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

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Peter Jackson regraded the film. That is all that has been confirmed. Then one of two things happened. He either intentionally added a consistent green/cyan tint to the entire image or an error occurred in which one was added later in the process.

Much of the confusion stems from people thinking the entire image will appear green-ish. A slight green/cyan tint doesn't make everything look green, it simply alters every hue that appears on screen. In some shots it is obvious, in others it is not. But it is always there, always affecting the colors present on the screen.

However, whether the image looks great or not isn't the issue. It looks quite good, and boasts many improvements. (All of which trace back to Warner starting from the original 2K source, not Jackson's aesthetic re-grade.) The issue is whether the image as it appears is what Jackson intended. If it is, all he needs to do is say, "hey guys, the tint you've made me well aware of? It's all good. That's what I want."

This really isn't about whiny fans. It's just about getting the transfer Jackson wants them to have into their hands. If the post-color-grade green/cyan tint is intentional, he only needs clarify that it was, indeed, an intentional move made or approved by himself or Lesnie. If the tint is the product of an error, though, it deserves to be corrected. All signs at the moment point toward it being an error, and those signs are mounting. No objective evidence has emerged that indicates the tint is intentional. There have been subjective reports that "it isn't there," which is inaccurate. Or subjective reports that amount to, "I just don't see it," which is completely valid. Still not objective evidence, but a valid opinion.

That said, it's been shown, time and time again by objective analysis, that a consistent green/cyan tint does exist, and that it presides over the entire film.

Again, it very well could be an intentional blanket-tint. It would be unlike anything Jackson has ever done to any of his LOTR films, theatrical or extended, but it very well could be intentional. The likelihood that is, though, is decreasing by the day. Jackson's silence is the most telling, but a variety of other signs point toward an error.

I'm honestly not interested in how slight an error it is. No one should care whether a production error is minor or major. It's much simpler than that: if there is an error, I would hope fans get the discs Peter Jackson wanted to put in their hands. Replacement programs have been instituted by Disney, Paramount, Sony and, yes, Warner for far, far, far less. (And no, I'm not saying every production problem has been addressed in the past, or that every issue that's been uncovered has earned a replacement program.)

To recap:

1) A slight consistent green/cyan tint is there, and it does preside over the whole of the film. No, everything doesn't look green. A slight green tint wouldn't make everything look green. Blues are still quite blue, reds are still reasonably red. They just wouldn't be as blue or as red as Jackson intended them to be. (If it were an error.)

2) The tint has been objectively verified again and again, and not one piece of objective evidence has surfaced that suggests the green/cyan tint isn't there, and isn't at play in the entire film. Subjective opinions have cropped up. But no objective evidence.

3) The debate is whether the tint is bothersome, not whether it exists. Whether Jackson intended it to exist will only be verified by a confirmation from Jackson himself or a Warner replacement program. I strongly suspect we'll see one or the other in the next two to three weeks.

Until Jackson or Warner speaks to the tint, these dismissals and personal attacks only decrease the value of this thread. Besides, typing the same fact rundown every ten or fifteen pages is making my fingers hurt. I'll have to start copy-pasting

Well said Ken.

And to add one thing is that IF this was his intent, his intent also ws to view the BD itself and not pull screen shots out of context that would be percieved differently than watching the BD itself.

[MEB]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Again, a slight consistent green/cyan tint is there, and it does preside over the whole of the film. No, everything doesn't look green. A slight green tint wouldn't make everything look green. Blues are still quite blue, reds are still reasonably red. They just wouldn't be as blue or as red as Jackson intended them to be. (If it were an error.)

The tint has been objectively verified again and again, and not one piece of objective evidence has surfaced that suggests the green/cyan tint isn't there, and isn't at play in the entire film. Subjective opinions have cropped up. But no objective evidence.

The debate is whether the tint is bothersome, not whether it exists. Whether Jackson intended it to exist will only be verified by a confirmation from Jackson himself or a Warner replacement program. I strongly suspect we'll see one or the other in the next two to three weeks.

Until then, let's do away with the dismissals and personal attacks. It only decreases the value of this thread. Typing the same thing over and over is making my fingers hurt

Ken is 100% correct. I am in FULL agreement with his assessment. There is a big big BIG difference between:

A) A green/cyan tint has been applied to the entire movie.

B) Every scene looks green.

No rational person is remotely suggesting that it is B. Conversely, anyone that takes the time to study how subtle color changes can affect some colors more than others has no trouble understanding A.

