The Lord of the Rings Trilogy 4K UHD Extended & Theatrical (2001-2003)

[Vertizontal]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

I mean... Good? I've always favoured FOTR in my heart and in terms of re-watched by a factor of 5-10. The theatrical cut of the first movie utterly destroys the other two films for pacing and impact. Certain scenes in TTT are amazing, of course. But it's way less consistent quality to the editing, pacing, story.

FOTR viewings is in the hundreds on blu-ray and DVD for me. You'd be lucky to say I watched TTT 50 times. And ROTK maybe 10.
means in the sentence 4K partial rebuild.

Agreed. FotR (for me) is by far them most cohesive, best flowing effort of the three (but I do love the others - just yeah, Fellow is special stuff).

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

I mean... Good? I've always favoured FOTR in my heart and in terms of re-watched by a factor of 5-10. The theatrical cut of the first movie utterly destroys the other two films for pacing and impact. Certain scenes in TTT are amazing, of course. But it's way less consistent quality to the editing, pacing, story.

FOTR viewings is in the hundreds on blu-ray and DVD for me. You'd be lucky to say I watched TTT 50 times. And ROTK maybe 10.



This guy still doesn't understand what the word "PARTIAL" means in the sentence 4K partial rebuild.

I understand the word partial. If you read anything I've said, I state clearly I am not advocating one way or the other. But with the various caps up on CAH, I think we have a handful that should be live action only, and thus 4K. E.g., the cap of the ring lying in the snow in Fellowship. There should be no VFX in that shot. If that is OCN scanned at 4K, I would think an obvious grain field would be visible in the snow. *shrug*

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by 3eccaTron

No where was that advertised. I think personally at most they rescanned some things from Fellowship as only 70 percent of that film was digitally graded.

They reused the 2011 scan and resulting DI master created for the 2011 EE Blu-ray release for the 4K FOTR. That's why it mostly looks ok and looks so different from the 2010 theatrical Blu-ray release which used the 2001 digital master. That's why the frame positioning and geometry matches the 2011 EE BD almost exactly.

TTT and ROTK clearly used their 2002 and 2003 digital files as the basis for their 4K BDs.

Absolutely not a single piece of film was pulled out of storage and touched for this 4K release. Any use of the word "scan" for this release isn't accurate either, nothing hit the telecine for this release.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by 3eccaTron

No where was that advertised. I think personally at most they rescanned some things from Fellowship as only 70 percent of that film was digitally graded.

From the Digital Bits: "The Fellowship of the Ring was shot photochemically on 35mm film in Super 35 format using a variety of Arriflex, Arricam, Mitchell, and Moviecam cameras with Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo lenses. Only about 70% of the film was finished as a Digital Intermediate at the time, as the process was then new and still evolving (the other 30% was finished traditionally on film). For this new Ultra HD remaster, Park Road Post (a New Zealand post facility owned by WingNut Films) went back and scanned the original camera negative in 4K, then scanned the VFX film-out elements (for VFX shots that were finished on film) in 4K, and upsampled the VFX shots that were finished digitally (in 2K resolution) to create a brand new 4K Digital Intermediate at the proper 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The film’s color was then completely re-graded from the ground up, a process that included new grading for High Dynamic Range (both HDR10 and Dolby Vision options are available on these discs). All of this was personally supervised and approved by director Peter Jackson."

From High Def Watch: "This go around, a New Zealand post-production facility owned by WingNut Films, scanned the original Super 35 camera negative (Kodak film stock) in 4K (2.39:1 aspect ratio). In 2001, the film was scanned and rendered in 2K. Visual effects that were finished on 35mm were also scanned in 4K and all digital effect shots that were originally mastered in 2K were upconverted to 4K to produce a completely new 4K digital intermediate. Jackson supervised and approved the remastering project, which involved the 4K scanning, color grading, HDR coding, and any cleanup work.


Here’s where I differ from Jackson. It seems he and his 4K tech masters decided to tone down the 35mm natural film grain. In some scenes, you’ll be hard-pressed to see the grain. That shouldn’t be the case – especially since Jackson used the Super 35 film format. Normally the non-anamorphic film process produces a slightly larger film grain. I had to step within two feet of my nine-foot wide screen to see the grain.


Jackson’s grain looks completely different than what Sony Pictures has produced with their 4K mastering."

From AVS Forums: "Warner Brothers, under the supervision of director Peter Jackson, fully restored The Lord of the Rings Trilogy from the original 35mm negative, essentially rebuilding it from the ground up which included regrading the color. Its presentation on Ultra HD is derived from the 4K Digital Intermediate."

Other than an official statement from Warner or Park Road, I'd call that "advertised".

