Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010

[rootine4]

I bought this yesterday as soon as I saw it was 6.1. Started watching it last night and was disappointed that my Marantz 7.1 receiver only showed 5.1 dts hd ma. I was unable to hear anything from my 6th or 7th speakers. I had the same problem with T2. Any thoughts?

[jonmoz]

Good review David,i am glad it's not just me who thinks these releases look very good on a large screen.

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by rootine4

I bought this yesterday as soon as I saw it was 6.1. Started watching it last night and was disappointed that my Marantz 7.1 receiver only showed 5.1 dts hd ma. I was unable to hear anything from my 6th or 7th speakers. I had the same problem with T2. Any thoughts?

what player do you have. my oppo does the same thing but my ps3 can decode and send it fine

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by un4gvn94538

what player do you have. my oppo does the same thing but my ps3 can decode and send it fine

It sounds like some of the Disney DVDs.........some players/receivers detect the ES flag, and some dont. For those that dont, just apply PLIIx, Ultra2, etc.....which will get you the same result for all practical purposes.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by 42041

Because the film was not entirely digital. A good chunk of it was photochemical. To use the DI for the digital scenes and then scan the photochemical scenes separately and then edit all that together would involve considerably more effort than telecining the final film master with everything spliced into it, and the quality demands were not those of digital cinema or blu-ray, but DVD and HDTV.

I think you're not aware of actual production cycle for these films. Yes, there is photochemical film used for many of the live-action scenes. But these negatives were scanned into the computer early on in the production chain, and from there, the integration with CGI and final "master" were all digital. There is no "film master", only the digital master in the form of the digital intermediate: the DI *is* the master with everything assembled together, and it's then used as the source to print back to 35mm for release-prints or used directly for digital sources like DVD, HDTV, BD etc. Think of it as an "ADD" methodology for movies similar to what you'd have thought about with CDs, versus the "AAD" mastering which would have implied analog mixing/master versus an "ADD" digital/mixing master even if the source elements were analog at the start.

Since about the year 2000 more and more films have been produced this way, with 35mm negatives being used for the initial live-action footage, but then having those negatives scanned early and with all subsequent editing taking place in the digital domain so that the digital intermediate is the actual "master" that can then be used to print back to film for theatrical prints or used directly for digital media. That's generally what has happened whenever you see "digital intermediate" or "DI" discussed. If the intermediate master was photochemical, it would just be "intermediate".

[jonmoz]

The soundtrack is a Dts 6.1 matrix which is in effect is a 5.1 track,so the extra channel is created using your left and right surround speakers,unlike a Dts 6.1 discrete track which has an actual seperate channel.

It outputs sound through all my seven speakers though,i have my reciever set to Thx Ultra 2.

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

It sounds like some of the Disney DVDs.........some players/receivers detect the ES flag, and some dont. For those that dont, just apply PLIIx, Ultra2, etc.....which will get you the same result for all practical purposes.

im well aware of that but it defeats the purpose. i dont want to add additional processing. besides, with everything i use, i just plug and play. the only buttons i need to mess with is power, volume and eject.

[42041]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I think you're not aware of actual production cycle for these films. Yes, there is photochemical film used for many of the live-action scenes. But these negatives were scanned into the computer early on in the production chain, and from there, the integration with CGI and final "master" were all digital. In other words, the DI *is* the master with everything assembled together, and it's then used as the source to print back to 35mm for release-prints or used directly for digital sources like DVD, HDTV, BD etc.

Since about the year 2000 more and more films have been produced this way, with 35mm photochemical being used for the initial live-action footage, but then having those negatives scanned early and with all subsequent editing taking place in the digital domain so that the digital intermediate is the actual "master" that can then be used to print back to film for theatrical prints or used directly for digital media.

I have a pretty good idea of how it works, and Fellowship did NOT use a full DI master, unlike the later two movies. Some scenes simply never entered the digital domain from camera to cinema screen.

"About 3,100 shots (78% of the Super 35 film) were color graded at Colorfront in Wellington, NZ using 5D Colossus software after being scanned by an Imagica XE scanner full 2K resolution (2048*1536). The color-graded shots were then recorded on Kodak 5242 intermediate film by two Arri Laser film recorders at 10 bits per channel. Because only 78% of the film was digital, a digitally squeezed anamorphic print could not be made for the whole movie. Instead, the digital shots were recorded on an inter-negative hardmatted at 1.77:1, intercut with the non-digital original negative (which had been color timed by The Film Unit, NZ), and printed to 2.39:1 anamorphic Kodak film using an optical printer at Deluxe, LA. Fuji 3519-D was used for release prints."

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by 42041

I have a pretty good idea of how it works, and Fellowship did NOT use a full DI master, unlike the later two movies. Some scenes simply never entered the digital domain from camera to cinema screen.

