Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

LOTR Trilogy EE's Blu-Rays to be split on 2 disc each.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 10:37:34 AM PDT
Darrin S. says:
Glad to see someone here who actually knows what he's talking about. Keep up the knowledgeable posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:01:15 AM PDT
I'm sure that if we A/B compared any blu-ray disc to their source masters on a high quality projection system, we could easily see visible artifacts; not being able to articulate artifacts without scrutiny or comparison does not mean the artifacts are not visible. Personally, I'd prefer to have all the quality I can get, and if that means splitting a 4 hours movie into 2 discs so they don't have to limit the average bit-rate -- you know, it's called an average because there is variable compression depending on *scene contents* -- to 19mbps, just so they could compete with Dances With Wolves.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:14:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 11:14:57 AM PDT
@David,

<<"One of the reasons, it appears, that LOTRs is on two discs is that there aparently are 2 extra hours of bonus features.">>

Since none of the bonus features are on the BD's themselves (i.e. All special features are on the 9 DVD discs) this is not a relevant argument why the LOTR EE trilogy cannot fit on 3 individual 50 GB BD's.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 11:39:29 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:33 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:42:23 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"Even Avatar 3D has fitted in on unique BD."

- I still don't think you guys are understanding the argument here. You could *fit* 90 hours on a Blu-ray, if you wanted to. That doesn't mean it is going to look pristine.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:43:42 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:33 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:47:39 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
'Avatar 3D' Blu-ray had a higher average bitrate than 'Dances With Wolves' - so whatever argument you are trying to make is irrelevant.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:49:06 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:33 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:52:08 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Because 'Avatar' is shorter than 'Dances with Wolves' and 'Return of the King.'

'Return of the King' is LONGER than 'Dances with Wolves' - which had an average bitrate of 19. That means that if 'Return of the King' were squeezed on one Blu-ray, it would have an average bitrate of around 15. Was your goal to help prove my point? If so, you definitely succeeded. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 11:58:57 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:33 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:01:23 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
I didn't forget the 3D factor. I said 'Avatar 3D' had a HIGHER bitrate than 'Dances with Wolves.' Jeez, do you even understand what we are talking about?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:03:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:34 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 12:06:32 PM PDT
I currently have the theatrical blu ray and it includes DVD special features and digital copy discs. Im sorry, but I don't care about having the DVD copies, that's why I bought the BLU RAY. If nothing else, I'm going to give it time for them to simply release the blu ray discs only without any ad ons, and they'll be cheaper as well.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 12:09:54 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
tarek... LOL WUT

You have no understanding of what we are talking about. You brought up 'Avatar 3D' in the hopes of crushing my argument, meanwhile it has a higher bitrate than 'Dances with Wolves' - making it completely irrelevant. Of course it still looks great - because it still maintains a high bitrate. If you were to drop its bitrate down to 15 (which is probably the bitrate the extended 'Return of the King' would have if you shoved it all on one disc), it would NOT look pristine. That's the point.

People like me enjoy Blu-ray because it enables the movies to look and sound excellent. There is no good reason to settle for a 15mbps 'Return of the King' simply because you don't want to get up and change discs during the intermission.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:14:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:21:00 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
My reasoning is pretty flawless, actually. Anybody that understands the terminology will agree with me. These are the basic arguments here:

"You should be able to fit a 4.5 hour movie on a single Blu-ray!"
- You can. It just won't look as good as it would if you split it on two discs - just like the DVDs.

"But 'Dances with Wolves' looked good and it had an average bitrate of 19mbps!"
- It did look good, but it also had some compression artifacts in the picture. The Blu-ray.com review will tell you the same thing: "Of course, with four hours of material on a 50 GB disc, there are instances where light compression noise can be spotted amid the natural film grain-this is most apparent in darker interior scenes-but never to the point of distraction." Also, 'Dances with Wolves' was not effects-heavy like 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy - extra bitrate helps greatly when it comes to effects-heavy movies. See 'Avatar' on Blu-ray as proof.

"But 'Avatar 3D' fit on one disc and it looked great!"
- It sure did, but it also had a higher bitrate than 'Dances with Wolves' - so it's no wonder that it looked better. If 'Return of the King' were squeezed on one disc, it would have a lower bitrate than 'Dances with Wolves' and 'Avatar 3D' - resulting in inferior video quality.

So, to sum up... You people wanting to cram 'Return of the King' on one disc are out of your minds. Stick with DVDs if you don't care about the quality that Blu-ray has to offer.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:21:42 PM PDT
@ Kenneth
"Since none of the bonus features are on the BD's themselves (i.e. All special features are on the 9 DVD discs) this is not a relevant argument why the LOTR EE trilogy cannot fit on 3 individual 50 GB BD's. "

Seeing as there's at least 4 commentary tracks (and some kind of trailer) per BD....I think you're mistaken!

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-Trilogy-Extended-Edition-Blu-ray-Release-Date-is-June-28/8668

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:32:23 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:33:03 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
LOL you still don't get it.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 12:38:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:38:56 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:47:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 12:48:48 PM PDT
@David,

<<"Seeing as there's at least 4 commentary tracks (and some kind of trailer) per BD....I think you're mistaken!">>

David, do you even own the LOTR EE DVD set? All of the same commentary tracks are on that set too. There is no new content on these BD's period. And the special features are all on separate standard DVD's-the same DVD's that were included in the LOTR EE DVD set.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 12:50:01 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
And just to be clear to other people who actually understand what is being said here:

I am *not* saying that bitrate is the be-all end-all judge on how good a movie looks (the condition of the master and the skill of the encoders are more important). What I am saying is that a 30mbps 'Return of the King' will most certainly look better than a 15mbps 'Return of the King' that has been compressed to all hell just to squeeze it on 1 disc because people are too lazy to get up and switch discs during the intermission. The thought behind "I want the movie on one disc!" either stems from ignorance ("But you should be able to fit a long movie on one disc!!!") or laziness ("I don't want to get up and switch discs!"). Neither of those reasons are good ones. This is Blu-ray, people. Not DVD. If you don't care about quality, then you shouldn't care about this format.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 12:53:26 PM PDT
Darrin S. says:
DeAd MiKe, they just don't get it. All of your posts are correct. I need not add more. You're doing great.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:01:50 PM PDT
@Kenneth

"David, do you even own the LOTR EE DVD set? All of the same commentary tracks are on that set too. There is no new content on these BD's period."

Your assertion was that there was no bonus content on the BDs...while audio tracks of the commentaries might be on the DVDs, they would still have to re-encode the tracks on the new BD masters. I don't know the actual specs for what bitrate they used just as much as you. I do have the DVDs, so I can see that the movie's audiotrack is lossy versions of DD and DTS ES. The BDs are not just "repackaged" DVDs as some are suggesting.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Blu-ray forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  292
Initial post:  Mar 21, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions