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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by joliefan

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

Yes, that's true, but those facts are completely unrelated. Filming in 48fps has nothing whatsoever to do with resolution or how "good" the image looks from a PQ standpoint, just how smooth the motion itself looks.

I personally prefer the look of 24fps, it looks more ethereal and gives film the intangible dreamlike quality film has always had. 48fps playback gives the film an oddly smooth-in-motion appearance that makes it look too "real life."

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by 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.

Same here - I've watched it on two different pro cal'd sets.

[GaragePoet]

i am so damn sick of this "calibration" argument that i could puke blood...

i'm sure many members here, as have i, have been setting their own TV's color, brightness, contrast, sharpness, tint, etc. settings for many years now. there will always be a level of preference regarding "warm" or "cool" color palettes, but anyone who isn't colorblind knows the difference between green, blue & red...

when every other movie looks completely normal, but then "FotR" looks to have a greenish tint, or dare i bring up TT's blue-washed "NotLD" (let's not start that argument, please), a certain number of stuck-up individuals have to chime in that your TV must be a piece of crap because they spent hundreds of dollars to have some Best Buy geek set up their TV...

it's a ridiculous argument... if EVERYTHING you watch looks too green or too blue, then you're too retarded to set up your own television. if 99% of your BDs look perfect (as far as you can tell), but a couple have a certain tint that doesn't match the rest of your collection, it's because of THAT particular movie...

having ranted about all that, i recently watched the entire LotR EE trilogy for the first time on BD (the first time in a couple years, really), and i absolutely loved the colors of every movie. to me, the first DID have a slightly green tint, bringing out the warmth & beauty of the early scenes in the Shire. the second looked far more blue, representing the coldness of the mountains & forests, and the third looked almost bleached in white... films are allowed to have their own distinct presentations to convey the nature & tone of the movie...

now excuse me, i'm off the double-check my TV settings again...

[42041]

Originally Posted by joliefan

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

How do you propose they do that? It was shot in 24fps, best they can do is use whatever interpolation algorithm your TV probably has anyway...

Originally Posted by joliefan

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

Both are 2K finishes.

On the FOTR:EE topic, screen captures certainly have their uses, but this is one of those cases where they completely misrepresent the actual viewing experience.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by 42041

On the FOTR:EE topic, screen captures certainly have their uses, but this is one of those cases where they completely misrepresent the actual viewing experience.

I wouldn't say 'completely' for a fair few of us those screen shots represent what we actually see when we watch the BD. To me while the quality had improved over the theatrical BD presentation there was a tint and contrast issue. It didn't spoil my enjoyment of the feature though.

[Duffy12]

.

The next thing that we will be hearing is that the Star Wars OTs do not have any color or contrast issues either.

Oh wait! We have. Never mind.

.

[42041]

Originally Posted by chip75

I wouldn't say 'completely' for a fair few of us those screen shots represent what we actually see when we watch the BD. To me while the quality had improved over the theatrical BD presentation there was a tint and contrast issue. It didn't spoil my enjoyment of the feature though.

Well, as always, your mileage may vary. But it's hard for me to overstate just how completely not green scenes like these are when I'm actually watching the movie https://images4.static-bluray.com/re...4_17_1080p.jpg

And can we please stop discussing color grading like it's some kind of objective target to create neutral, bright imagery? Since when is "black crush" or a scene that's colored a certain way inherently bad I think that's one of the biggest bits of home theater forum silliness, lots of movies have crushed blacks as part of their theatrically correct appearance...

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Just wait till you get to Moria.

.

And they called it a mine..... A mine!!!!!!

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The second breakfast scene is atrocious.

What about second breakfast?

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by The Edge

And they called it a mine..... A mine!!!!!!

LOL


"This is no mine. It's a tomb."

.

[fpas]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

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.

You're right, I'm sorry. My oversight. But it makes me wonder how much more extras one needs on the trilogy. I think the EE blu-ray sets are exhaustive enough.

[Thesis]

I believe this extended collector's set was $39.99 last week at Best But and now it went up in price. :/ I missed out on the deal. Damn!

[Blu Myers]

I missed out on the deal by a day. So I ordered it anyway for $55.99. Oh well.

[RandyK]

I asked this in another thread but if I wanted the digital copies from this set and it didn't come with the codes, do I request new codes from the WB digital copy support? Should I just say that my set didn't come with the codes?

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by 42041

How do you propose they do that? It was shot in 24fps, best they can do is use whatever interpolation algorithm your TV probably has anyway...

Both are 2K finishes.

On the FOTR:EE topic, screen captures certainly have their uses, but this is one of those cases where they completely misrepresent the actual viewing experience.

The hobbit is shot in 4k !!

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by 42041

How do you propose they do that? It was shot in 24fps, best they can do is use whatever interpolation algorithm your TV probably has anyway...

Both are 2K finishes.

On the FOTR:EE topic, screen captures certainly have their uses, but this is one of those cases where they completely misrepresent the actual viewing experience.

I'd assume that The Hobbit is being filmed in 4K with 4K post-production, and just a final 2K reduction for blu-ray etc. IMAX is most likely projecting a "native" 4K image. Has anyone heard otherwise?

[42041]

Originally Posted by joliefan

The hobbit is shot in 4k !!

So? Most films shot in 4k digital have went through 2k post.

[Gh0stface]

Could someone please tell me what the difference between the 2011 and the 2012 releases of the extended edition trilogy for LOTR? I have the extended edition on my Christmas list, but I don't know which release is better, or know what the differences between each release are? Thank you!

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

The Hobbit was actually shot in 5K. They discussed that in one of the production video blogs.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Gh0stface

Could someone please tell me what the difference between the 2011 and the 2012 releases of the extended edition trilogy for LOTR? I have the extended edition on my Christmas list, but I don't know which release is better, or know what the differences between each release are? Thank you!

As far as I can tell the original 2011 release Digital Copies are now expired. According to their entries they both contain the same content 6 BD's with each movie spread across 2 BD's and 3 DVD's of special features for each film. I think the content is identical.

You also have the option of the individual releases:



They don't seem to have Digital Copies (I'm not sure the 2012 set does either if the Amazon pictures are accurate) and are expensive if you're not interested in fancy separate cases for each film (the box set has separate cases for each film with different art work).