I will freely admit that there are many scenes (screenshots and video that I've seen) where the image quality on the EE version kicks butt on the TE version. Including color. All of those scenes were/are impacted to some degree by the addition of the green/cyan tint. You won't necessarily SEE a green/cyan tint in the scene, it will just look different than the TE. But when you start measuring colors in the scene you quickly realize that one of the changes is the addition of more green/cyan.

Example: If skin tones were a bit too magenta in the TE version (and in many places they were), adding some green/cyan to the image will tone the magenta down. If you go too far, the skin tones start looking too pale and can end up bordering on an ashen look. Not good. I see both examples in some of the screen shots I've viewed. Natural skin tones that pass muster and skin tones that really make the person look like they are already dead (when they aren't supposed to be).

Bottom line: It would be truthful to say that some of the improvements to the look of many scenes in FOTR EE is directly a result of the addition of some cyan/green (vs. the TE version).

Unfortunately, there are also many scenes that suffer horribly due to the addition of the green/cyan tint. If only the tint had been applied appropriately, instead of from one end of the movie to the other.

Mark

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Thanks again Ken. That post should be on top of each page if this thread.

There's a forum I used to visit that each new post will be under the first post while older posts will be pushed behind. That way the first post will always be visible.

It is a great post indeed, a great synopsis .

[CRD13NYC]

Has anybody who lives in NYC and ordered from amazon had their pre-order ship yet?

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

While that is true, there is not one iota of new content in this release despite it being confirmed there are special features yet to be released. Don't think for a second that the main motivating factor for WHV recycling the same exact DVDs found in the original set isn't to save costs and increase the price (thus maximizing profits). They're a business, afterall. That's what businesses do. But as consumers we can certainly call them out on it.

I have never heard of any new special features that are being held back. Would you happen to have a link I can read?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I have never heard of any new special features that are being held back. Would you happen to have a link I can read?

I don't have a link, but it is discussed in the EE bonus features. There were scenes that were shot for the movie that got left out. I would LOVE to see them!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Jackson and Lesnie re-graded the film. That has been confirmed. Then one of two things happened. They either intentionally added a consistent green/cyan tint to the entire image they re-graded or an error occurred in which a green/cyan tint was inadvertently added later in the process.

Much of the confusion and conflicting subjective analyses/opinions stem from people mistakenly assuming the entire image will appear green-ish. A slight green/cyan tint wouldn't and doesn't make everything look green; it simply alters every hue that appears on screen. In some FOTR shots, the tint is obvious. In others it is not. That doesn't mean it isn't there. It is always there, always affecting the colors present on the screen. The objective evidence of a prevailing tint is irrefutable.

However, whether the image looks great or not isn't the issue. It looks quite good, and boasts many improvements. (All of which trace back to Warner starting from the original 2K source, not Jackson's aesthetic re-grade.) The issue is whether the image as it appears is what Jackson intended. If it is, all he needs to do is say, "hey guys, the tint you've made me well aware of? It's all good. That's what I want." He's had two weeks to do so as the controversy has burned hotter and hotter. He has not. That says something. Jackson answers his fans all the time, addresses his filmmaking techniques constantly. Silence on this sort of topic shouldn't be taken lightly, and indicates something other than intention.

As I see it, this really isn't about whiny fans. It's just about getting the transfer Jackson wants FOTR fans to have into their hands. If the post-color-grade green/cyan tint is intentional, he only needs clarify that it was, indeed, an intentional move made or approved by himself or Lesnie. If the tint is the product of an error, though, it deserves to be corrected. All signs at the moment point toward it being an error, and those signs are mounting. No objective evidence has emerged that indicates the tint is intentional. There have been subjective reports that "it isn't there," which is inaccurate. Or subjective reports that amount to, "I just don't see it," which is completely valid. Still not objective evidence, but a valid opinion.

Again, it's been shown, time and time again by objective analysis, that a consistent green/cyan tint does exist, and that it presides over the entire film. And again, it very well could be an intentional blanket-tint. It would be unlike anything Jackson has ever done to any of his LOTR films, theatrical or extended... but it very well could be intentional. The likelihood that is, though, decreases by the day. Jackson's silence is the most telling, but a variety of other signs point toward an error.

