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

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

On the other hand, some people are so predisposed to needing to love every element of this that they are completely ruling out the possibility of a mistake, even though it doesn't make any sense as an artistic choice.

What will you say if they come out and admit it was a mistake, either directly, or the Sapphire Series way? It still looks better and you like the artistic decision?

I can just play a conspiracy theory like some people are doing with this matter; I'll just claim that Peter Jackson caved to fans who didn't like it and fixed it for them.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by mredman

Even more evidence is that PJ has not said anything about it.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that absolute silence on the matter could constitute evidence.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by MEB

Fact: The green/teal/cyan tint exists in the Blu-ray discs. It's baked in. It's been measured to be there WITHOUT using a display.

Fact: A screen shot created from the disc is a slice of digital data. A bunch of zeros and ones that represent exactly what is encoded on the disc.

Fact: My expensive computer display has been calibrated with a colorimeter. When I view the screen shots on my computer display, I can see the tint.

Fact: My home theater display is also connected to a computer. It, too, has been calibrated with a colorimeter. When I view the screen shots on my theater display via the computer I can see the tint.

The tint exists, whether you or anyone can see it or not.

Fact: When I play the Blu-ray disc on my theater display (calibrated with the WOW disc) I can see the tint and it MATCHES the tint I see via the computer on the same display.

Fact: Anyone's display that is NOT showing the tint owns a display that is NOT reproducing what is on the disc.

Fact: Those of us that can see the tint are still waiting for a single one of you that claims there is no tint to produce a screen shot or even a photo of your display showing that there is no tint.

Mark

Of course, there are color changes.

But screenshots don't mean everything. What matters is how this looks while watching it in motion on a professionally calibrated, ISF display. I can find a flaw on ANY Blu-ray disc in existence with a screenshot, but many are not perceivable in motion. One can also measure "strange" tints on many movies via which really aren't objectionable or noticeable when properly calibration. The "extreme" tints seen in this screenshots are generally not seen watching the disc whenever everything is up to spec.

I would like to know what color analyzer you are using (as that matters tremendously) and the last time you had it calibrated. Perhaps you can post in a PDF your calibration results? I want to see how your grayscale is lining up and its points.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that absolute silence on the matter could constitute evidence.

Don't you think PJ would have said something right after warner said there is no mistake if he thought there was a mistake with the transfer?

I don't get how you can't see that if there were one it is obvious he would have corrrected warners statement long ago.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Produce one screen, one single frame, at any point during the entire film that was once white or off-white that is now not a light shade of green, or any frame that displays white or slightly off white. There is literally not one instance of white in the entire film. That is a fact.

You won't be able to, because what was once white off-white is now completely green across the board, no exceptions.




OK. You're wrong, sorry buddy.

Your posts are cracking me up. All whites are "completely" green, huh?

Okay. Sure.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DarkDune

Can we all agree that this single FOTR EE Blu release has made us all question - even if slightly - the color reproduction on our HDTV's?!?!

For that I am mad at PJ -- if this was "intentional". We deserve at least an "explanation", if not an apology for taking up our precious posting time.

Respectfully, of course!

You’ve got a point…..at least in regards to ‘an explanation’, as a precedent was set years ago in regards to TTT with Peter’s approval -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post4938246

[Sean72]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Of course, there are color changes.

But screenshots don't mean everything. What matters is how this looks while watching it in motion on a professionally calibrated, ISF display. I can find a flaw on ANY Blu-ray disc in existence with a screenshot, but many are not perceivable in motion. One can also measure "strange" tints on many movies via which really aren't objectionable or noticeable when properly calibration. The "extreme" tints seen in this screenshots are generally not seen watching the disc whenever everything is up to spec.

I would like to know what color analyzer you are using (as that matters tremendously) and the last time you had it calibrated. Perhaps you can post in a PDF your calibration results? I want to see how your grayscale is lining up and its points.

It doesn't matter how his set or your set or anyone else's set is calibrated because the tint has been measured directly from the original source files.. by many different people.

If you can see it or if you can not see it with your own eyes, it's 100% proven to be there on the discs. Your argument that a properly calibrated set would not reveal a subtle green overlay is also flawed because the more accurate the calibration the more accurate what's on screen will be to the original source and in this case the source has a measured and verified green tint.

[HeavyHitter]

Well, like others have said, this has become meaningless to debate. I just thought I would throw my two cents into it all. I'm dropping out though. Have fun!

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

I disagree. The Royal Treatment would be what Criterion did with The Thin Red Line. It's simply impossible to disagree with and nearly impossible to find even the most minute fault with.