"About 3,100 shots (78% of the Super 35 film) were color graded at Colorfront in Wellington, NZ using 5D Colossus software after being scanned by an Imagica XE scanner full 2K resolution (2048*1536). The color-graded shots were then recorded on Kodak 5242 intermediate film by two Arri Laser film recorders at 10 bits per channel. Because only 78% of the film was digital, a digitally squeezed anamorphic print could not be made for the whole movie. Instead, the digital shots were recorded on an inter-negative hardmatted at 1.77:1, intercut with the non-digital original negative (which had been color timed by The Film Unit, NZ), and printed to 2.39:1 anamorphic Kodak film using an optical printer at Deluxe, LA. Fuji 3519-D was used for release prints."

Wow! news to me, but that's why we educate ourselves via forums like this.

Very, VERY interesting. I wonder if a new telecine was struck from this photochemical "master" or if existing telecine was used (my guess the later)? Thanks for sharing! In any case, this multi-generational/media process is no doubt the reason for the scene-by-scene variation we see in the first film, a variation that probably wouldn't be resolved by a new telecine from that composite analog master though perhaps improved overall resolution might be gained?

dave

[DIGITALBATH]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

The soundtrack is a Dts 6.1 matrix which is in effect is a 5.1 track,so the extra channel is created using your left and right surround speakers,unlike a Dts 6.1 discrete track which has an actual seperate channel.

It outputs sound through all my seven speakers though,i have my reciever set to Thx Ultra 2.

I am using a PS3 and an Onkyo TX-SR605. The display on the PS3 reads DTS-MA 6.1 and sound is output through all speakers on my 7.1 system.

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by DIGITALBATH

I am using a PS3 and an Onkyo TX-SR605. The display on the PS3 reads DTS-MA 6.1 and sound is output through all speakers on my 7.1 system.

exactly!

[HDPlasma]

Break time:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612

.

[john_1958]

bought the multi-disc version and i still say multi-disc cases are a waste
the only reason i bought the boxset was for the sword

should have bought individual movies

[radagast]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I think you're not aware of actual production cycle for these films. Yes, there is photochemical film used for many of the live-action scenes. But these negatives were scanned into the computer early on in the production chain, and from there, the integration with CGI and final "master" were all digital. There is no "film master", only the digital master in the form of the digital intermediate: the DI *is* the master with everything assembled together, and it's then used as the source to print back to 35mm for release-prints or used directly for digital sources like DVD, HDTV, BD etc. Think of it as an "ADD" methodology for movies similar to what you'd have thought about with CDs, versus the "AAD" mastering which would have implied analog mixing/master versus an "ADD" digital/mixing master even if the source elements were analog at the start.

Since about the year 2000 more and more films have been produced this way, with 35mm negatives being used for the initial live-action footage, but then having those negatives scanned early and with all subsequent editing taking place in the digital domain so that the digital intermediate is the actual "master" that can then be used to print back to film for theatrical prints or used directly for digital media. That's generally what has happened whenever you see "digital intermediate" or "DI" discussed. If the intermediate master was photochemical, it would just be "intermediate".

Penton-man mentioned that there were advances taking place during the production of the films and that it wasn't mature for FOTR. He mentioned a process called "Lustre".

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by john_1958

bought the multi-disc version and i still say multi-disc cases are a waste
the only reason i bought the boxset was for the sword

should have bought individual movies

1. Multi-disc cases/versions create less waste.
2. There are no individual blu-ray versions to purchase... yet.
You can by 3 single cases and make/print customer covers like some have done in this thread.

[SellmeyourDVD]

I hate to whine about something as minuscule as $4, but it REALLY sucks amazon only had the trilogy at 59.99 for a few hours .

With that being said, I still bought it off of amazon. If I would of bought it at BB, I would of only paid .40 cents less there than amazon, and I could really use those reward points

What really sucks, is that I knew the price was $59.99 but went to BB to see if their exclusive edition with the "sword" was worth it. When I got home to finally buy it from amazon, the price had jumped

Oh well, i'll still thoroughly enjoy the trilogy all day saturday despite the price

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

1. Multi-disc cases/versions create less waste.
2. There are no individual blu-ray versions to purchase... yet.
You can by 3 single cases and make/print customer covers like some have done in this thread.

yes there are some
i saw them at local store and wish i had picked them they were going for $21.00 each so multiply that by 3

[jwoodwar]

Bestbuy. They take so damn long just to get you a package. They went from a center right by to me straight to ohio and back to Kentucky. Im so pissed off today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad :

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by john_1958

yes there are some
i saw them at local store and wish i had picked them

You must of seen the blu-ray cartoon version of Lord of the Rings because there is not individual releases of the 3 movies on blu-ray.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by jwoodwar

Bestbuy. They take so damn long just to get you a package. They went from a center right by to me straight to ohio and back to Kentucky. Im so pissed off today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad :

I can understand your frustration but there must be another store near you where you can get it. Oh and despite how it feels, I promise Best Buy didn't do this to spite you, that would be a bad business practice.