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

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Higher bitrates do not equal better picture quality

i'm not going to get into the tiresome bitrate debate. the bottom line is that with all things being equal (that means, spare me the pointless comparisons between 2 different releases of a movie by 2 different studios), you never get more transparent compression with less data. does some movie look good at 15mbps? unless you can demonstrate it's transparent to the master, i don't care.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

I saw this listed as a feature on all 3 film discs 1: "The Lord of the Rings: War in the North – The Untold Story Trailer". Anyone know what this is?

It's the new Lord of the Rings game coming out later this year.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by md99

Crossed right off my list regardless of it being LOTR's. Flippers died with DVD as far as I'm concerned.

When did anyone say these were flippers

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Higher bitrates do not equal better picture quality

A good example is Avatar on Blu-Ray. The first release of Avatar was 2D free of extras and the studio claimed this was to "maximize the quality." Many on this forum foolishly believed this BS. Later that year Avatar was re-released in 3D and because 3D requires 50% higher bitrates for the second eye the 3D release had a bitrate 24% lower then the 2D release. If higher bitrates always equal higher quality then the 3D version should be softer and filled with compression artifacts. Yet none are present. The 3D version of Avatar despite its lower bitrate equals the 2D version in all quality aspects.

Avatars not alone either. Many old DVDs were reissued at a lower bitrate yet the reissues actually look better. A BD-50 has plenty of room to fit each of the Lord of the Rings extended cuts.

Avatar is a 3 hour film.

All the LotR films are at or over 3.5 hours in length with the RotK being over 4 hours (33% longer than avatar). They need MORE space than what was given in avatar.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Im sorry guys I made a mistake about Gone with the Wind. Ill own up to it.

But seriously Im going to be nice here:

Why is it really such a bad thing to get up and go take a piss and change out a disc in the middle of a 3-4 hour movie?

I frankly have a hard time seeing how anyone can sit that long without having to pee or anything like that.

Its not so bad really. I just see it as unessesary and a marketing gimmick rather then a way to truely ensure the best quality. Its basically pissing on me and telling me that its rain. Way are each movies extras on 3 DVDs rather then on a single Blu-Ray? Because more discs equals more percieved value but your not really getting anything more other then a bigger more clunky set.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by nametag

It could still be done, the extra footage would just be a bit longer and would seemlessly branch off from the theatrical at an earlier point. It was done on DVD for the Limited Edition versions, so they could do it again if they could be bothered.

Someone in this forum said that seemless branching is technically more difficult on a BD than on a DVD. In addition, FOTR actually has some scenes in a different order between the OT and the EE.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by merrick97

First things first GwtW is a black and white film with little to no action scenes and doesn't require huge bitrates to do it justice. Comparing it to LotR shows nothing but ignorance on your part.

Gone With The Wind is only in B&W for colorblind people.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by radagast

Someone in this forum said that seemless branching is technically more difficult on a BD than on a DVD. In addition, FOTR actually has some scenes in a different order between the OT and the EE.

Not only this, but the editing was apparently done differently in some scenes than others, the score was a tad different (this is all by what I've heard, not experienced). It CAN be done, but to preserve each film individually, branching should NOT be done, if they are going to include both versions, they should be on different discs.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Avatar is a 3 hour film.

All the LotR films are at or over 3.5 hours in length with the RotK being over 4 hours (33% longer than avatar). They need MORE space than what was given in avatar.

But a 3D full 16:9 movie requires much higher bitrates then a 2D 2.35 movie does. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is 2.35 and thus requires 25% less video bitrate than a full 16:9 movie would. 3D movies also need 50% more data then 2D movies do. If the Lord of the Rings movies were in 3D or had a full 16:9 aspect ratio we wouldn't be having this debate.

But thats even beside the point. The point with bringing up Avatar was to show how a movie can be re-released with a signifigantly lower bitrate yet the quality in way shape or form suffers as a result. There are many ways bitrates can be lowered without hurting the picture quality. Things like comparing ulike frames or throwing out data that doesn't contribute to quality and the like.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by md99

Crossed right off my list regardless of it being LOTR's. Flippers died with DVD as far as I'm concerned.

