Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Deradoorian $5 Off Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Shop Popular Services gotS5 gotS5 gotS5  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Metal Gear Solid 5 Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Learn more
Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:03:45 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Thanks, Darrin.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:10:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 1:11:22 PM PDT
@David,

<<"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.">>

I agree with you on the first part of this point. However, I'm sure that you'll agree there is no benefit to creating lossless commentary tracks on the BD's-It would be a total waste of space. The movie soundtrack will be lossless of course and the commentaries will be the same lossy tracks included on the EE DVD's (Note: This is not a problem because there is no surround data, sound fx, pans or heavy mixing in the commentary.)

However, 6 of the 9 DVD's ARE the exact same special feature DVD's from the LOTR EE DVD set repackaged in this BD set. The other 3 DVD's will likely contain a digital copy of each film and a brief featurette that was previously unreleased.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:40:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 1:40:49 PM PDT
tarek, Panasonic has said that 3D only presents approximately 50% overhead compared to 2D. Since Avatar 3D is 28mbps, we could guess that its 2D bit-rate would have been about 19mbps, same as Dances With Wolves. As for it being "pristine", it's not directly comparable. Bit-rate is variable depending on screen content, not to mention ROTK is longer.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:54:29 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 2:12:53 PM PDT
"Panasonic has said that 3D only presents approximately 50% overhead compared to 2D. Since Avatar 3D is 28mbps, we could guess that its 2D bit-rate would have been about 19mbps, same as Dances With Wolves."

The bitrate for the 2D Avatar (theatrical) was 28.81 mbps. I can't find any info on what the bitrate was for Avatar 3D...I can only see that its soundtrack is around 5mbps. It's hard to say what the total bitrate for Avatar 3D would be: looks like they have probably crammed the disc to capacity with that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 2:14:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 2:16:16 PM PDT
E. Busch says:
tarek says:
"3 D = 2 x 24 images/sec. thanks."

Yes, but that does not equal twice the data rate. Lossy video compression relies on the fact that most of the time there are only small differences between adjacent frames (aside from edits and scene cuts of course) so that they only need to fully encode a reference frame every so often, then encode the small differences from that reference frame for all the subsequent frames. With 3D, the differences between the 'Left Eye' and 'Right Eye' frames is often much less than that between successive frames in time, so once one is encoded, very little data is needed to encode the other. In most cases this means only 30-50% more data than a 2D encode, if that much.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 2:40:05 PM PDT
I AM A.M. says:
Dances with Wolves looked amazing on Blu-Ray it got a 4 out of 5 for PQ same with AQ on Bluray.com it also had more Audio info. because it was 7.1 not 6.1 like LOTR. So are we split d

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 3:26:31 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"Dances with Wolves looked amazing on Blu-Ray"

- It did, but it still had compression artifacts due to the long runtime of the film being squeezed on to one disc. This isn't an opinion. The reviewer at Blu-ray.com will tell you the same thing.

So, if these movies come on two discs per film, there should be no compression artifacts, hence, better picture. Why are people still arguing about this!?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 3:28:45 PM PDT
First of all, audio quality is not determined by the number of channels that are encoded. Secondly, many on this thread are bringing up Avatar as an example of a higher quality title. On your Blu-Ray review, it garnered 5 out of 5. One example of why Avatar would need a higher bitrate then Dances with Wolves is that it's a 1.78:1 framing as oposed to the 2.36:1 framing of Dances. The LOTR set won't be 1.78:1, granted, but it still will have some comprised space from the 4 commentary tracks. I suspect that plus wanting to avoid the....("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.")...curse (especially if LOTR can't hide artifacts in film grain).

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 4:48:17 AM PDT
Ryan 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 29, 2011 7:59:01 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"but there's a 500 GB disc now"

- These discs are not part of any standard yet and are not being used commercially. Maybe in a year - or two - or three, we'll be seeing them, but for now, there's really no reason to even bring them up.

"They managed to fit all of LOTR Ext on one disc DVD, there's no reason why it won't happen on Blu"

- I don't know what LOTR Ext DVD set you have, but my movies are split across two discs per movie.

You're still not grasping the important thing about this discussion, here. Of course, they could "fit" 'Return of the King' on one disc. Hell, they could fit the entire trilogy on one disc if they wanted to. It's just not going to look very good. That's why they will be split across two discs, per movie.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 10:03:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 10:07:35 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 10:09:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 10:10:36 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Your prediction is meaningless and not based in reality. If it had anything to do with greed, for what reason would they give us HIGHER QUALITY movies first? 2 discs = higher quality (better), one disc = lower quality (worse). Are you also saying that they will remaster the films in 4k, pay for the CG to be rendered in 4k, and then squeeze the movie on to one disc so it looks crappy and compressed? lol wut

How's the weather in your universe?

Now, if there is a time when movies start coming out on 100GB or 500GB discs, then sure - it can go on one disc because they will still be 1080p encodes, so it will fit just fine, with plenty of room to spare. However, that is the future. We're not using 100GB or 500GB discs, so your prediction is as worthless as me saying, "Don't bother getting this set now because eventually we will be using 4k TVs so you should wait until the movies are released in 4k!"

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 11:55:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 11:57:07 AM PDT
[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 29, 2011 12:12:18 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
And *I* said that it's possible - IF they are using 100GB or 500GB discs by then - because 1080p encodes aren't going to need two 500GB discs to look good. LOL

But, if you are saying that they will put out a box set where each movie is on one 50GB disc... Then, no. I'll have to bet against that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 12:16:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 12:16:56 PM PDT
"But, if you are saying that they will put out a box set where each movie is on one 50GB disc... Then, no. I'll have to bet against that."

Sounds good. We'll see what the future holds. BTW if you enjoy disc swapping I still have some of my old Laserdiscs in storage.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 12:37:15 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
No, I enjoy high quality releases that look and sound as good as possible. That's why I won't mind switching discs for this trilogy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 12:49:39 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:36 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 12:53:09 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
200 minutes is not 251 minutes, is it? There's nearly an hour difference. Are you pretending that that's irrelevant? The closest movie next to Return of the King's runtime is Dances with Wolves, and I already went over that ad nauseum. While it looks good, it has compression artifacts due to the long movie being put on one disc. Give it up, man.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 12:57:35 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:36 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:02:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 1:03:45 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
That's nice. It's still missing 51 minutes of HD video and audio, which take up more room than the things you mentioned. The LotR trilogy will have special features on disc, too, which is why there's no sense bringing that up. Most Blu-rays have special features on the same disc as the movie. The movie is what takes up the most space, and is the relevant topic at hand.

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:04:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:36 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:05:53 PM PDT
MustSeeHDTV says:
The day it was officially announced, I read that it was split and I immediately thought the studio was cheaping out and putting them on BD-25s. I asked Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits.com why the discs were split and if it was BD-25. He said that it will definitely going to be BD-50's and I posed the question of why the split again if it was BD-50's. He said that there will a lossless audio track in addition to 4 other audio tracks and that it is a high bitrate transfer of their 2k master. I was still upset that it was split, but I said that it better be BD-50's or I'd be really, really upset at the studio.

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:10:39 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
tarek, you have been proven wrong by everyone you have engaged in debate so far. Seriously, you know nothing about what you are talking about. MustSeeHDTV's post attests to the excellent decision to split the film on two BD50's.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:14:01 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:37 AM PDT]
[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