I would have liked to see that love and attention to detail go into the FOTR. It's evident that it didn't, hence this 600 page clusterfart of a debate. These people are all fans of the movie and wanted the Thin Red Line treatment badly. It's not a conspiracy of people that don't like the movie or hate Peter Jackson or something.

Hi El_Jay,

In regards to your statement that I've bolded, I think it's only partially true. As far as I've been able to gather from my testing, it seems like a lot of love and attention went into FOTR and THEN the tint was applied over top, negatively affecting all the love and attention that went into the intentional scene-by-scene regrade.

What I've also found is that the scene-by-scene regrade of the new master seems to have uniformly brought it into closer conformity with the coloring of TT and ROTK, whereas they were some marked differences in previous releases.

In fact, "fixed" screen shots of FOTR scenes that have flashbacks in the other films - at least ones that attempt to do nothing but remove the tint and leave what's under it as untouched as possible - seem to show that the regrading of those scenes would now closely match the flashbacks in the other films were it not for the green tint.

This latter point is something worth keeping in mind when considering posts like the one linked to a few pages ago showing that Merry's vest is now orange in FOTR compared to yellow in the ROTK flashback. The counter-argument has been offered that there has always been a difference between flashbacks to FOTR and the original FOTR shot, but if the new regrading (prior to the green tint) brought FOTR more in line with the coloring of the other films, then arguments that there have always been color differences in flashbacks as a way of explaining how Yellow Vest > Orange Vest could be intentional lose a lot of their force.

Take care,
HeKS

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

But screenshots don't mean everything. What matters is how this looks while watching it in motion on a professionally calibrated, ISF display. I can find a flaw on ANY Blu-ray disc in existence with a screenshot, but many are not perceivable in motion. One can also measure "strange" tints on many movies via which really aren't objectionable or noticeable when properly calibration. The "extreme" tints seen in this screenshots are generally not seen watching the disc whenever everything is up to spec.

Please. You can find countless frames on either TTT or RotK with whites or off-whites that are so neutral they actually appear white, as you could in Fellowship before it was remastered and re-timed. You can not find one single frame now, or once instance, of white in the entirety of the presentation. It's all green now. That is a fact. What you specifically happen to see on your display is not relevant to anyone here but you (just as mine is with me); you could claim to see nothing but a solid yellow screen and there's no way for anyone here to prove or disprove it.

If you choose to believe that the many people in this thread that claim to be bothered by the green tint and/or contrast issues while watching the disc actually don't see it but continue to complain anyway (for what reason, I have no idea), and if you believe the many professional reviewers (on this site, HighDefDigest, Blu Brew, etc.) that claim to notice the tint and/or contrast issues actually can't but insist on claiming they can (for what reason, I have no idea), then that's fine man. The fact is though - those screens are accurate, that is the data that's on the disc, and it speaks for itself. If you can't see it, that's fine too. I wish I was in the same boat, believe me. I'd love to watch it and not be bothered by the green bias and crushed blacks, I really would.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Your posts are cracking me up. All whites are "completely" green, huh?

Okay. Sure.

Yeah, they're green now. Not spotted green, completely green.

All green.

[MerrickG]

Oh dear lord.

I was enjoying the debates on the story and how it translated to film, but I come back and see that its back to the same old green crap.

My advice to everyone who doesn't mind the green is to just leave the thread and not start another shouting match.

For everyone else who is still debating the green, I wish you best of luck on your endevours and if it turns out that it can be proven undisputably that this was an error, please let me know and at that point I will gladly take part in any crusade to get the correct discs.


Dinky Stinky, my avatar would like a word with yours

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Dinky Stinky, my avatar would like a word with yours

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by mredman

Don't you think PJ would have said something right after warner said there is no mistake if he thought there was a mistake with the transfer?

I don't get how you can't see that if there were one it is obvious he would have corrrected warners statement long ago.

The way that I look at it, if Peter Jackson specifically added the blanket tint to the whole of just one movie, he would have came out several weeks ago and said so, to shut all of us up. His silence does not ease my concerns in any way at all.

Also the vague statement that you keep touting as definitive proof does not even mention what we've been talking about at all. All it says is that Peter Jackson did color grading changes. Yes, he did. We all know that, but color grading and a dull blanket tint are two different things.

I just don't understand how anyone would put blind faith in a huge corporation's PR spin doctors, or how utter silence could be perceived as some kind of confirmation.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yeah, they're green now. Not spotted green, completely green.

All green.

I think is some dramatic talk/thinking.

Honestly, our eyes have been trained thanks to TV's for a long time now to be used to blueish whites... and when a set is properly calibrated, if you A/B switch the calibration, you'll think your new 'white' is actually a 'reddish white'. So now, we have a green-ish white. I think that's a much better comparison, at least as far as the whites are concerned.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Oh dear lord.

