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

[sugatam]

I don't understand what the beef is with kingkong's regrades. To me, they look so much better than the original EE that until there is a disk exchange program, I plan to use the regraded versions for my watching. Sorry, a consistent green tint has to be a mistake, in my mind. The fact that the regraded version doesn't match up to the TE, I chalk up to the color grading.

Thank you kingkong for your work on this. Thanks to you, I'll enjoy the EE right away (or maybe in a week - the color correction is slow )

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

From what I can see, I think PJ/Andrew Lesnie had a good reason for making the transfer as dark as it is.

Well....I'd be very curious to hear what that reason is.

[Member-115369]

Received mine ordered from Warner Brothers in that deal a while back.

Nice packaging, I prefer it to the cumbersome fold out packaging from the DVD set.

Looking forward to watching the set, though I probably won't get to any of it until next weekend as I have family visiting. Not worried about the tint etc. as I don't tend to notice stuff like that unless I look at side by side shots online. Just don't care as I just like movies in HD, but I'm not a videophile by any stretch of the imagination.

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

Thank you SO much for this post, I was about to post the same thing, but you said it all a lot nicer than I would have, I mean who cares what you think you can do on your PC with the colors, let's keep it to this release only, not yours.

It's not a case of what I think I can do, its a case of what I have done. I haven't just messed around with the colours on photoshop, I have regraded the entire film to remove the green tint. Can you say the same? I know what the extended edition blu-ray of fotr would look like without the tint and it would look VERY VERY GOOD.

I do agree with you on one thing you said though, this discussion should be concentrated on the actual release with the green tint, not my regraded version. I just used my regraded version to show an example of how the fotr ee blu-ray release would look much better without the green tint. My subjective opinion and that of others on slight differences in the tint of the fade to white is irrelevant to this discussion.

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Well....I'd be very curious to hear what that reason is.

It's difficult to explain without you being able to see the transfer. For example, I boosted the brightness to the same level as the theatrical blu-ray of fotr and found that when gandalf first enters bag end and is looking around Bilbo's living room, gandalf and everything else seemed too bright for being indoors.

Another example that comes to mind is when Frodo and Sam are in the fields and Sam doesn't want to go any further. Boost the brightness to the theatrical blu-ray levels and suddenly the scene seems overexposed, considering that it is almost dusk and there is little sunlight left in the day.

There are many other examples but you'd have to see the transfer for yourself to understand. Perhaps PJ/Andrew Lesnie also changed the brightness of certain scenes as well relative to the theatrical blu-ray so they had to darken the whole film to keep all the scenes correctly exposed.

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

Sockpuppeting is not the solution, kingkong650.

lol, I actually sent sugatam instructions on how to go ahead regrading it a few days back.

Funnily enough, I had to look up Sockpuppeting on google just now, had no idea what it was. You learn something new every day. Cheers Petri.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

Funnily enough, I had to look up Sockpuppeting on google just now, had no idea what it was. You learn something new every day. Cheers Petri.

Heh. His timing and June 2011 registration date were a bit too suspect not to raise the possibility of a sockpuppet. My apologies if that was indeed not the case.

[nightcrawler]

Surely what matters most is actually seeing what the film looks like in motion, with your own eyes, on your own TV/monitor set-up? Analyzing individual screenshots, side-by-side comparisons, and using photo tools to tell you exactly what colour a pixel is can't be healthy for the average movie fan?

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

If the new green tint turns out to be what Jackson intended then I will buy the set and just get used to it,and as many people have pointed out it's not as noticable as some screenshots and internet videos point out,however it's still there and as many people know that when you know something is there you can easily become obsessed looking for it.

I have to say the only really negative thing that has come from going to these forums is that they kind of ruined Star Trek (2009) for me. People say I'm a bleeping idiot that the following is true, but it is : I never noticed the

[Show spoiler]lens flares

until I heard everyone crying about them here. And now it's all I see half the time, LOL.

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

but I do dislike misinformation.

My intent was to inform on how the fotr ee blu-ray looks without that constant green tint, which I believe I was pretty successful at doing in all my image and video comparisons here and on AVS. My intent was not to mislead or misinform, simply to show that simple fact, whatever you may believe.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[sugatam]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

Heh. His timing and June 2011 registration date were a bit too suspect not to raise the possibility of a sockpuppet. My apologies if that was indeed not the case.

Longtime reader, but I had to jump in and thank kingkong in public. Think about it, he's taken the time and effort to give people an option - you don't have the watch the ugly green, and you don't have to wait for a disk swap. There is a similar ffdshow/avisynth color curve floating out on avs, but kingkong has been the only one (to my knowledge) offering detailed instructions for anyone who wants to try his formula on their own copy of the bluray.

For those who don't like some aspect of the regrade he's done, you can mess around with the sliders some more until you get something you like. Getting the fade to go to white, like kongkong has done, is a good enough heuristic for me.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

Fair enough, I saw that might be the case myself when I reread what you'd written and what i'd written. You were questioning whether it was a flaw rather than whether it was actually there. A misunderstanding of your intent on my part. Apologies.