I'm honestly not interested in how slight any transfer error is. No one should care whether a production error is minor or major. It's much simpler than that: if there is an error, I would hope fans try to get the discs Peter Jackson wanted to put in their hands. Civilly, of course. Replacement programs have been instituted by Disney, Paramount, Sony and, yes, Warner for far, far, far less. (And no, I'm not saying every production problem has been addressed in the past, or that every issue that's been uncovered has earned a replacement program.)

Thanks Ken. I feel the same way at this point from what I have seen/read which is that all signs point to this being an error. If it is an error, I dont care how my eyes adjust while watching the actual film or how slight it may appear.....the bottom line is its an error (if it actually is) and it needs to be fixed. It is good to hear this coming from you though since you have spent so much time with the disc and it just reinforces my perceptions up to this point (which of course I wont finalize until I actually see the disc, but I have very little hope at this point all things considered).

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Scooter1836

Well said Ken.

And to add one thing is that IF this was his intent, his intent also was to view the BD itself and not pull screen shots out of context that would be percieved differently than watching the BD itself.

Oh yes, definitely. If the tint is intentional, I wouldn't be upset so much as I would suddenly be incredibly curious. I would want to know why he and Lesnie made the choice they did; whether it was purely aesthetic or in conjunction with the look of the Hobbit films. I'd also be curious as to why they didn't make similar changes to TTT and ROTK, particularly in regards to the identical shots from FOTR that appear later in the trilogy. I wouldn't do so to argue the merit of the tint, mind you, but simply because I've trusted Jackson's vision for this franchise for so long. I'd want to hear his explanation and then view the tinted FOTR again, in conjunction with his comments.

That's why so much of this discussion hinges on an explanation from Jackson or Warner. At this point, it's dizzying

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Jackson's silence is the most telling, but a variety of other signs point toward an error.

Would you be able to expound upon this? Is there something you know about this that we don't, or am I just reading too much into that?
Thanky!

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I have never heard of any new special features that are being held back. Would you happen to have a link I can read?

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...dmp/index.html

"Our idea was to think and plan ahead, and actually set aside some of our best ideas and materials specifically for those future releases. In other words, studios are going to probably release a film on video iteratively anyway. Given that's an immutable fact, if you're going to ask the consumers to buy the title again - why not plan ahead to make it a real event with brand new, compelling content? As opposed to being left with having to scrape together meager bonus materials on a future re-release of a title.

Besides, we didn't even have the room to fit everything on the original releases anyway. Truth be told, even with the six Appendices discs on the original Extended Edition DVDs, which we packed to capacity with content, we knew there would be a lot of material we just could not fit onto the original DVDs. So we purposefully held back some of the best stuff for later use. Every idea we had, Peter vetted and was placed into one of two categories: 1) Stuff to put it on the Extended Edition DVDs - or 2) Stuff saved for the HD Box Set."

[Red Pill 101]

Originally Posted by CRD13NYC

Has anybody who lives in NYC and ordered from amazon had their pre-order ship yet?

I'm the same time zone as you. Typically I'll get an email saying my pre-orders have shipped by Saturday. Still nothing, though. However, I have not yet got a shipping notice for Sucker Punch either. Both pre-ordered with Amazon Prime.

[Red Pill 101]

It seems many of you here are far-more knowledgeable than I regarding the specific scenes. I have not watched these films in years...

I will not actually get around to watching these in there entirety for a week or two.

Can anyone please point me in the right direction for some of the specific scenes in question? The screen of the ring in the snow, or any others that are debatable screen shots? I would like to at least skim through some scenes once I receive the discs.

A time-stamp, or chapter is much appreciated.

Thanks much.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

That's why so much of this discussion hinges on an explanation from Jackson or Warner. At this point, it's dizzying

I agree. I just hope if it was intentional, Jackson doesn't get likened to Lucas in revisionist film making disputes. And yes I know there's a big difference between "changing colors" as opposed to "adding and removing characters and effects".

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Would you be able to expound upon this? Is there something you know about this that we don't, or am I just reading too much into that?
Thanky!

Nothing you probably haven't already gathered from my various posts. Jackson's silence is a big sign, and Warner's current "no comment" stance is another. If the tint was intentional, it seems both parties would be racing to make that point clear.