I was enjoying the debates on the story and how it translated to film, but I come back and see that its back to the same old green crap.

My advice to everyone who doesn't mind the green is to just leave the thread and not start another shouting match.

For everyone else who is still debating the green, I wish you best of luck on your endevours and if it turns out that it can be proven undisputably that this was an error, please let me know and at that point I will gladly take part in any crusade to get the correct discs.


Dinky Stinky, my avatar would like a word with yours

Ya it was nice, but the people that got suspended are back and starting this stuff up again.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Maggot

It's a perfect agrument. They are superior, end of story. LOTR should have been shot in 65mm-70mm. Mistake 1 for sure. Mistake 2 was to coat the first movie in green. The very idea, let alone a review, stating colors are rich and bold for LOTR is ridiculous considering what is seen in 65mm-70mm films. The LOTR series, with the exception of the first movie when it actually had some normal resemblance of color, doesn't look bold or rich in color and using those words to describe it as such are completely and utterly false.

You're beating a horse that's been dead for decades. In all of film history, there have only been 74 films shot in 55mm or 65mm (including 8 imports) that have been released in the United States. There were only three in the 1980s: Tron, Brainstorm and The Black Cauldron (and only parts of the first two were shot large format) and three in the 1990s: Far and Away, Baraka and Hamlet. There have been none since.

When Panavision came up with the 35mm to 70mm blow-up process, 65mm origination ended for all practical purposes, since the main purpose of 70mm was for the 6-track magnetic sound (which a majority of the time was derived from a 4-track mix anyway until Dolby came along with the baby-boom format in 1977 for Star Wars). And when 70mm was popular there were still a very large number of 1500 to 3000 seat theatres. Now a 300 seat theatre is considered to be "large".

Cinematographers never liked shooting in 65mm because the cameras were bulky and lens selection was limited. Ron Howard tried to revive the format for "Far and Away", but the film didn't do great business and most people could not tell the difference on the screen. That pretty much killed any hope for reviving the format.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yeah, they're green now. Not spotted green, completely green.

Al green.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Oh dear lord.

I was enjoying the debates on the story and how it translated to film, but I come back and see that its back to the same old green crap.

My advice to everyone who doesn't mind the green is to just leave the thread and not start another shouting match.

There is a book vs. movie thread for LotR: https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/149...e-vs-book.html
I am not being a smartass either, just trying to be helpful. It is hard to tell the difference sometimes on here.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Maggot

It's a perfect agrument. They are superior, end of story. LOTR should have been shot in 65mm-70mm. Mistake 1 for sure. Mistake 2 was to coat the first movie in green. The very idea, let alone a review, stating colors are rich and bold for LOTR is ridiculous considering what is seen in 65mm-70mm films. The LOTR series, with the exception of the first movie when it actually had some normal resemblance of color, doesn't look bold or rich in color and using those words to describe it as such are completely and utterly false.

LMAO oh so now the mistake came at the filming stage? I guess people are never happy. (Not to mention, there's only - I think - 2 working 70mm film cameras left, because it's a dead format.)

And again, you can't compare apples to oranges. Sorry but it's evident you're reaching.

Even without the green "tint", since the difference between 35mm and 70mm is pretty well documented, the films STILL wouldn't look AS sharp or crisp. So green tint has nothing to even do with that. So that's not even an argument, bud. It's funny, and yes, it gave me a laugh, but it won't hold up in court. I guess even IF they fix the disc, it still won't be good enough, since it wasn't filmed right in the first place, hahahahahahaha.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I think is some dramatic talk/thinking.

Honestly, our eyes have been trained thanks to TV's for a long time now to be used to blueish whites... and when a set is properly calibrated, if you A/B switch the calibration, you'll think your new 'white' is actually a 'reddish white'. So now, we have a green-ish white. I think that's a much better comparison, at least as far as the whites are concerned.

Yeah, I'm not talking about something being so close to white that it actually appears that way despite a slight color bias. That Rivendell transition screen is a good example. While not being "pure white" originally it was so neutral and close to it that it appeared at least off-white or gray (as was intended, obviously.) It's not like the whites in this have been imperceptibly shifted towards green, it's that there's enough green bias for them to no longer appear white, off white, or gray but rather a slight shade of green.

Originally Posted by frogmort

Originally Posted by retablo

but it won't hold up in court

They said the same thing to Casey Anthony. In fact I'm not completely convinced Maggot isn't Casey Anthony. I'm waiting to see if he chloroforms someone.

Anyway, I agree that complaining that it wasn't shot on 70mm is ludicrous.