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

[AVfile]

Trying to take a step back from the tint issue and look at the big picture...

Regardless of the color choices by the studio, I think all their digital tinkering has reduced the dynamic range of the EE picture. Even the "tint corrected" versions of the EE pics people have posted barely come close to the dynamic range of the original TE picture (with all its warts). It think this is more important than the actual color choices.

It reminds of when they try to remaster old jazz recordings on CD and they end up sounding horribly compressed, while the original 60-year old vinyl (with all its warts) retains all the dynamics.

This is just my subjective 1000' view of what I see.

[raygendreau]

"Thanks as always for posting! That goes for everyone, whether you consider the tint a non-issue (a number of you), an objective tech detail but a subjective non-issue (most of you seem to fall in this category), an objective element that is occasionally a bit distracting (another chunk of you fall here) or a complete distraction and a deal-breaker (a small minority of you). For the record, I'm somewhere between group 2 and 3. The tint is an objective element that is occasionally a bit distracting. To me personally, of course"

If the "objectivists" will accept the "subjectivists" statements that they "see" no green tint or are not bothered by it as subjective "fact" that does not require repetitive counseling that the "tint is there" the interchange would be less abrasive. The fact that the "subjectivists" mention the phrase "green tint" implies that they have read comments about it "objectively" being there.

[Adam.C]

Originally Posted by MEB

On my set, the green tint was extremely obvious. I did not have to pause the movie to see or notice the green tint. I am 100% confident I would have noticed it even if this controversy never came to light in advance of the release. And, BTW, my wife noticed it too.

On my JVC set, with my eyes, there is an ugly green tint. Period. I am happy for those of you that don't see it. I wish I didn't see it. Really I do.

Even with the green tint, I was able to enjoy the movie. It was my first time seeing the extended edition footage.

And, as I mentioned earlier, the thing that pulled me out of enjoying the movie MORE than the green tint was the excessive darkness of many scenes.

Mark

Well there is the problem, you have a JVC TV

[42041]

Originally Posted by Troy73

I believe we have two different camps here on the thread. The ones who don't own the release yet and are concerned about the color issue. The ones who do own this release, like myself, and now know there is no issue. Neither side will yield to the other. The only action to take at this point is to either get the set and see for yourself or borrow/rent it from someone.

I would not make it so black and white. It's possible to think a transfer looks very good or great, and still has some relatively minor issues. Many people who have seen it are not 100% satisfied with it either. Is it worth histrionics and name-calling? Absolutely not, based on what I've seen, but I don't think reasonable discussion of real or perceived issues is misplaced on a forum like this.

People only have the shoddy old TE release and the DVDs to compare it to, after all, making it difficult to know how much could be gained visually by losing the subtle color cast or bumping up the brightness and retaining everything else about the transfer. I'm sure I'm not the only person to ever upgrade a pair of speakers I thought was pretty darn great with a fancier model, and after listening to them for a week, wondering how I ever liked the old ones

[raygendreau]

If you accept the Warner Home Video PR statement at face value, doesn't that render and screen shot comparisons between the new FOTR EE and the prior TE and DVD versions irrelevant? Couldn't the earlier TE and DVD now be considered "flawed" since they did not reflect the vision of the filmaker?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by 42041

I would not make it so black and white. It's possible to think a transfer looks very good or great, and still has some relatively minor issues. Many people who have seen it are not 100% satisfied with it either. Is it worth histrionics and name-calling? Absolutely not, based on what I've seen, but I don't think reasonable discussion of real or perceived issues is misplaced on a forum like this.

I agree. You just said it much more succinctly than I did

Originally Posted by raygendreau

If the "objectivists" will accept the "subjectivists" statements that they "see" no green tint or are not bothered by it as subjective "fact" that does not require repetitive counseling that the "tint is there" the interchange would be less abrasive. The fact that the "subjectivists" mention the phrase "green tint" implies that they have read comments about it "objectively" being there.

