Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 1:29:03 PM PST
There are no commercially produced 720p dvds. It is actually possible, but the dvd would have to be played on a BD player, and a movie like any of the LOTR would take a few more discs.

Most commercial theatrical release BDs are 1080p, including LOTR. Not a 100% rule, maybe in the 99.8%-99.9% range.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 12:43:58 PM PST
R. Brown says:
speaking of LATE to this party: can someone simply tell me [I confess ignorance]: The "Platinum" EE version [HD, prior to BD] of the movies: is the resolution 720p or 480p on the DVD's? and then, the BD .. I assume it is 1080p on the disc, right? or 720...

Posted on Jan 18, 2012 8:15:41 PM PST
J. Craig says:
I'm really late to this discussion but I must add my two cents anyways. I've always preferred Cinema 4D over anything else. Mainly because it's the simplest I've ever used and it's very capable. Movies like Tron Legacy and Polar Express where done in Cinema 4D Studio (parts of Tron were but I can't remember how much). I started using it for a year and I'm able to make some impressive videos.

When it comes to 3D software, try our demos and find what you feel best with. The three I'd suggest would be 3DS Max, Maya, and Cinema 4D. However if you want to jump in without spending any cash, try Bender. I've seen some folks on youtube that had made some impressive videos using it. Bender is freeware and popular with the open source community.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 4:12:54 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
Exactly...Tarek is a trolling tool.

It would be nice if my wife would JUST win the lottery...

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 10:46:38 AM PDT
tarek: "they have just reused the same master "

It's like, "That's *just* a Steven Seagall movie."

"Just" implies negativity, it's not good enough. A 3rd grader understands that. You understood it when you wrote it. Now you're *just* backtracking because you have no original ideas you would stand by. You're just vomiting incoherent remarks to troll for a response.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 10:40:46 AM PDT
You are very skilled at intellectual dodging. You're like the middle school version of "I'm rubber, you're glue".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 9:18:11 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:52:08 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 5:59:45 PM PDT
On page 11, when you said, "So if they didn't reworked the Bonuses, it is probable (for me) that they have just reused the same master of the DVD EE", you implied that you felt negatively about them reusing the same master that they used for the DVD EE. Although you didn't state that explicitly, anyone with a 3rd grade education on reading comprehension would be able to see that from the tone of your post.

Don't play these childish word games and logical fallacies tarek, you're making a fool of yourself. Just because you make Asian faces ("^^") at the end of each post doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and not make sense, either.

I don't do meth, but my posts are under the influence of *substance*, something you're completely devoid of.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 4:10:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:52:02 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 2:50:44 PM PDT
You said both, tarek. You wanted a newer master and another transfer, which is just silly.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 2:04:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 2:26:44 PM PDT
"So you're saying that the LOTR franchise has not proven itself to be a money maker in video sales and therefore is not worthy of a full film restoration? If so, I would have to disagree with that point too."

Did you not read my lengthy previous post where I highlighted why studios do 4K restorations for film????? They do it for old film stocks where their masters have deteriorated. It's impossible for LOTR to have a 4K "full film restoration" because it does not exist that way!!!!! The movies were made on a 2K DI!!! The studio might have printed to film from that DI, but the original 2K file is the most pristine version of the film. There is no sense to do a 4K scan of a 2nd generation film. If the studio were to do a 4K version of LOTR, they would have to compose every scene in 4K (how many times do I have to say that it only lives in 2K????)!!!!

Or to take your example of James Bond films....you generalize them and say they are all great restorations (to exagerate them as all being 4K sources). You can't tell which ones are coming from 4K or 2K scans....especially on DVD and it's still pretty insignificant on BD resolution/compression standards. I also highly doubt you can tell any difference between the inherent optimal resolution with previous 35mm resolving powers as compared to modern movies shot on HD (like say Case of Benjamin Button).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:59:44 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"don't follow the path of corpse Mickey."

- By that, you mean, "Please don't be right all of the time?"

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:54:40 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:52:02 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:51:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 1:53:51 PM PDT
@David,

<<"First of all, Lowry only did a 4K restoration of the first 9 James Bond films. They also foresaw some clean up of the first 20 films. None of the Daniel Craig films will ever have a "restoration" because the masters exist in a digital form.">>

Agreed. I was aware of this and although I did not reference it specifically, this is why I stated "Pop in one of the 2005 Lowry James Bond DVD's and then compare it to the original DVD release".