And DVDs is what the poster was talking about.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by radagast

Gone With The Wind is only in B&W for colorblind people.

ahhhh... but not all colorblind people see in black and white... for instance Red/Green colorblindness can still see color but differentiating between those two is difficult.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I don't have a problem with people calling it a minor annoyance

Agreed. Personally I don't mind having the films spread over two discs. They chose excellent points at which to stop each film and I typically take at least one break during films that long anyway. Had I a choice, I'd rather have the special features condensed onto 2 or 3 Blu-Ray discs, even if they are all in standard definition. But that's the pragmatist in me.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

I hated the idea of switching disc. But you are the first person to make a valid point. When it says, switch to disc 2. I can use that as a bathroom break.

Thank you so much for this post. Swapping of the disc actually doesnt sound all that bad now.

It’s more than likely going to be set up the same way as the EE dvd versions.

Whenever the break is in the movie, it fades to black and the message pops up on the screen.

I’ve watched those EE versions only 2x and can’t remember when exactly they tell u to swap out the disc’s.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

I hated the idea of switching disc. But you are the first person to make a valid point. When it says, switch to disc 2. I can use that as a bathroom break.

Thank you so much for this post. Swapping of the disc actually doesnt sound all that bad now.

For my part, I couldn't really care less if the film(s) ultimately reside on a single disc or two discs. I do, however, think it's fair to wonder if New Line is putting is best foot forward with this release. The question being, could the studio have put the films on a single disc each, or is it merely re-purposing masters that are already split--and would rather just port those to Blu-Ray, rather than doing the work required to 'glue' them together?

Given that the bulk of the set is comprised of a stack of DVDs that EE DVD owners already have, it's a fair question.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

ahhhh... but not all colorblind people see in black and white... for instance Red/Green colorblindness can still see color but differentiating between those two is difficult.

Obviously. I meant people who are totally color-blind.

[DNinja]

I'm happy about 2-discs per movie. At least they are not skimping on picture quality. I will gladly get up and change the disc if it means the movies will look better.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Its not so bad really. I just see it as unessesary and a marketing gimmick rather then a way to truely ensure the best quality. Its basically pissing on me and telling me that its rain. Way are each movies extras on 3 DVDs rather then on a single Blu-Ray? Because more discs equals more percieved value but your not really getting anything more other then a bigger more clunky set.

This is what I agree with 100%. I would much rather them have put all the extras on from the previous EE set on one bluray. Reusing previously produced blurays just comes across as cheap.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Sponge-worthy

For my part, I couldn't really care less if the film(s) ultimately reside on a single disc or two discs. I do, however, think it's fair to wonder if New Line is putting is best foot forward with this release. The question being, could the studio have put the films on a single disc each, or is it merely re-purposing masters that are already split--and would rather just port those to Blu-Ray, rather than doing the work required to 'glue' them together?

Given that the bulk of the set is comprised of a stack of DVDs that EE DVD owners already have, it's a fair question.

I agree it is a fair question but we will just have to wait and see in the meantime. But so far I am 90% happy with what I see. 100% happiness would come from them putting all the previously released extras on a single bluray.

[Mavrick]

Wow! Imagine how many discs this would have been on HD-DVD!

I have never owned these films so they will be mine! As long as they use the equivilent to season play like Alien Anthology did I'll be happy, just eject insert and start instantly at the next scene in the film. Happy days

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Im sorry guys I made a mistake about Gone with the Wind. Ill own up to it.

But seriously Im going to be nice here:

Why is it really such a bad thing to get up and go take a piss and change out a disc in the middle of a 3-4 hour movie?

I frankly have a hard time seeing how anyone can sit that long without having to pee or anything like that.

Originally Posted by radagast

Gone With The Wind is only in B&W for colorblind people.

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

ahhhh... but not all colorblind people see in black and white... for instance Red/Green colorblindness can still see color but differentiating between those two is difficult.

Eventhough I already owned up to embarrassing GotW gaffe. Ill allow you two to keep pouring it on.

I deserve it.