I agree, and I will say most people are handling the distinction perfectly, respectfully and in stride

Every now and then someone reiterates the misunderstanding that it "doesn't exist." Those statements should be civilly corrected by objectivists, while admitting the tint isn't readily apparent to many. Every now and then someone spreads misinformation that the tint "turns everything green." Those kinds of statements should be corrected by subjectivists, while admitting the tint is there, just not readily apparent to many. It's maddeningly repetitive, but the misunderstandings that abound are as well. Unfortunately, the mere mention of the words "green tint" isn't enough in some cases. Over the last several pages, a few have made statements along the lines of "the green tint isn't there. People are insane!" Others have said, "how can people not see the tint. People are blind!" Both of those statements definitely need some loving correction and a reminder that we can all co-exist, differing opinions and all

[Lope de Aguirre]

I will watch the whole FOTR this weekend and only watched a couple of minutes of the beginning yet and jumped threw the movie.

I was never that concerned about the fuss with the green tint (but I followed the discussion cause I too wanted - and still want - to know if it's intentional or a mistake).

After testing the BDs on my TV I am more dissapointed and concerned than before.
It really feels unnecesary dark and the greenish Isengard interior really looks inferior to the blue colour of the TE in my eyes.

[ReverendSlim]

I was watching The Two Towers last night and the picture kept progressively getting darker and more green... and I was thinking, "What's the big deal about Fellowship? This movie looks that way too! TEH INTERNETS LIE!"

Of course, at the end of disc 1, I saw the white Oppo logo pop up on my screen and realized that the darkness I was seeing was actually because the bulb in my Epson 8500UB was getting ready to blow.

New bulb's on the way from Epson... but for a while there, I was concerned!

[EVOLVIST]

Originally Posted by AVfile

Trying to take a step back from the tint issue and look at the big picture...

Regardless of the color choices by the studio, I think all their digital tinkering has reduced the dynamic range of the EE picture. Even the "tint corrected" versions of the EE pics people have posted barely come close to the dynamic range of the original TE picture (with all its warts). It think this is more important than the actual color choices.

It reminds of when they try to remaster old jazz recordings on CD and they end up sounding horribly compressed, while the original 60-year old vinyl (with all its warts) retains all the dynamics.

This is just my subjective 1000' view of what I see.

I see what you're saying. However, I can't see that I agree since these films have been heavily tinkered with since 2001, in all its permutations. Digital tinkering is what gave these films their fantasy coloring since day-one - their whole feel, their whole lives. Therefore, if digital changes have adversely affected the analog film, then it would have removed the dynamic range out of the film at their inceptions.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I agree. You just said it much more succinctly than I did



I agree, and I will say most people are handling the distinction perfectly, respectfully and in stride

Every now and then someone reiterates the misunderstanding that it "doesn't exist." Those statements should be civilly corrected by objectivists, while admitting the tint isn't readily apparent to many. Every now and then someone spreads misinformation that the tint "turns everything green." Those kinds of statements should be corrected by subjectivists, while admitting the tint is there, just not readily apparent to many. It's maddeningly repetitive, but the misunderstandings that abound are as well. Unfortunately, the mere mention of the words "green tint" isn't enough in some cases. Over the last several pages, a few have made statements along the lines of "the green tint isn't there. People are insane!" Others have said, "how can people not see the tint. People are blind!" Both of those statements definitely need some loving correction and a reminder that we can all co-exist, differing opinions and all

That's where we disagree Ken. Those statement are intentionally provocative and should not be responded to, as hard as that may be. The people that are making those statements are aware that "objectively", the "tint is there"

[BleedingEdge]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Ok, the first thing I wanted to figure out was the exact color of the tint.

...

Thoughts?

Regardless of the intentions of the coloring, I appreciate your attempt at reverse engineering the application of the new color scheme.

