Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 9:41:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 9:42:31 AM PDT
<<"Who dares to have a better Tv than you A/v gururu ? not me. ^^">>

Nonsense tarek. According to AV Guru's own post on the 3D thread the French make the best DLP bulbs on the planet!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 9:44:48 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:42 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 10:04:53 AM PDT
A/V guru says:
Buy a bulb and look at the country of origin.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:12:28 AM PDT
"I challenge you to find any difference between a "still" from a 100 GB video vs a 'still" from a 50 GB re encoded one"

You're not going to find a comparable -- and by that I mean the same movie -- still with 2 encodes, and I'm not going to rip a 2 disc blu-ray, re-encode it so it could fit into 1 disc, just so I could compare the stills. This is a ridiculous "challenge" and just a red herring.

You also think there's nothing in between 60" and 150"? Although just for your information, my screen is probably the same size as A/V guru's.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:28:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 11:29:18 AM PDT
Let's do this an easier way, Mr. Graphic Designer.

I sit about 11' away from an approximately 48"x110" screen, so if we estimate that your face is 1' away from your monitor, then the proportion of that is 48/11 or 4.4" over 1080 pixels. That works out to just under 250ppi.

ROTK is 250 minutes, therefore 15,000 seconds, so if we take 24Hz, which is 24 frames per second, there are 360,000 frames. If the movie fills an entire 2 discs, just to simplify the calculation here, then we're talking about 100GB/360,000 = the average size of 1 frame.

...which is... 278KB. (That's it?!)

So you tell me, Mr. Graphics Designer. If you import a 278KB, 1080 pixels x 1920 pixels, JPG at 250ppi into Photoshop. And you save that down to the medium setting and end up with a 139KB JPG.

You don't think you can see any differences?

You must do really low quality, budget, work...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:43:42 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:43 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:50:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 11:51:35 AM PDT
@Jonathan Chang,

You're missing the point, this is the third time that WB/New Line is charging consumers for a product made from the 2003 2K masters (LOTR EE DVD set, LOTR TR BD Set, LOTR EE BD Set).

If you wish to reward this behavior then by all means get this set. I may get it myself if I can purchase it for around $30.00.

All tarek and I are saying is that the decision to retain the split across two BD disks is MONETARY not a technical limitation as the studio would like you to believe.

Mark my words, when LOTR is finally remastered from the original source elements (likely 2012 or later) each film will be on a single BD AND the PQ / AQ will be superior to this 2 disc version. As I said before, it is possible that by then there will be a newer, better codec or perhaps there will be a 100GB commercial BD but rest assured it will be ONE disc per film and it will be PERFECT and Dead Mike will have nothing to say.

Just don't try to sell us a bowl of beans and call it STEAK.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:54:54 AM PDT
Wow, tarek, way to go to completely ignore the substance and get hinged over a technicality. That's about as much as I expected out of you. Compress a 278KB image into a 139KB image and don't see any difference, eh? Thanks Mr. Strawman

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 11:59:08 AM PDT
"All tarek and I are saying is that the decision to retain the split across two BD disks is MONETARY not a technical limitation as the studio would like you to believe."

If you have any proof of that accusation, I'm all ears, but until then your speculation is like market traders buying penny stocks in 2008. Anyone can predict anything, 99% of the times it's not true. And age of the master is irrelevant to how many discs they need.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 12:10:20 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:43 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 12:21:47 PM PDT
Nice one tarek. Hard to argue with your own eyes!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 12:28:36 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
I can tell a difference. But I cheated.

I sent the images to this...
Mitsubishi Diamond Series WD-82838 82-Inch 3D DLP HDTV

Posted on Mar 30, 2011 12:28:54 PM PDT
AaronMK says:
"Thank you for your maths Aaaron. where did you find those bitrates ? Just curious. ^^ "

There are many sites that post the actual bitrates for released blu-rays. The audio bitrates are what were listed from the Theatrical blu-rays, and since lossless audio is what it is, it's safe to assume similar bitrates for the Extended editions. So maximum average video bitrates are the length of the Exeteded editions divided by the space left on the discs after the audio at those bitrates for that length of time has been stored on the disc.

Also, those are absolute maximums for completely filled discs. In reality, you need to give a bit of head room since encoders will not get the exact target rate file overhead, etc., so actual maximums are slightly less. That is beyond my level of knowledge, but a calculator that accounts for such things can be found at (http://dvd-hq.info/bitrate_calculator.php). I used excel.

-----------------------------

"Still, you didn't give us a clear response. Could they fit in One disc, without passing the point of distraction or not ? "

"Point of distraction" is highly subjective. Even once someone has found their point of distraction, actual bitrates needed to achieve that can depend on source material, codec, and level of expertise with the tools of the people doing the encoding. Same goes for the "point of diminishing returns". Those bitrates might not be the same for the digitally shot/animated Avatar, the completely film based Dances With Wolves, the shot on film with digitally post production Lord of the Rings, a standard people standing still and talking chick flick, etc. You could have a high bitrate and a distractingly bad image because of decisions made before they even got to compression/encoding, just look at Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition.

I am no expert on encoders, and definitely not an expert on the digital masters of the LOTR trilogy. I can only base MY opinion what I have seen on finished Blu-rays at different bitrates. Based on my thresholds and standards, I think people who REALLY know what they are doing with the encoders could get Fellowship on a single disc, maybe Two Towers, but not Return of the King.

That is about as clear of a response as I can give. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:07:04 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 30, 2011 1:14:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 1:32:43 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
tarek, does this mean you will go away now? I can also tell the difference between the pictures you posted.

Right off the bat, the leaves of the middle tree look greener in the larger-sized photo. You can also see compression artifacts on the left side of the compressed photo when you look at the leaves next to the dark areas. Jeez, man. Like I said: Just because *you* don't notice things doesn't mean the rest of us won't. So, does this prove you wrong? Absolutely. You were proven wrong in your own test. Now, get lost.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:23:47 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:25:32 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
That's your response when you get proven wrong in your own test? K.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:28:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 1:29:55 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
That test is the same one I used to hear back in the day of "cd vs MP3".

Sure, they both sound the same using these...
Coby CSP14 Personal Mini Stereo Speakers (Black)

And sure...a Chevette and Shelby GT500KR both get you from point A to B.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:30:06 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Hah! What I'm getting from tarek is that he believes that his eyes and equipment are the same as everyone else's, and therefore, because he can't notice something, we can't. What a completely ignorant way to think about the world.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:30:54 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:31:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:32:03 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Clearly! Because I have proven you wrong each and every time. I don't know why you persist! I guess you don't feel any humiliation when talking to people via the computer.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:34:22 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 30, 2011 1:35:45 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Wait, so you're telling me that you don't even *realize* you are being proven wrong? LOL! Wow. So you're not just insane, you're stupid, too.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:36:53 PM PDT
@Dead Mike

<<"Clearly! Because I have proven you wrong each and every time. I don't know why you persist!">>

Is that a quote from Ming the Merciless on the 1930's Flash Gordon serials or do you actually talk like that?
[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
 


 

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