[Xorp]

Warner also said the V for Vendetta UHDBD would use a new 4K scan from the OCN ( https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=27397 ), but it turned out to be another blurry 2K upscale: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...153689&i=3&l=0


So someone at Warner Bros PR department is copy and pasting the same "NEW 4K SCAN FROM OCN" blurb over and over for their release announcements. Maybe reusing the one created for the Matrix

[Cook]

There is definite room for improvement, but overall this release's HDR and color grade and audio makes it superior to any previous release.

I'm looking forward to Geoff's examination, tho.

[androcell]

Originally Posted by Xorp

Warner also said the V for Vendetta UHDBD would use a new 4K from the OCN ( https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=27397 ), but it turned out to be another blurry 2K upscale

I don't think so. I can clearly see 4K scan grain here, even if the film was finished at 2K in the first place. The positioning is also different in some shots.

[3eccaTron]

I get what you are saying. A lot of people say a lot of things on the internet. But neither Jackson, Weta, Warners or any other involved party has confirmed this. Basically that reporting is speculation for all anyone knows.

[Batman90]

I’ve had to go off on the people at Walmart and DD today cause none of them will give me answers about where my movies are. Tracking numbers don’t work. I can’t see the tracking history with them but somehow they can.

[Pagey123]

I think a lot of people are getting confused by both terminology and the processes used here. But, if what the various review sites (as I posted a sampling of above) are correct, and all LIVE ACTION footage involved native 4K scans of the original color negative (OCN), then that means the raw, ungraded, untouched, "unmolested" analog Super 35mm "data" was ingested into a new, native 4K scan. THAT should have clearly visible film grain. If you read the review of Fellowship at High Def Watch, they even point out examples of other Super 35mm 4K/UHD scans/releases that exhibit a clear grain field. THAT is what people are saying is absent here. No one (in his right mind) is saying that the shots that were scanned in at 2K, color graded, grain managed, then "filmed out" to new 35 mm stock should display additional grain/fine detail. No one. I would expect those shots to NOT offer any uptick in film grain resolution and fine detail resolution. So, for the NON VFX shots, I ask, simply, where is the Super 35 grain?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

I think they don't have the camera negatives anymore...
Harry Potter, Matrix, and many more 35mm WB films from 1999-2003 era got a proper 4k negative scans and 4k releases.
I think something is up with LOTR negatives.

I dunno. From reading that ARRI interview with Lesnie he mentioned how they graded individual VFX elements when they were delivered and *then* regraded the whole shot again once the final composite was done, in other words a LOT of time and tweakery went into those DIs, even just to balance out the skies from shot to shot. Perhaps Jackson & Co. realised how massive a task it would be to effectively undo all of that and start over with the camera negative, so they didn't bother? The Hobbitses were finished at 2K anyway so that's maybe where Jackson's comment of not wanting these to look "too sharp" factors into it, that they were 2K so he wasn't going to make LOTR look as sharp and grainy as it would ultimately look in 4K if it were just transferred anew like any regular 35mm production? It's not about matching the "digital look" of Hobbit per se but more matching the overall resolution, as well as applying certain filters on the flashbacks seen in the Hobbitses in LOTR.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I just don't understand how so many entertainment journalists can be in such agreement while the in-home experts are just as convinced they're all wrong. I've seen that happen in newsprint editorial pages -- columnists intentionally repeating bad information -- but that's usually because of partisanship. No, I don't think all these folks are bought off, or are afraid to give bad reviews and risk free screeners. The opposite is true, because if you get caught bullshitting and lying, forget free screeners, your career can be over. Roger Ebert avoided junkets, but when he did attend, he made sure to pay his own way so there couldn't be a dent in his integrity. You lose that, you wind up a footnote (how Brian Williams got a job at MSNBC after "exagger-gate", I'll never know). Anyway, no I don't think these guys are lying, they all got their info from somewhere and I don't think it was Hunt, although this forum loves to mock and trash him (I'm not a big fan, think I called him some unkind names about 15-16 years ago).

I mean here's this:

https://www.avforums.com/reviews/lor...y-review.18240



Is this person lying? Are all these people lying? Are they all so wildly misinformed and unqualified for their jobs? Seems so odd...

Good old AVF, the same place that gave T2 an 8/10 for picture quality, so you'll have to forgive me if I think they're talking out of their pimhole. And I love how they go to IMDB and list all the cameras used on the production, when the choice of 35mm camera literally means **** all as to how the image will be affected as it's just a transport mechanism, whereas the specific film stocks and lenses used will have far more of an effect on perceived image quality.

And yes, most "pro reviewers" are just as you say: wildly misinformed and unqualified, that's if the "pro" tag even applies as most "pro reviewers" aren't being paid a penny (I certainly wasn't when I wrote for AVF for a short while) and that's the point: there isn't any kind of "qualification" that people need to talk bollocks on a website and it's destroyed the medium of home video reviewing. I'm not just saying this solely because you've brought it up, I's been saying it for years. The Internet has given everyone a voice which is great in one respect but it also means the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Which people are the lunatics - those who obsess over minutiae or the "it looks great to me, don't forget to click the like button and subscribe!" crowd - I leave up to you.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

That’s one of the shots, but the worst looking has been a close up of Theoden and Legolas after Aragorn falls off the cliff. Their faces vary between looking smooth and gritty within the same shot like a flickering Snapchat beauty filter.