No worries. For the record, I do admire how you're willing to spend countless hours in trying to achieve what you think is preferable. You're passionate about a hobby and there's nothing wrong with that.

May I make a friendly suggestion? Regrade some short scene again but this time don't aim to make the fade to white, but instead to the color I measured off the other releases. This way you wouldn't be forced to push the blue so much, for instance. I would like to hear what you think of the result.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by mredman

Yes because it was the only one that Peter Jackson remastered for this blu ray release

ohh thats ok then i like TTT ROTK more then the FOTR

[lkmg]

seeing those green tinted screen shots really worries me. it is bad if those are done intentionally. else, hope there will be a replacement program to exchange the discs. a few more days to go till the release date. maybe it is not as serious as some members here had mentioned.

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

No worries. For the record, I do admire how you're willing to spend countless hours in trying to achieve what you think is preferable. You're passionate about a hobby and there's nothing wrong with that.

May I make a friendly suggestion? Regrade some short scene again but this time don't aim to make the fade to white, but instead to the color I measured off the other releases. This way you wouldn't be forced to push the blue so much, for instance. I would like to hear what you think of the result.

Well, i'd say that i'm more passionate about this film in particular to be honest. I'd never go through all this hassle for another film, except perhaps the star wars OT when they come out. That thread should make this one look like a storm in a teacup by comparison when those films arrive. fotr ee is easily one of the best films ever made IMHO (among my favourite 3 films).

Sounds interesting, I could certainly regrade a minute segment like I did with my previous video comparisons. Let me know the time code of a scene in the film that you want me to regrade with those new settings and I can give it a shot.

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

Sounds interesting, I could certainly regrade a minute segment like I did with my previous video comparisons. Let me know the time code of a scene in the film that you want me to regrade with those new settings and I can give it a shot.

I think that scene with Saruman might be a good test because your image showed a strong blue push, and grading to this other target could well balance the image out nicely. Edit: I'm more interested in what you think of the result than what others might have to say.

[Andrewtst]

This thread became stupidity already.

Every talk about GREEN TINT.. oh my god! It has been talking more than a week already.

Those GREEN TINT HATER - remember don't watch Green Lantern! It is extremely GREEN EVERYWHERE....

[mport5150]

Originally Posted by nightcrawler

Surely what matters most is actually seeing what the film looks like in motion, with your own eyes, on your own TV/monitor set-up? Analyzing individual screenshots, side-by-side comparisons, and using photo tools to tell you exactly what colour a pixel is can't be healthy for the average movie fan?

Nor should be expected of the average movie fan

I am looking forward to receiving this box set in the mail in the next couple of days and will try to enjoy FOTR, green tint and all

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

I think that scene with Saruman might be a good test because your image showed a strong blue push, and grading to this other target could well balance the image out nicely. Edit: I'm more interested in what you think of the result than what others might have to say.

Fair enough, I'll check out that scene with the new settings and post back asap.

[mport5150]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

That's awesome! THAT should be posted at the top of EVERY thread of EVERY page here on Blu-Ray.com..lol!!

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Romansh

TBH, this looks nothing like white on my display. More like somewhat light gray.

Now my display isn't calibrated; but even then it looks weird. It's still noticeably darker than the forums's text editor - or that the background of the quote box, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Underworld54

It's grey for me too.

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

I see the same gray as well

Disclaimer: This explanation has nothing to do with cyan/green tints intentional or otherwise, but to clarify something on 'video' images/photographic images and computer eyedropper measurements.

In images, there are specular white/reflections and light sources. And there are diffuse whites. Specular reflections are, for example, the shiny reflections you see on metal and car finishes etc. These, and light sources are of course brighter than diffuse whites. Diffuse whites are things like white T-shirts, walls, clouds etc. Hair.

To make this difference in brightness perceivable on a reproduced image, diffuse whites have to be on a lower level on a digital/video image (higher density in a photographic image). The specular reflection highlights and light sources have to be on a higher level (lower density on a photographic image) than the diffuse whites to separate the tones. So in "video" these highlights go near what people call pure white (90~100% RGB 255/255/255) (or in photography, just a little darker (slightly more density) than the transparent film base) while the diffuse whites tend to fall more around 80~90% RGB levels (In photography, more dense (darker) than the specular highlights near the film base).

If this wasn't done all the highlights and light sources would look blown-out (the cheap video look), ending clipped. So that's why when "whites" (the diffuse kind) are measured in video they tend to come out as "light grey". They are light grey referenced to 100% 255/255/255 level pure white, but they are supposed to be that way. When watching the image, due to the overall exposure and referenced to other levels in the image, the diffuse whites, tho technically light grey (which can be measured by an eyedropper tool), in relation to the other darker tones and small specular highlights and light sources (if any) on the image, they are white.