Then there's the domestic price drops and international listing oddities/delays/cancellations that have cropped up in the last few days, the fact that the tinting isn't scene-specific or indicative of a selective application, the fact that Bill Hunt suddenly isn't reporting any more confirmations or comments from Lesnie (in the beginning of all this, Mr. Hunt was the most adamant that Lesnie had approved the transfer exactly as it appears; since then, he's been as quiet as Jackson, all due respect), the fact that Jackson has posted on his Facebook page about other topics but avoided the tint question altogether, the fact that as-yet-irrefuted screenshot comparisons and photoshop color analyses continue to stack up by the hour, the fact that a single pixel of pure white doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the course of the film, the fact that identical shots in FOTR and TTT display subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the specific hues that appear, the fact that white title letters and fade-to-whites exhibit a slight green tint (the same tint that graces every frame of the film), the fact that no screenshots have been posted which exhibit any measure of pure white in the image (I can find pure white in TTT and ROTK in seconds), the fact that similar tints haven't been applied to TTT and ROTK (even though Jackson's theatrical introductions confirm they were remastered), and the fact that many of the specific color palettes Jackson mentions in his commentaries and documentaries have been altered. If it's intentional, he didn't just adjust the hues of a scene or two, he adjusted the hue of the entire film. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I left out quite a few.

I honestly started this whole process leaning toward the notion that the tint must be intentional. But it seems every day there have been new pieces of mounting evidence that point to an error. Not one piece of evidence has emerged in the last few weeks -- well, other than subjective opinions -- that suggest the tint is intentional. Not one. In fact, every time I've written "not one," no one has corrected me. (That's a genuine invitation to offer up objective evidence of the tint being intentional or non-existent on some pressing of the disc, not some defiant challenge of a someone refusing to consider all angles. I'd be happy to have something to mull over other than another sign that points toward a problem.)

Anywho, hope that helps clarify. The evidence is overwhelming, in my humble opinion. Considering everything that has come to light in the last few weeks, it's hard to deny the evidence is very, very one-sided. The only objective evidence that hints at the possibility that the tint may be intentional is a months-old statement from Jackson and Lesnie indicating intentional color-grading changes would grace the new transfer. Seriously gents, that's the only objective evidence that counters the suggestion that it's an error. A vague months-old statement.

Of course, all it would take to obliterate even the most overwhelming evidence is one simple sentence from Peter Jackson. A current clarification, a new statement, a "rest easy, my babies. It's all as I intended." Which brings us back to the beginning: Jackson's silence is the biggest sign.

[Red Pill 101]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Nothing you probably haven't already read about. Jackson's silence is a big sign, and Warner's current "no comment" stance is another. If it was intentional, it seems both parties would be racing to make that point clear.

Then there's the domestic price drops and international listing oddities/delays/cancellations that have cropped up in the last few days, the fact that the tinting isn't scene-specific or indicative of a selective application, the fact that Bill Hunt suddenly isn't reporting any more confirmations or comments from Lesnie (in the beginning of all this, Mr. Hunt was the most adamant that Lesnie had approved the transfer exactly as it appears; since then, he's been as quiet as Jackson, all due respect), the fact that Jackson has posted on his Facebook page about other topics but avoided the tint question altogether, the as-yet-irrefuted screenshot comparisons and photoshop color analyses, the fact that a single pixel of pure white doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the course of the film, the fact that identical shots in FOTR and TTT display subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the specific hues that appear, the fact that white title letters and fade-to-whites exhibit a slight green tint (the same tint that graces every frame of the film), the fact that no screenshots have been posted which exhibit any measure of pure white in the image (I can find pure white in TTT and ROTK in seconds), the fact that similar tints haven't been applied to TTT and ROTK (even though Jackson's theatrical introductions confirm they were remastered), and the fact that many of the specific color palettes Jackson mentions in his commentaries and documentaries have been altered. If it's intentional, he didn't just adjust the hues of a scene or two, he adjusted the hue of the entire film. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I left out quite a few.

I honestly started this whole process leaning toward the notion that the tint must be intentional. But it seems every day there have been new pieces of mounting evidence that point to an error. Not one piece of evidence has emerged in the last few weeks -- well, other than subjective opinions -- that suggest the tint is intentional. Not one. In fact, every time I've written "not one," no one has corrected me. (That's a genuine invitation to offer up objective evidence of the tint being intentional, not a challenge.)

Anywho, hope that helps clarify. The evidence is overwhelming, in my humble opinion. Considering everything that has come to light in the last few weeks, it's hard to deny the evidence is very, very one-sided.

Of course, all it would take to counterbalance the most overwhelming evidence is one simple sentence from Peter Jackson. Which brings us back to the beginning: Jackson's silence is the biggest sign.

