Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

It looks like the EE boxset of LotR will indeed be a 15 disc set. I am VERY happy to hear that the films will be getting a remaster and spread over two discs.

Sorry lazy people, you will have to get off your lazy asses and change the discs.


I still fail to see how its more cost effective to print 9 dvds of extras and have to use bigger packaging to hold all those discs than just putting all the extras on one bluray.

But this is welcome news regardless.

[JediFonger]

just means that it's time to make Blu-Ray changers . welcome back those carousel platters

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I still fail to see how its more cost effective to print 9 dvds of extras and have to use bigger packaging to hold all those discs than just putting all the extras on one bluray.

I'm sure Warner has plenty of those DVD extras disc already replicated, sitting in a warehouse looking for a home.

How is it more cost effective to re-author and replicate a disc specifically for Blu-ray, when they are not needed?

fitprod

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

It looks like the EE boxset of LotR will indeed be a 15 disc set. I am VERY happy to hear that the films will be getting a remaster and spread over two discs.

Sorry lazy people, you will have to get off your lazy asses and change the discs.


I still fail to see how its more cost effective to print 9 dvds of extras and have to use bigger packaging to hold all those discs than just putting all the extras on one bluray.

But this is welcome news regardless.

So we do see eye to eye!
I think this set could have been greatly improved by reducing disc count to 9 and consolidating the extras onto a blu-ray.
That said - the 2 discs for the films will likely be enough to get me to buy when the price is right.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

So we do see eye to eye!
I think this set could have been greatly improved by reducing disc count to 9 and consolidating the extras onto a blu-ray.
That said - the 2 discs for the films will likely be enough to get me to buy when the price is right.

No. You were saying that Warner shouldn't even bother putting extras in the set if they were just gonna be the old DVDs and I felt that they needed to have all previous extras regardless if it was just DVD extras.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by fitprod

I'm sure Warner has plenty of those DVD extras disc already replicated, sitting in a warehouse looking for a home.

How is it more cost effective to re-author and replicate a disc specifically for Blu-ray, when they are not needed?

fitprod

Maybe not as cost effective but certainly not better.

I'll take BD's single substrate construction & scratch protection.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Maybe not as cost effective but certainly not better.

I'll take BD's single substrate construction & scratch protection.

At $85 it should have the extras on a single bluray.

No, spacedog that does NOT mean they should not provide the extras at all. Between having dvds or no extras Ill take the dvds.

Sadly...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I'll take BD's single substrate construction & scratch protection.

And better quality compression and smaller shelf-space footprint, too!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by fitprod

I'm sure Warner has plenty of those DVD extras disc already replicated, sitting in a warehouse looking for a home.

that is my assumption as well.

[Bobby Henderson]

I, too, am pretty happy about Warner Home Video spreading each LOTR installment across 2 BDs and sourcing them from a new master created from the original 2K digital intermediate files. I suspected the previous theatrical cut BDs were sourced from something meant for lower bit rate HD cable broadcast. I have absolutely no problem at all with swapping discs.

My only complaint is it appears none of the movie trailers will be included, much less be remastered in high definition.

So many of the people griping about switching discs and insisting just how much can be fit on a BD-50 are only revealing how much they really don't know at all about video compression, particularly when it comes to preserving image detail.

Uncompressed HD at a standard color depth uses well over a billion bits per second in bandwidth. So even when video bit rates are maximized for the capacity Blu-ray can hold compression levels are already pretty severe. The AVC and VC1 codecs are amazing for what they can do, but it's obvious fine details like cloth weave, skin textures and film grain don't hold up when the bit rate falls below a certain level. When the movie is given enough room on the disc to "breathe" more and more detail is able to hit the screen rather than be lost. Saving Private Ryan is a good example of a movie given the maximum amount of disc real estate and looking better for it. No doubt there were people whining about the extras being placed on a 2nd disc.