Also, at the end with Gandalf and co looking at Mordor on the horizon. The closeups of Legolas and Aragorn in particular. I think those are the worst looking shots in the first two films.

[Pyoko]

The official press release never mentioned anything about a 4K scan so in the end it was just Bill Hunt pulling information (read: shit) out of his industry sources (read: ass) and then every other outlet regurgitating that misinformation?

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

The official press release never mentioned anything about a 4K scan so in the end it was just Bill Hunt pulling information (read: shit) out of his industry sources (read: ass) and then every other outlet regurgitating that misinformation?

Until we see/read otherwise, that may indeed be the case. I stress the may part, before anyone burns my house down around me whilst I sleep.

/s

[nick4Knight]

At this point I sorta don't care if it was a partial rebuild or not. I was literally flabbergasted it could have been in the first place lol

If users are in the majority saying these look stunning for PQ with a few errant VFX shots and some mild management here and there this is to me all that matters it's in a positive upgrade. And I feel overall validated calling it a rinse repeat of Forrest Gump. I loved that transfer. Many don't.

I get that. Have your crusade. Don't enjoy it because it's not perfect. Attempt to spoil everyone elses party. Don't buy because you are that militant against "DNR". Suits me fine if you truly believe "voting with your dollar" does a thing in the world.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by DOULG1VEN

Watched all 3 movies (EE). RotK looks the worst because it has the most CGI - honestly the CGI is not that offensive, but it's ~20 years old. They can't magically make it look like avengers endgame lol.

I think fellowship looked best. Overall the HDR/DV + Atmos is the clear major upgrade and benefit here. This is the only movie I've ever pre-ordered and I couldn't be happier... Great trilogy

Nobody is asking them to make the CGI look modern. They just don't want unnecessary filters applied to it which reduce detail and make it look more unnatural than it originally did.

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

They aren't saying if the DNR is new or legacy. Important difference.

It's far more aggressive than anything you see on the older Blu-rays. While some of those had a little bit of DNR or EE, it's nowhere near as intense, and the images there actually look fairly natural, unlike what we're seeing here. The Blu-rays also look more detailed in most examples I've seen.

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The LOTR was finished at 2K, they never accounted for eventually scanning into 4K, let alone HDR.

So the DNR at the 2K level was done to how visible it was at the resolution. Thus when scanned at 4K, it becomes pronounced.

So you are immediately faced with managing or not managing it for a new presentation.

There for you don't know what is truly new or preexisting.

If you scan the camera negatives, no post effects like that come with it. If you scan the theatrical prints, and if those somehow happen to have DNR on them as well, then they won't look WORSE than the Blu-rays do, since those are 2K as well and re-scanning 2K based film at 4K is no different than upscaling 2K and adding grain.

Originally Posted by NYorker

On a side note, I'll be curious to know the ratio of LOTR - Hobbit sales ratio. I would imagine the former would sell a lot more.

If the threads on this site are anything to go by, LOTR is far more popular

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Any celluloid scanned in 4k will have 4k grain, but there is none.
I believe they didn't scan anything.

Because of certain non-VFX shots in comparisons I've seen, I think they did scan those in 4K, but they also added DNR/sharpening to those as well, which eliminates that 4K grain, but thankfully that DNR isn't as bad as on the VFX shots. I believe if it wasn't a rescan, those shots would look just as bad as the VFX shots do.

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Some thoughts on DNR, noise, and detail:

1. In general for analogue film source:
a) Preserve grain to keep detail
b) Use DNR very sparingly, since it results in less detail

2) In general for digital film source:
a) Do not add artificial grain/noise, since it serves no benefit (e.g. cannot improve detail by reversing 1a) )

In essence, grain is not only good or bad. But it serves a purpose to preserve detail for analogue film. Clearly this rule seems to have been broken for LOTR 4K BD, where DNR has been used to no positive advantage, but only resulting in less detail.

I would argue that in some cases, adding grain to digital can be done as an artistic effect, if it helps impact the tone of the movie. Another good example would also be to keep it in line with earlier film releases in a franchise (adding grain to the Hobbit movies would have been fine for this reason for example) Otherwise, I agree with this.

Originally Posted by jjlikesonions

Spider-Man was made around the same time as LOTR. This is what a 4k scan looks like

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...112388&i=7&l=0

That's gorgious

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Watched X-Men (2000) in UHD yesterday, and was really impressed. That's how a 20 year old catalogue title with VFX can and should be treated. The VFX shots are unmolested, and the live action looks glorious, aside from a mere handful of shots. Truly wonderful:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...122660&i=8&l=0

Why can't The Star Wars Saga (I-VI) and The Lord of the Rings trilogy be treated like this?