VERY WELL WRITTEN! I just hope someone more important and/or with more authority than me will read it. (EDIT: this is still my original post. In my opinion, it sounds like it may have a negative connotation to it--that's not the intention. I guess I'm just frustrated that we have not heard a confirmation of approval or mistake yet.)

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I've left my opinions aside until I have my discs in-hand. I would like to see us all be happy with our purchase.

[frogmort]

Wow, I thought you might say "Nothing that hasn't been mentioned". Now that's a thorough post!
Although I knew most of the things you mentioned, it really blows my mind to actually see them all listed together like that. It is quite a bit to take in.

So how much do I owe you? You deserve a raise. Maybe I should just change my signature to say "Thanks again Ken!". I'll bet you would prefer the raise though.

[MEB]

A fellow over on AVS measured the color of Saruman's hair using the HDTV version of FOTR EE. He found that Saruman's hair had a blue tint. The suggestion being, how can some of us complain about a green/teal tint when, in fact, the previous versions had a tint of their own.

Here's my response to him:

Saruman's hair should be grey. Even people that appear to have pure white hair really have hair that is just a very light grey. I've never met a person that has "pure" white hair.

So, let's carry your interesting experiment a little farther....

I opened the HDTV version of the FOTR EE screen shot in Photoshop and measured Saruman's hair at the spot indicated by the red arrow (below). I measured at what appears to be a "white" spot, rather than a bit farther down in the darker area where I think you measured. This is the results. The "new" color swatch is the color that was measured ("current" is pure white):




Analysis: A grey color in a blue color space (a grey that is tinted blue).

Earlier today, I measured Saruman's hair in exactly the same spot using the Blu-ray version of the FOTR EE screen shot. This is the color that I measured:




Analysis: A grey color in a green (teal) color space (a grey that is tinted green/teal).


So, let's see how these two color swatches compare (literally) side by side. In this next Photoshop color picker window, the color in the "new" swatch is the green/teal tinted grey that I measured from the Blu-ray screen shot. The color in the "current" swatch is the blue tinted grey I measured from the HDTV screen shot.




Now, remembering that it is natural for hair to look grey, which one of those two swatches looks closer to grey to you?

Obviously, the HDTV version is tinted slightly blue. But blue is a MUCH more natural looking tint, particularly for hair. I'm sure you've heard the term "blue hair". Have you ever heard someone called "green hair"?

In addition, the amount of blue tint in the HDTV version is substantially lower than the amount of green/teal tint in the Blu-ray version. Look again at the color picker window for each color. The little circle in the middle of the color field is the color that was measured. Inside that color field, the X axis (left to right) is the amount of color being applied. The closer that little circle is to the left side of the X axis, the less color has been applied. The blue-tinted swatch looks closer to grey because it IS closer to grey. And, not only does it have less blue color tint (vs. the green one), the blue tint is closer to the top of the Y axis, meaning it is a lighter grey than the green-tinted grey. The blue-tinted HDTV version is CLOSER TO WHITE. That's a FACT.

Bottom line: Just because previous versions had a blue tint doesn't make the new green/teal tint acceptable. There is NOTHING natural about green/teal tinted hair or snow.

Mark

[Witch King of Angmar]

[SleeperAgent]

Well the way I see it, they will either come forward and say it's intentional (to save money now) or say it was a mess up and issue a replacement 2 discs for FOTR.

WB has been good with replacing problems (Matrix Revolutions glitch, Blade Runner press issue) and I think they will make it easy like those two. I really can't see them holding out for months like gladiator/Paramount trying to deny the problem if PJ won't come forward and say that's what he wanted it to look like.

So I'll keep the set that I ordered for now. It's still good to watch the EE's on blu. If they decide to issue replacement's, I'll call em up and get those as well.

I'm glad that all this information is here to help people make their decisions, but I still wanna watch the movies.

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by MEB

Bottom line: Just because previous versions had a blue tint doesn't make the new green/teal tint acceptable. There is NOTHING natural about green/teal tinted hair or snow.

Here is the thing. While that scene always had a blue tint to it, it was applied more selectively and looked more natural.

Let's look at the flames in the candles...

This is from the Theatrical Edition:


This is from the Extended Edition Blu Ray:


As you can see in the Theatrical Edition, even though a blue tint was applied, things like flames that should appear orange WERE orange in the original color timing. In the new color timing, surprise surprise, it is green.