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

[Xtempo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The first link has all the Theatrical special features, the 2nd is just for the movies.

This is the same as the first, exccept it as a lenticular cover and comes with $5 towards the Hobbit in theatres. Plus it's cheaper:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Lord-Of-Th...creen/21907401

sweet thanks

one last thing does this mean I'll have all the features from the 3 different DVD sets in my first post? (the 6DVD Widescreen movie set/ 2 DVD Limited Edition theatrical and extended flipper and the Extended boxset)

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The second breakfast scene is atrocious.

Ouch. I forgot about that one.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/r...11-49-58AM.png

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/31...0#post_3823760

Question: Is anything white in FOTR?

[42041]

Originally Posted by atexp80

So are you saying that you aren't seeing the difference in your own screenshots?

I see a difference, I just don't see a major problem.
In those shots there's a lower overall luminance (which takes one tweak in your TV settings to fix) and a higher gamma, but "black crush", to me, means that the shadow detail is clipped, not made less apparent. There are perfectly valid artistic reasons why the colorist would want the mines of Moria veiled in deep shadows (and perfectly valid technical reasons why older video transfers often brighten the image).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Xtempo

sweet thanks

one last thing does this mean I'll have all the features from the 3 different DVD sets in my first post? (the 6DVD Widescreen movie set/ 2 DVD Limited Edition theatrical and extended flipper and the Extended boxset)

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe you have all the special features released. The only reason I'm not sure is the first Trilogy box set you linked to says it's 3 discs on Amazon, but I saw other places that mention it's 6 discs. If it's 6 then it should contain all the same special feature discs at the Theatrical Blu-ray release.

The extended Box set has all the same extra discs as the Extended Blu-ray edition with the exception of the Costa Botes documentaries. That's where the Limited edition box set you listed (the middle one) comes in though.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by retablo

They look "different" because 70-80% of Fellowship was processed through normal photochemical developing, while the entirety of the other 2 films were done as a full DI. And there's nothing that can ever be done to change that.

Exactly.

[Xtempo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe you have all the special features released. The only reason I'm not sure is the first Trilogy box set you linked to says it's 3 discs on Amazon, but I saw other places that mention it's 6 discs. If it's 6 then it should contain all the same special feature discs at the Theatrical Blu-ray release.

The extended Box set has all the same extra discs as the Extended Blu-ray edition with the exception of the Costa Botes documentaries. That's where the Limited edition box set you listed (the middle one) comes in though.

All right thanks. They could do an outstanding job by releasing all of this in one boxset instead they've milked thing for all its worth. If companies sold all the special features separately to go along with there releases that would be better.

the theatrical widescreen dvd boxset is 2 discs each for all 3 movies. not sure why it would be listed 3 discs

thanks for the help.
now I'll have to figure out if I'm getting rid of the first ones or if I love the packaging so much to keep them

Can't wait now for the theatrical BD set coming at least I got the extended to tie me over

[poke smot]

Call me crazy but I watched fellowship on my new panosonic bluray player and I thought it looked way better than it did on the ps3. The mine scenes looked dang nice. Hobbit time.

[Jumpman]

Well, this is a funny instance.

So, iTunes updated the Extended Editions of the film by adding iTunes Extras. Basically, they are two or three documentaries from the appendices, along with an interactive map of Middle-Earth.

Anyway, I redownloaded my HD copy of the Fellowship EE and sure enough, this new digital HD copy, unlike the last one, has the new color timing that's on the BD. But here's what's really funny; they got rid of the burned in subtitles. The same subtitles on the BD that are tinted slightly green when they should be white, like last two films.

So yeah, when they speak Elvish or whatever, no subtitles.

[fpas]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe you have all the special features released. The only reason I'm not sure is the first Trilogy box set you linked to says it's 3 discs on Amazon, but I saw other places that mention it's 6 discs. If it's 6 then it should contain all the same special feature discs at the Theatrical Blu-ray release.

The extended Box set has all the same extra discs as the Extended Blu-ray edition with the exception of the Costa Botes documentaries. That's where the Limited edition box set you listed (the middle one) comes in though.

Check the specs before spreading the wrong info.
The Costa Botes docus are indeed on the Extended Blu-Ray editions. It's the 5th disc in every part. So you can toss the dvd edition to a friend or family member.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by fpas

Check the specs before spreading the wrong info.
The Costa Botes docus are indeed on the Extended Blu-Ray editions. It's the 5th disc in every part. So you can toss the dvd edition to a friend or family member.

No one's questioning whether they're in the Blu-ray editions. He specifically linked to 3 DVD sets and asked whether they had all the special features. My reply was referring to the extended DVD set not having the Costa Botes documentaries, which is completely true. In fact, you can actually infer from my wording that the Extended Blu-ray edition has those Costa Botes docs by me saying the DVD Extended edition extras are the same as the BD edition except for those docs..

The only thing I didn't see was his first post 2 pages back, detailing why he was asking about those different sets. So just to conclude the matter: With the purchase of the Theatrical BD set he will own every extra available on the various DVD sets he owns, and can get rid of those sets if need be.

[nycomet]

Are there any extras on the $10 Target EEs at all? I won't find out until Christmas. Right now they are sitting in my Christmas stocking.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by 42041

II don't have the DVDs or original blu-rays on hand to compare, but I haven't really seen evidence that any scene has been compromised by black crush, ie, where the detail is completely missing rather than just pushed further into the shadows.
All I can say is that I was more impressed by Fellowship than TT. Its transfer may be fine in that it conveys the theatrical appearance, but it's just not a great looking movie overall, IMO.