Same here

Originally Posted by slimdude

Damn! Does anybody watch movies anymore without trying to play quality control to search and find every little imperfection in the video and audio? It seems like they're not satisfied until they find something wrong so they can complain about it. It doesn't make any sense! If I had to criticize every blu-ray and 4K movie that I watch, I would save my money and stop buying them, to keep from giving myself an ulcer or a coronary over a movie.

It's not a bad thing to want these movies' restorations handled correctly in order to preserve these movies in as high quality as they possibly could be for the future. With the way these were handled, Perter Jackson is wrong, these movies are not "done". Someone else will need to remaster them yet again in the future to fix these mistakes.

Originally Posted by bga84

Maybe they're saving the 4K OCN scans for the big boxset

On one hand, it would be great to have a proper release as a fix to the problems of this one, and delaying that release a year compared to these could certainly give them the time to do that.

On the other hand, it would be completely shitty of them to do that for those of us who didn't want to buy a large collector's set like that of the whole franchise.

Originally Posted by JAWS

This is a great point.. Personally I think its hard to take the opinions of those that have not seen the film as seriously as those that have.

If the haters still hate it.. No problem. Just a difference in opinion on what looks good to our eyes.

But ranting and raving about a product that you have not seen yet based on blown up screen caps is just hard to take as seriously.

Plenty of people who have watched it have echoed the same complaints that those of us looking at screencaps have. Because screencaps are pretty much always an accurate representation of resolution detail. Not HDR of course, which is a different topic, but detail.

Originally Posted by 3eccaTron

Imagine this KEYFRAME based grading having been done on a hundred thousand + shots. And then them having to remember those creative choices to replicate it after rescanning the OCN.

ITS UNREALISTIC

Use the original as reference only when doing a totally new color grade with modern techniques, which you need to be doing anyway since it's HDR.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

The official press release never mentioned anything about a 4K scan so in the end it was just Bill Hunt pulling information (read: shit) out of his industry sources (read: ass) and then every other outlet regurgitating that misinformation?

In my opinion? That's exactly it.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

At this point I sorta don't care if it was a partial rebuild or not. I was literally flabbergasted it could have been in the first place lol

If users are in the majority saying these look stunning for PQ with a few errant VFX shots and some mild management here and there this is to me all that matters it's in a positive upgrade. And I feel overall validated calling it a rinse repeat of Forrest Gump. I loved that transfer. Many don't.

I get that. Have your crusade. Don't enjoy it because it's not perfect. Attempt to spoil everyone elses party. Don't buy because you are that militant against "DNR". Suits me fine if you truly believe "voting with your dollar" does a thing in the world.

Look, just to be clear, I am WITH you. I don't care if it was a 4K partial rebuild or not. The fact that Fellowship got fixed AND got a fabulous HDR grade is enough to right all other wrongs for me, personally!

I am not on any crusade, for sure. What I am attempting to say, as calmly and as rationally as possible, is that for everyone screaming "it's obviously a native 4K scan with baked in DNR" that that is, by definition, not possible for the live action shots. IF, and I mean IF, the live action Super 35 mm OCNs were ingested, then by definition those are the RAW shots with NO baked in DNR/grading/grain management. Those should, like every other example linked, show an objective uptick in both fine detail resolution and grain resolution. In the caps shown, that is never evident. Is it possible that EVERY single cap posted on CAH involves, without our knowledge, a VFX shot and therefore it is a 2K film out, DNRed/grain managed, and then scanned at 4K? Sure! That is in fact entirely possible. But there should be, somewhere, especially in Fellowship, a crap ton of non-VFX shots that would display said uptick in grain/fine detail resolution. Those shots may yet come forward. But, so far, no one has produced any (that I have seen).

I am MORE than happy with my purchase. I am gobsmacked by how good Fellowship looks compared to the EE BD release.

But I am not going to ignore objective evidence, either.

[ThulsaMike88]

Coming back to this thread after a couple days, and reading it is a bit jarring...lol. Guess I'm not terribly surprised to see the mix. LotR was always going to be one of those releases where most of the scenes might look great in 4k, but other scenes/shots would be wonky and soft as hell due to 20 year old vfx. Sounds like the HDR does wonders for the new color grade though. Excited to finally check it out.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Also, at the end with Gandalf and co looking at Mordor on the horizon. The closeups of Legolas and Aragorn in particular. I think those are the worst looking shots in the first two films.

The Two Towers shot of Gandalf and company looking at mordor has always looked like digital smooth dog shit. In every single release. Itd be an achievement if it somehow looks worse in this release.