<<"Movies like the early James Bond, Godfather, or Lawarence of Arabia are more likely to have a full 4K restoration/ archiving because they have proven themselves to be money makers in video sales.">>

So you're saying that the LOTR franchise has not proven itself to be a money maker in video sales and therefore is not worthy of a full film restoration? If so, I would have to disagree with that point too.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:42:00 PM PDT
"Just to be clear, you don't need any kind of major hardware to notice the benefits of a 4K restoration. Back in 2005 Lowry Digital performed the excellent 4K restoration of the entire James Bond series."

First of all, Lowry only did a 4K restoration of the first 9 James Bond films. They also foresaw some clean up of the first 20 films. None of the Daniel Craig films will ever have a "restoration" because the masters exist in a digital form.

It still appears that you're clueless about how digital editing works. Good 35mm film restoration tends to utilize 4K scans now so that editors have more wiggle room to work with when it comes to utilizing blur filters. Movies like the early James Bond, Godfather, or Lawarence of Arabia are more likely to have a full 4K restoration/ archiving because they have proven themselves to be money makers in video sales. The studio sees fit to preserve and archive them in a digital medium that will probably survive future consumer standards...most movie cataloges from the mid 80s onwards will still have 2K video archives for any BD re-issues. Studios archive digital files in uncompressed formats that do not have the compression nor filters that are utilized in BD releases. When a video authoring company is mastering for BD...they are looking at the RAW data and are considering if the consumer wants to see film grain or color inconsistancies with stocks that have not had a full on edit (as say Blade Runner, Final Cut version). They are also considering what the optimal bitrate should be for fitting all the audio and video without comprimising too much on detail. Because of this, it is no wonder why video quality can be drastically different from one transfer to another...even if they're using the same studio source.

Cinematography and the state of the original archived source are the most important aspects of the initial steps of a good picture for a BD release (then it's the skill of the compressionist for authoring to BD). It has little to do with whether that source is an older 1080 tape, a current 2K DI, or a full on 4K film restoration.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:39:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 1:45:13 PM PDT
@Jonathan,

<<"When you downconvert you lose any additional detail you gained with the 4K master.">>

I am sorry but I know this to be false. Trust your own eyes. Pop in one of the 2005 Lowry James Bond DVD's and then compare it to the original DVD release. PQ is enhanced in every way including detail. I only have a 61" screen in my HT and the difference is clear as day.

Of course, with a higher resolution format like BD the difference is even greater because more of the detail is retained when downconverted from 4K.

But to say that the image quality of a 4K master is wasted is ridiculous. BTW they used an 8K master for the recent transfer of The Wizard of Oz to Blu-ray. Why would they do that if that additional detail could not be seen?

Want more proof? Compare the detail from the original T2 BD release which was created from a 1080P video master and compare it to any of the James Bond BD's or the Blade Runner: Final Cut BD both of which used 4K masters. See the difference?

Doesn't LOTR deserve the same quality restoration as James Bond, Blade Runner and the Wizard of Oz? I say YES!

Posted on Apr 12, 2011 1:20:30 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
I am glad you all took a joke so seriously...geesh.

Editing my above post....

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:19:55 PM PDT
Kenneth Davis -- what you are seeing is the restoration of the film print and possibly a better transfer. It has nothing to do with the source resolution, which you can't see anyways. Don't tell me that 4K source downconverted to 480p would yield vast differences in PQ compared to a 2K source downcoverted to 480p, or 8K for that matter, on virtue of the source resolution alone.

I think you are confusing the issue. As long as the source has higher resolution, all else equal, you are getting 99% the same thing. When you downconvert you lose any additional detail you gained with the 4K master.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:16:00 PM PDT
"Even with 60" plasmas you would need to sit some 5' away to take full advantage of 2K/1080p, so to take full advantage of 4K, you'd sit 3' away -- try convincing the average household the merits of that! Most people still sit too far away from their TV's."