Then you are just ignorant of the reality of that aspect of the PQ (not being condescending, I mean it literally), aren't really familiar with how it previously appeared, or are just so not bothered by the affect that you don't even notice it.

The Moria sequence, especially, is severely affected to a degree that it's blatant. You can say "You haven't seen evidence of it," and that's fine, but the reality is it absolutely exists and significant detail has been lost due to black crush (throughout the entire film).

[tama]

Just for curiosity after reading the last several comments I popped in my FOTR EE in my player. The scene atexp80 posted is nowhere near as crushed on my set as it is in that picture. The image in the lower portion shows about the amount of information as my set. Also the photo of the breakfast scene that JamesKurtovich posted found on Disc1 isn't as severally tinted as the photo suggest.

While the tint is noticable it isn't to the severe degree as several photos that have been posted.

Just in case anyone is curious my samsung 60" plasma has been professionally calibrated.

[Beast]

That's why you can never judge by screenshots or comments posted by so-called "Screenshot Scientists" online.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by tama

Also the photo of the breakfast scene that JamesKurtovich posted found on Disc1 isn't as severally tinted as the photo suggest.

The second link he posted - those aren't photos. Those are frame grabs DIRECTLY from the disc. That is precisely how they appear because they were captured directly from the disc itself, not displayed on a set and photographed. That amount of tint displayed in those captures are the precise amount of tint found on the disc itself, it isn't arguable and easily provable by taking the disc and taking accurate frame-grabs. The reason they don't appear as tinted on your display is because the human eye has a tendency to auto-adjust given a fairly consistent color bias over a period of time, minimizing the appearance of the perceivable tint while playing it back (as opposed to looking at a single frame in isolation on your monitor after staring at several pages without that consistent tint.) Some people are more sensitive to it than others (every pair of eyes works differently and we don't all have the exact same TV model calibrated to identical specs), so for some it will be easily noticed and some won't notice it at all (like that dude who posted below you, who seems to suggest it doesn't exist when it absolutely does.)

[Brightstar]

will we get to see LOTR in 48fps in the future ?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Not unless they take every frame and double it (which would playback functionally identical to how it plays back now, it would just have redundant data.)

It was filmed in 24fps. In order to play back in 48FPS as you're suggesting it would need additional frames that do not exist - it would've had to have been filmed with cameras capturing 48fps rather than 24.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

The second link he posted - those aren't photos. Those are frame grabs DIRECTLY from the disc. That is precisely how they appear because they were captured directly from the disc itself, not displayed on a set and photographed. That amount of tint displayed in those captures are the precise amount of tint found on the disc itself, it isn't arguable and easily provable by taking the disc and taking accurate frame-grabs. The reason they don't appear as tinted on your display is because the human eye has a tendency to auto-adjust given a fairly consistent color bias over a period of time, minimizing the appearance of the perceivable tint while playing it back (as opposed to looking at a single frame in isolation on your monitor after staring at several pages without that consistent tint.) Some people are more sensitive to it than others (every pair of eyes works differently and we don't all have the exact same TV model calibrated to identical specs), so for some it will be easily noticed and some won't notice it at all (like that dude who posted below you, who seems to suggest it doesn't exist when it absolutely does.)

Then let me correct myself. The frame grab I'm looking at on my monitor is pushed further tinted then the paused image I'm looking at on my plasma screen in front of me all in the same time and space.

The human eye-auto adjust makes sense to me and I understand that portion however If I'm looking at both screens in front of me of still images and one image appears to be more altered then another then what am I to make of it?

The last point about different models and makes and calibrations is the part I most agree with which is why looking at screen grabs should only be used to help give a general idea of what to expect.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by tama

Then let me correct myself. The frame grab I'm looking at on my monitor is pushed further tinted then the paused image I'm looking at on my plasma screen in front of me all in the same time and space.

The human eye-auto adjust makes sense to me and I understand that portion however If I'm looking at both screens in front of me of still images and one image appears to be more altered then another then what am I to make of it?

The last point about different models and makes and calibrations is the part I most agree with which is why looking at screen grabs should only be used to help give a general idea of what to expect.

It says that you are looking at them on two different displays, so your PC monitor is probably not properly calibrated. I can't speak to how they appear on either of your specific displays. If you stick it on a thumbdrive and display it on your television it should look identical to the paused frame.

That being said, those are frame grabs directly from the disc. The amount of teal bias they display ARE the amount of teal bias contained within the image data on the disc itself.

There's a difference between perception and reality. The reality is, the FotR EE BD release has a heavy teal bias throughout the entire film and in certain portions (like the second breakfast scene) the tint is even more heavily pronounced. Now, how one specific person perceives the amount of tint, or doesn't perceive it at all, is down to that person's eyes and how they interact with their particular model of TV. The people that complain about seeing it and being bothered by it aren't lying. The people that claim not to see it at all (or see it in such a slight degree that it doesn't bother them) aren't lying either, in the same way that a person unable to detect an extremely high pitched noise can't hear it. The people that claim it doesn't exist, however, are dead wrong. It does, it's easily provable and the tint itself is easily measurable. Be glad you don't notice it as much and aren't particularly bothered by it, that's a good thing. I wish the case was the same for me.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Not unless they take every frame and double it (which would playback functionally identical to how it plays back now, it would just have redundant data.)

It was filmed in 24fps. In order to play back in 48FPS as you're suggesting it would need additional frames that do not exist - it would've had to have been filmed with cameras capturing 48fps rather than 24.

Then Lotr will not look as good as the hobbit if you watch them back to back. PQ LOTR is finished in 2k and the Hobbit 4k