I just wish the same 2-disc, high video bit rate treatment had been given to a couple of other recent BD releases, like Kenneth Branagh's version of Hamlet. It seems obvious to me the picture quality of that 4 hour long movie (shot in 65mm) was harmed by being crammed into one BD. Odds are pretty good when Lawrence of Arabia arrives on BD that movie will be spread across 2 discs.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Shand754

Any chance of the Indiana Jones movies this year or will they be held back with a potential fith movie or as we are getting Star Wars this year?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Reply hazy, ask again later

Okay it's later.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by radagast

Okay it's later.

With the Indy flicks, it's always later.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Odds are pretty good when Lawrence of Arabia arrives on BD that movie will be spread across 2 discs.

And that's the glory of the intermission.

[Jack Torrance]

Jeff:

Have you or Bill heard anything about Netflix, Blockbuster etc. carrying 3D blu-ray titles?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

So many of the people griping about switching discs and insisting just how much can be fit on a BD-50 are only revealing how much they really don't know at all about video compression, particularly when it comes to preserving image detail.

Uncompressed HD at a standard color depth uses well over a billion bits per second in bandwidth. So even when video bit rates are maximized for the capacity Blu-ray can hold compression levels are already pretty severe. The AVC and VC1 codecs are amazing for what they can do, but it's obvious fine details like cloth weave, skin textures and film grain don't hold up when the bit rate falls below a certain level. When the movie is given enough room on the disc to "breathe" more and more detail is able to hit the screen rather than be lost.

I mostly blame the format war, people where too busy trying to downplay the lost quality (especially the stupid term "visually lossless" since there is no such thing). But I also blame the stupid tables/graphs that show size vs resolution and "the screen is too far for you to notice"

[NL197]

Haven't been here in a while. Wow, 721 pages and almost 1.2 million page views...isn't it time for an easier-to-reread part 2 of this most-likely historical thread?

On second thought, screw it and go for 1000 pages. Penton's is going to win that race.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Just a quick heads-up to everyone: As many of you know, our own Jeff Kleist is in Japan at the moment. Turns out, the big quake happened as his plane was on final approach, so he didn't feel it. However, he's obviously experienced all the aftershocks and the chaos that ensued in the aftermath. The good news is, I just talked with him by phone a few minutes ago, and he's just fine. He's in Tokyo at the moment, and he'd like everyone to know that things there are slowly returning to normal - it's not quite as apocalyptic as you might think from the news! He's busy taking meetings and conducting his business over there, and he returns about a week and a half from now. He hasn't had time to check in here, but he'll try to do so in a few days. Meanwhile, just know that he's safe and he appreciates all the concern.

Cheers!

Been a few days since I've read through here, thank you for letting us know! Glad to finally hear Jeff is OKAY!

And Thank you Bill for your recent post on The Digital Bits confirming what I had heard about all the bonus content on LotR EE being shot in SD, I knew I wasn't crazy! I had heard it from somewhere before! Just one question though, if anyone can answer it for me, how much more difficult would it be for them to re-encode the Costa Botes docs as anamorphic? Couldn't they at least do that for us? Thank you!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Just one question though, if anyone can answer it for me, how much more difficult would it be for them to re-encode the Costa Botes docs as anamorphic? Couldn't they at least do that for us? Thank you!

They're 4:3- they shouldn't be anamorphic.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

They're 4:3- they shouldn't be anamorphic.

Oh, I haven't seen them, I was told (word of mouth curse I guess) that they were 4:3 Widescreen, so they had the black bars at the top and bottom. Maybe I'm wrong tho. If I am, then I'm completely okay, if they were shot in fullscreen I want them in fullscreen. Cool!

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Oh, I haven't seen them, I was told (word of mouth curse I guess) that they were 4:3 Widescreen, so they had the black bars at the top and bottom. Maybe I'm wrong tho. If I am, then I'm completely okay, if they were shot in fullscreen I want them in fullscreen. Cool!

Anyone think the 9 DVD on the LOTR EE Blu's will just be the same DVDs from the original release EE DVDs? I mean the Appendices, etc.

I hope they are "new"!