Well at least BD is a godsend for any movie enthusiast: whether you're watching on a 100" projector screen or a 720P HDTV. The differences in color (and the detail lost) that I see in even a more recent DVD is obvious when you compare to a BD. When I've refered to some of the earliest DVDs I ever collected...I've found they're unwatchable on a HD screen. What used to look good on a then "large" 27" CRT....is highly artifacted on a HD screen. One case in point for me is "The Red Violin". I bought the first DVD when it came out in the late 90s. The story was a bit cursory, but I liked the soundtrack. It was one of those titles that tried to distinguish itself by having a DTS track instead of just the traditional DD track. Well one time I did put it back on with my current setup...which is a plasma which has good color rendition for 1080i sources, and a very good audio system that rivals any cinema in my area. The dated DTS track wasn't too bad, but it wasn't as lush as I had remembered (and certainly not as immersive as some of the well mixed BD titles that I have). I was totally shocked at how bad the image quality was, though. The picture was basically pixelated...I watch DVDs on an Oppo DVD upconverter...and even it couldn't wash out what reminded me of what VCD looked like on a regular computer monitor. I have to admit that even more modern movies on DVD, while no longer having bad compression artifacts, still don't hold a candle to even moderate BDs. Movies like my LOTR EE DVD set look acceptable on my HDTV...but they certainly look washed out and soft compared to even the most shotty BD transfers I own.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 1:10:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 1:12:57 PM PDT
Jonathan / AV Guru,

Just to be clear, you don't need any kind of major hardware to notice the benefits of a 4K restoration. Back in 2005 Lowry Digital performed the excellent 4K restoration of the entire James Bond series.

Once completed, these new 4K masters were originally downconverted to 480P and released on DVD in 2005 and you could instantly notice the increase in PQ on a standard DVD (when compared to the original James Bond transfers on DVD).

About 3 years later these same 4K masters were downconverted to 1080P and released on Blu-ray and the PQ was AMAZING. The best the James Bond films have ever looked!

Therefore, don't confuse the issue and try to tell us why 4K projection systems are too expensive and won't be available for X years... This is not what I am suggesting. All movies that were originally shot on film could benefit greatly from a 4K restoration regardless if you are watching the resulting transfer at DVD, or Blu-ray or 4K resolution-They each look the best that they can possibly be for each respective format.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 12:28:31 PM PDT
You know us projector folks would love 4K, but it should be irrelevant to the mainstream market. Even with 60" plasmas you would need to sit some 5' away to take full advantage of 2K/1080p, so to take full advantage of 4K, you'd sit 3' away -- try convincing the average household the merits of that! Most people still sit too far away from their TV's.

I wonder what kind of systems tarek and Kenneth Davis have...

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 12:02:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 12:04:34 PM PDT
"2 years after that...4K resolution is actually feasable...

LOTR is re-released again on 75GB, 2 discs per movie at 4K."

I highly doubt 4k/QuadHD consumer mediums are going to be around during BD's lifetime. There might be more 4K resolution TV sets, but demand seems to favor 3D HD technology. For 4K, you need a large sized display to take advantage of the extra resolution. Current 4K TV prototypes mainly use 2K/HD sources and try to utilize good video processors. Maybe at some point in the future when we all have 200"+ video wallpapers will there be a demand for 4K or even 8K resolutions. Currently, most 4K productions are intended for Imax screens...while your normal multiplex screen uses 2K sources (or resolutions not much different then 1080p).

I'm equally skeptical about the studios adopting multi-layered BDs. It has been a few years since the first multi-layered BD was introduced, but no one has adopted that technology. The studios seem to be looking at ROI, and would rather push preliminary BD specs (IE dual layer) in an effort to drive down prices on regular BD releases (and justify a cost premium with 3D editions). This makes sense considering that overall video sales have been going down. If in the future studios find a viability to produce consumer 4K material...I'm sure it will be a different system. 75/100GB discs might be good for craming more HD content on one BD disc, but 4K resolutions require 4 times the bandwidth.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 11:37:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 1:21:48 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
Now what will be funny...

LOTR set is released with the movies on two discs.

BD association allows 3 layer 75GB discs 8 months later...

The following new BD players will read them...

2 years after this EE release...

LOTR is re-released on 75GB discs...

2 years after that...4K resolution is actually feasable...

LOTR is re-released again on 75GB, 2 discs per movie at 4K.

Then 2 years later, the BD association allows 4 layer 100GB discs....

1 year later to coincide with the new discs, Vizio, which is the only brand still standing...

Makes you buy a TV, BD player and the new 4K 3 100GB disc set all at one shot...with a 1 year "nener, nener, only we have it" promotion

Edit:
Apparently...saying "Vizio is the only brand standing" didn't clue some of you into the fact this was sarcasm...

Posted on Apr 12, 2011 11:13:05 AM PDT
And since this is about the 3rd-4th time David Rosenburg has reiterated undeniable facts about the mastering process, we can all /end thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 9:22:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2011 9:24:22 AM PDT
@L. Cheng,

<<"You can only fit about 2.5h onto a 25GB blu ray disk. The EE movies are 3-4hours each.">>

You are correct, however the BD's in this set are 50GB BD's.

Now you can /end thread.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next ›
[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