harping on the green tint issue are doing it in response to people who are simply making inaccurate statements about the issue.

BTW do you even have the BD's?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

Oh, should have started a new paragraph. Or be paying more attention to what I write.

I meant that regardless of the tint, the detail is incredible and I'm not really sure how much the tint would affect detail (if at all). You're an excellent man to ask; do you feel the tint affects detail or would that be the enhanced contrast?

Is the contrast a result of the new tint, like some people have insinuated?

Like I said; I don't mind how the release looks at all. Just curious.

Oh, no problem. I wasn't correcting you as much as I was making sure others didn't read that sentence and misunderstand what aspect of the process the increased detail traces back to

As to your questions: an added tint could reduce perceptible detail, but it isn't entirely clear if anything like that is at play. Contrast and black levels are a bit heavier, as has been noted in many reviews including my own. And that heaviness does reduce detail in darker scenes by some small measure. But that could easily be another aspect of Jackson and Lesnie's color grade, making any decrease in shadow detail as intentional as the color changes and the tint itself. If Jackson wanted a scene to be darker, he couldn't do so without losing detail somewhere. But that doesn't make the lost detail a problem; just an intentional choice.

Ultimately, though, it's all conjecture. Unless Jackson and Lesnie sat down and discussed their new color grade at length, it's impossible to tell. We can guess, but it's just that: a guess. Dizzying, isn't it?

[Croweyes1121]

Oh, wow. I just noticed something awful about this new blu-ray set. The color grading in The Two Towers is way off when you look at certain scenes. Take a look at this capture:

Now, I must say that yes, I have seen a blue, overcast sky before, but never to this absurd degree. You can't even tell what color any of the clothing in this scene is supposed to be because the blue is so overbearing. And just look how dismal and dark the overall picture is. I can't help but wonder what might have been had this scene been left alone and the color been left natural. How much detail and realism are we losing with this blue tint and oppressively dismal contrast slathered all over everything? It boggles the mind. Now, I want to point out, this blue tint is not noticeable for the vast majority of the film. In fact, without a point of reference, you may not even see it. But take my word for it...anything that's bright or should be "pure" white is tainted with traces of this hideous new hue. And even though not every scene - or even 95% of the film really - is contaminated anywhere near as horribly as this particular scene is, just knowing that the blue is there at all is enough to ruin my enjoyment of the entire film from here on out. And here I wasted $65 on a blu-ray of the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. Especially when, if not for this...the picture quality would have been absolutely stunning. It's a shame, really.

PS:

[flodsby]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I wasted $65 on a blu-ray of The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. Especially when, if not for this...the picture quality would have been absolutely stunning. It's a shame, really.

PS:

Priceless

(just for those that didn't, read his whole post first)

[42041]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Oh, wow. I just noticed something awful about this new blu-ray set. The color grading in The Two Towers is way off when you look at certain scenes. Take a look at this capture:

Now, I must say that yes, I have seen a blue, overcast sky before, but never to this absurd degree. You can't even tell what color any of the clothing in this scene is supposed to be because the blue is so overbearing. And just look how dismal and dark the overall picture is. I can't help but wonder what might have been had this scene been left alone and the color been left natural. How much detail and realism are we losing with this blue tint and oppressively dismal contrast slathered all over everything? It boggles the mind. Now, I want to point out, this blue tint is not noticeable for the vast majority of the film. In fact, without a point of reference, you may not even see it. But take my word for it...anything that's bright or should be "pure" white is tainted with traces or this hideous new hue. And even though not every scene - or even 95% of the film really - is contaminated anywhere near as horribly as this particular scene is, just knowing that the blue is there at all is enough to ruin my enjoyment of the entire film from here on out. And here I wasted $65 on a blu-ray of The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. Especially when, if not for this...the picture quality would have been absolutely stunning. It's a shame, really.

PS:

nice strawman you've got there...
now find this shade of white anywhere in Fellowship: https://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/4425_1_1080p.jpg

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mikej327

That makes no sense whatsoever...

Why does not wanting to buy the same 9 DVDs all over again make no sense? It's not even a hard concept to understand. Pretty straightforward really. I don't like paying extra for something that is exactly the same as what I already own. Can you explain why that makes "no sense" to you?

I just want the new blu-rays. I've already got the rest.