When I first saw a comparison between the two transfers, I thought "wow, that's really sharp and detailed", but I was struck with the odd feeling that something was off. My first reaction wasn't "it's green!", it was "where's the red?" (comes with the territory of this stuff). Once you brought this up, it gave me the idea to load some comparison images into my own coloring software. Specifically, I used the frame of Gandalf in front of snow to test. Using the theatrical edition, the histograms for each color look as I would expect for something ungraded (or prepared for grading), spread across the entire luma range and each RGB channel having reletively identical gain. Pulling the extended edition frame into the software, what I noticed straight off was about a 20% reduction in gain for all three colors, and the red pedastal was cut as to where the entire bottom of the histogram was clipped. The blue channel gain was reduced slightly compared to the red and green channels, but not clipped. It also appears to my eye that the red channel highlights (and only the red channel) have been clipped at the top end. That would explain the loss of detail that some are seeing, and also the Cyan tinge (yes, the vectorscope is clearly showing Cyan, not Green, go figure) in the overexposed areas.

Any attempts to reverse this for your own use are futile, since so much of the red is gone. However, adjusting each of the channels so that they are spread across the full luma range results in a somewhat pleasing looking image.

For fun, I looked at a few more images. Pretty much all of them are pushing toward Cyan on the vectorscope compared to the theatricals (even the Balrog shot, ever so slightly). The amount, however, is not linear. So, it's not appearing to me, based on my limited knowledge, that any blanket tint has been applied. It seems like it was added as a kind-of theme (unless there was some kind of multiply function or inverse exponential formula being used). All of the provided shots of TTT lean blue on the vectorscope, and ROTK leans ever-so-slightly red (might just be from the higher resolution and reduced compression).

On a side note, I find it peculiar that nobody appears to have mentioned anywhere whether or not Glamdring's glow (or lack thereof) has been corrected. That always bothered me and this seems like it would have been an appropriate time to correct it, considering that it was an important part of The Hobbit.

[FrodoBagginz]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

If you accept the Warner Home Video PR statement at face value, doesn't that render and screen shot comparisons between the new FOTR EE and the prior TE and DVD versions irrelevant? Couldn't the earlier TE and DVD now be considered "flawed" since they did not reflect the vision of the filmaker?

Well the Theatrical versions are Peter Jackson's preferred versions as far as I know so I would assume that the TE color timing is what PJ prefers on the Theatrical. Perhaps he has a different vision for the EE so he adds the green tint for some reason and makes other color changes.

But the question then comes up about the EE DVDs vs the Blu-Rays. Maybe the DVDs colors were what he originally wanted but decided to change his mind for the Blu-Rays. Or maybe he just couldn't do what he wanted with the color timing on the DVDs at that time for whatever reason and now for the Blu-Rays he finished what he wanted.

But I am just making guesses. Only Peter Jackson knows for sure what his intent is. I, personally, am willing to except this green tint thing just fine BUT I would also like PJ to explain why he did it and what the purpose is (and I am sure many of us want this explanation as well).

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by FrodoBagginz

Well the Theatrical versions are Peter Jackson's preferred versions as far as I know so I would assume that the TE color timing is what PJ prefers on the Theatrical. Perhaps he has a different vision for the EE so he adds the green tint for some reason and makes other color changes.

But the question then comes up about the EE DVDs vs the Blu-Rays. Maybe the DVDs colors were what he originally wanted but decided to change his mind for the Blu-Rays. Or maybe he just couldn't do what he wanted with the color timing on the DVDs at that time for whatever reason and now for the Blu-Rays he finished what he wanted.

But I am just making guesses. Only Peter Jackson knows for sure what his intent is. I, personally, am willing to except this green tint thing just fine BUT I would also like PJ to explain why he did it and what the purpose is (and I am sure many of us want this explanation as well).

Seems to me, pending future statements from Jackson, all we have to determine his original objective for the tone of the film is the 2001 regrading documentary that has been posted numerous times, so I won't do it again.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by AVfile

Trying to take a step back from the tint issue and look at the big picture...

Regardless of the color choices by the studio, I think all their digital tinkering has reduced the dynamic range of the EE picture. Even the "tint corrected" versions of the EE pics people have posted barely come close to the dynamic range of the original TE picture (with all its warts). It think this is more important than the actual color choices.

