Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Sun Care 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 AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl 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 251-275 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 7:23:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2011 7:27:47 AM PDT
Jonathan,

Only time will tell. We all know that there will be a new remastered version of all 3 LOTR films to coincide with the Hobbit movies.

It is clear with this version that the studio wanted to get maximum profits with absolutely no effort so with the exception of FOTR which demanded to be fixed, they just ported the same HD masters they had used to create the EE DVD set to BD. They did not even make the minimal effort to create a HD version of the 2 special feature DVD's and put it on a single BD.

Each person has to go with their priorities. Since WB put so little effort into this release and because it still forces us to swap discs and the special features are only included on SD DVD's (which most of us already own), this set would be worth about $30 to me and I will pick it up around Black Friday if it is available at that price, otherwise I will wait for something better.

For some reason WB is dragging its feet with this premiere title on BD. We know that amazing restorations are possible on BD (i.e. Blade Runner, Wizard of Oz, Alien Quad Set, etc.) and yet so far LOTR has received no restoration at all (except for FOTR).

Of course, I understand that others have different expectations and they may love this set. Myself, after buying the TE DVD set and the EE DVD set, I expect something truly amazing if WB wants me to triple dip.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 7:38:36 AM PDT
bfore13 says:
"We all know that there will be a new remastered version of all 3 LOTR films to coincide with the Hobbit movies."

We do? Please provide the link to the official announcement. Thx

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 7:47:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2011 7:48:08 AM PDT
Don't be naive. Of course, there will be an "Ultimate Set" including all 5 films (3 LOTR and 2 Hobbit movies). Hopefully, WB will finally put some money into remastering the LOTR trilogy for this "ultimate" set. Until then we are forced to endure the HD masters created in 2003.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 8:34:15 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:51:36 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 8:37:33 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:51:36 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 8:39:06 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"and you have to admit that other posters have affirmed that it was necessary to split the movie on 2 BD, just because the studio has decided it."

- That's not at all, what any of us have said. Do you even read the arguments that anyone has given you?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 8:41:10 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:51:36 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 11:19:51 AM PDT
Slippery slope. If Dell cannot even make a more attractive case, then why would they even try to build "better computers"?

Do you have a pre-release copy of the blu-ray? Why do you even think they need better transfers? (Although they might if the movie was compressed onto 1 disc.)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 11:23:00 AM PDT
Why do you think it would be even necesesary to take another master for the EE?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 11:34:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2011 11:41:49 AM PDT
@Jonathan,

<<"Why do you think it would be even necessary to take another master for the EE?">>

Seriously? Scanning tech and software has grown by leaps and bounds since 2003. Can you imagine what a full 4K restoration of the LOTR films by Lowry Digital or a similar restoration company could do for these movies?

WB will finally break down and pony up the dough to give these films the full restoration they deserve but not until after the two Hobbit movies are released on BD.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 11:46:00 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
All of the effects were done at 2k. They would have to completely re-do everything for 4k masters. That's going to be very expensive. I don't see it happening any time soon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 12:22:02 PM PDT
Depends on your definition of "soon". The fully restored version will probably be released around summer of 2014-Whenever the 2nd Hobbit movie is released on BD just add 6 months and that's your target date for the LOTR "ultimate edition".

Posted on Apr 11, 2011 1:30:55 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
I would *love* if these films got 4k masters. I just don't think the studios have the incentive to, since the upcoming extended editions are "good enough" for most people.. But, who knows if that will be different in a few years.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 1:36:26 PM PDT
What's the point of redoing all the animation and special effects at 4K, just so they could downscale it again to a 2K blu-ray release? That sounds like a lot of money for a minimal improvement at best.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 1:39:57 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"That sounds like a lot of money for a minimal improvement at best."

- That's what I mean. Sure, we will notice the better effects (particularly if they make Gollum look the same in 'Fellowship' as he did in the sequels), but it's going to be very expensive for something that most people won't care enough about. They just remastered 'Fellowship' for this extended edition release - and that was with the effects already being done. I really can't imagine them spending the money to re-scan and master the films at 4k, with all new special effects, just for another Blu-ray release.

Maybe when the "next big thing" comes out, but I just can't imagine that amount of time and money being spent on these movies for a third Blu-ray release.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2011 10:50:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2011 11:18:23 PM PDT
"Seriously? Scanning tech and software has grown by leaps and bounds since 2003. Can you imagine what a full 4K restoration of the LOTR films by Lowry Digital or a similar restoration company could do for these movies?

WB will finally break down and pony up the dough to give these films the full restoration they deserve but not until after the two Hobbit movies are released on BD."

This is a pretty ridiculous post. The cinematography of LOTR was done with a 2K DI. The master cut printed on film was from 2K: there are only a few movies that are now being composed in 4K for the growing numbers of 4K digital projectors. WB would not spend a hundred million dollars just to strike a 4K master for a recent catalog title (because they would have to recomposite and rerender so many scenes). Because the movies were produced digitally, there's not a need for a restoration.

Restorations are done for older movies that were archived on film. Over time, film emulsions fade, collect dirt and scratches, or even have segments that deteriorate or simply go missing. Studios select which movies they deem profitable in their catalog and then approve a restoration. Most catalogs of titles produced in the 80s and 90s have had an HD master for awhile. Film restorers now scan the old stock in 4K for 30mm film and 8K for 70mm film. It can take time and energy from a small crew of people to evaluate the stock film and find alternatives for any areas of the print that might not be usable. Their efforts in preserving what remains of the film, and then maticulously digitally editing the scans, are preserved in 4K for posterity. The Godfather restoration is a good example: there were a few screenings of it in 4K...but Paramount knew that the screenings wouldn't bring them money: it's the video sales. The 4K archive was used for a DVD release, a BD release, and can be saved in case there is a future 4K consumer medium. This American Cinematographer article is a good read about the restoration, and shows examples of the original film stock compared to the digital restoration. It also highlights why Godfather I required the most attention (and Godfather III didn't need a film restoration). Godfather I was produced at a time in which studios only focused on producing movies for the theaters....they weren't yet foreseeing having to save their catalog for a home market:

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/May2008/PostFocus/page1.php

While film restoration is meticulous for the few people who are involved with the team, it does not cost as much as a full on movie production crew. If you wanted to make LOTR 4K, it's not a restoration: it's a new movie. You would have to hire editors, animators, TDs, and a slew of other production professionals for creating an all new source. Because of that, I don't believe any blockbuster made in the 90s or 00s (edited in CG) will be archived in 4K...even if we do go to 4K at some time. Terminator 2, for example, was remastered for BD from a previous D5 tape. Even though it utilized effects that were CG, it was archived on film...and eventually was scanned and then archived at 1080 HD resolutions (and there has not been a new archive with current 2K/4K digital media). The first time T2 was released in HD was in 2003 for Microsoft: which tried having a 1080 version of the film on their WMV format (they had a few movie titles in HD resolutions on DVD for the PC). The studio didn't even try to go back and strike a new scan and restore from the original print for any BD release, because they deemed their previous HD work was acceptable. The main complaint of T2 is that it seems to be DNRed: the original source master is uncompressed 1080 material and may not have these filters applied. If the studio goes back for another re-issue...I suspect they still won't strike a new scan at 2k cinema standards, let alone a 4K scan.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2011 12:22:46 AM PDT
L. Cheng says:
You can only fit about 2.5h onto a 25GB blu ray disk. The EE movies are 3-4hours each.

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.

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 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...

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 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 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 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 1:19:55 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.
[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