It reminds of when they try to remaster old jazz recordings on CD and they end up sounding horribly compressed, while the original 60-year old vinyl (with all its warts) retains all the dynamics.

This is just my subjective 1000' view of what I see.

That is well said. If you look at the EE BD and compare it to the TE BD, you can see that a lot of detail in Aragorn's hair and clothing has been lost due to the contrast and brightness changes, and probably partially due to the tinting. It reminds me of the Special Edition color timing changes of Star Wars- the new version looks more slick and high-contrast, but far less natural and a lot of fine detail is lost in the shadows.

[rocinante]

Jackson has said he does prefer the theatrical versions, so he must have been fine with those BDs when they were released.

Now we get the versions he doesnt even think are the best, and they dont look as good.

Something tells me he wasnt really involved in this since he's busy with Hobbit so this was the result.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by rocinante

Jackson has said he does prefer the theatrical versions, so he must have been fine with those BDs when they were released.

Now we get the versions he doesnt even think are the best, and they dont look as good.

Something tells me he wasnt really involved in this since he's busy with Hobbit so this was the result.

Is your opinion on saying they don't look as good based on seeing the discs yourself and coming to that conclusion?

Or is your opinion based on these horribly misleading screenshots that do not come close to accurately conveying how they look in motion? Robert Harris made a comment on HTF regarding this that I 100% agree with. I am not going to repeat it here, because it would be seen as flamebait.

Is you are in the latter camp then I will politely suggest that you see the discs either by renting, borrowing or buying and judge for yourself, because I am 100% confident you will end up what wondering what the fuss was all about when you actually do the same them for yourself.

If you are in the former camp then all I can say is that is the majority of the people who have these discs respectfully disagree with you.

Please dont take this post as insulting, but I am just saying that I hope you are forming your opinion on the discs themselves and not the screenshots.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Question for those with a 7.1 receiver and setup. I was watching part 1 last night, and all of my speaker lights were on my receiver display, except the Surround Back Left and Right speakers. I think every other movie I own, regardless of sound mix, all speakers are displayed on my receiver screen. But for this movie, those weren't shown. Even though all 7 of my speakers, and sub, are hooked up.

The "SB" was lit up, but the boxes showing SBL and SBR were not. However, I had put in Wedding Crashers later that evening, and every speaker was displayed.

This post got buried quickly, likely due to the words "green tint" not being present. But can anyone shed some light on the above?

[shamus]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

This post got buried quickly, likely due to the words "green tint" not being present. But can anyone shed some light on the above?

what reciever are you using? Some you have to switch it to dolby iix and it will remember after that. Youve likely never played a Dts master 6.1 yet?

[rocinante]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Is your opinion on saying they don't look as good based on seeing the discs yourself and coming to that conclusion?

Or is your opinion based on these horribly misleading screenshots that do not come close to accurately conveying how they look in motion? Robert Harris made a comment on HTF regarding this that I 100% agree with. I am not going to repeat it here, because it would be seen as flamebait.

Is you are in the latter camp then I will politely suggest that you see the discs either by renting, borrowing or buying and judge for yourself, because I am 100% confident you will end up what wondering what the fuss was all about when you actually do the same them for yourself.

If you are in the former camp then all I can say is that is the majority of the people who have these discs respectfully disagree with you.

Please dont take this post as insulting, but I am just saying that I hope you are forming your opinion on the discs themselves and not the screenshots.

Only watched fellowship so far. I can see the same exact problems with it that everyone here is mentioning, that dont exist in the theatrical versions which I f-ing sold prior to preorder this.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by rocinante

Only watched fellowship so far. I can see the same exact problems with it that everyone here is mentioning, that dont exist in the theatrical versions which I f-ing sold prior to preorder this.

Im sorry to read that. If you are really bothered you can probably put the EE set on ebay and make back some of your money to rebuy the theatricals.

Maybe you can share your home theater setup and someone like Ken Brown can provide advice for alternate calibration that could make it more visually pleasing.