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
Initial post: Mar 21, 2011 3:06:11 PM PDT
I AM A.M. says:
LOTR Trilogy EE's Blu-Rays to be split on 2 disc each.

Dances with Wolves Blu-ray is 238 minutes with DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 and they fit the whole movie on one disc. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is 208 minutes, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is 223 minutes and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is 250 minutes. So they could easily fit these on one disc each instead of two discs. I think one reason they are doing this is so people would not buy a Blu-Ray box set with 3 Blu-rays and 9 DVD's. DVD's should not even be in a Blu-Ray box set.

This is a hustle trust me. All these movies studios do is try to screw us over. If we stand up to them like we did with Gladiator Blu-Ray they will stop doing this crap.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6045&filter=rating30&page=1#comments

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 3:37:19 PM PDT
M. Stifler says:
Then again, is DWW as visually striking as LOTR? I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the scenes in LOTR take up more data than DWW. Putting the movies onto two discs should theoretically allow for a better picture and audio. I do, however, see your point about them trying to hustle us. Adding 3 more BDs could be a ploy to up the price of the set. Can you really blame them? The world is what it is.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 12:53:43 PM PDT
"So they could easily fit these on one disc each instead of two discs. I think one reason they are doing this is so people would not buy a Blu-Ray box set with 3 Blu-rays and 9 DVD's. DVD's should not even be in a Blu-Ray box set."

Agreed I AM A.M.

The most troubling part of this release is that 6 of the 15 discs are the EXACT same standard definition special feature DVD's that are included in the LOTR EE DVD sets and almost EVERYBODY whom would be interested in purchasing this BD set already owns the LOTR EE DVD's. So 40% of the content included in this set is an exact duplicate of the EE DVD set and yet WB is charging a premium price as if they are offering us something new. They should at least offer the EE BD's without the special feature DVD's for a $30.00 discount or offer some kind of trade in plan for owners of the EE DVD's.

Posted on Mar 22, 2011 7:12:00 PM PDT
I AM A.M. "This is a hustle trust me. All these movies studios do is try to screw us over. If we stand up to them like we did with Gladiator Blu-Ray they will stop doing this crap."

M. Stifler "I do, however, see your point about them trying to hustle us. Adding 3 more BDs could be a ploy to up the price of the set."

I feel that the hustle being referred to might be that this leaves room for the studio to Re-Release the Extended trilogy again, but with each movie on one disc. And who would buy that after having bought the Theatricals, then the Box set extended? Let's face it... most everyone... CURSE THEM!

Posted on Mar 23, 2011 9:35:03 PM PDT
I AM A.M. says:
Oh they are sneaky like that R. Kyle. I could see them doing what you said with the triple dip, with just 3 EE's Blu's in one box set. Which would be nice in the first place. Just reading the word triple dip makes me so mad.

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 3:37:48 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
I am very happy for the split discs. I would very much rather have higher quality than compression issues if the only cost is me getting off the couch to switch discs at the intermission.

The problem, though, is 9 DVDs. Could this stuff not have been transferred to 1, MAYBE 2 Blu-ray discs? *THAT* is just laziness.

Now, the upside of all of this is that 'The Fellowship of the Rings' has been given a new master to bring it in line with the quality of the two sequels. THAT is something to be happy for.

Posted on Mar 25, 2011 1:05:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 25, 2011 1:07:03 PM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
Personally, I'm really only interested in the BD EEs of the films, not the umpteen DVDs of bonus material. The extra material on the EE DVDs is more than enough for me and I already have those. So I may wait and see if the studio later releases the BD versions alone or boxed together, minus the bonus material. Then again, maybe I'll find I won't be able to wait. I haven't preordered yet based on this possibility.

Posted on Mar 26, 2011 6:22:17 AM PDT
I AM A.M. says:
Dead Mike the whole point is their is no need to split the movies onto two discs for one movie. Dances with Wolves Blu-ray is 238 minutes with DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 and they fit the whole movie on one disc. Like I said earlier, so if they could do it for one movie nothing is stoping them from doing it on another.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2011 7:46:31 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
They could *fit* the movie on one disc, but the quality won't be as good. If I remember correctly, 'Dances with Wolves' had an average bit-rate of 19. That's unacceptable to me for films like the 'LOTR' series. 'Dances with Wolves' did look good on Blu-ray, but these films will look *better* if they are split across two discs. This way, they can have an average bit-rate of 30 or so, resulting in much better picture quality.

It comes down to this:

Would you rather the quality be just a little above a DVD because you don't want to switch discs, or would you rather the movies look much better and really take advantage of the HD format because you have to switch discs during the intermissions. I don't know about you, but I'll get off the couch if it means a higher bit-rate/increased quality copy of the movies.

Posted on Mar 26, 2011 7:57:13 AM PDT
A/V guru says:
This whole thread is a non issue. Comparing DWW to LOTR is impossible.

It would be like when, and if, the 1965 version of War and Peace comes out, it would fit on 2 discs, and it is over 400 minutes. But it isn't as "visually lush" as LOTR, so it isn't comparable.

By the way. The Russian produced 1965 version, it is absolutely criminal that it hasn't been released on BD yet.

Posted on Mar 26, 2011 8:12:21 AM PDT
I AM A.M. says:
Once Upon a Time in America Blu-ray is 229 minutes long with good PQ and AQ. Their is that a better one for you. The point is it can be done on one disc and look fine. If you want to believe it will look better on two discs then it would on one disc you should keep believing it. I know when someone is trying to hustle/trick someone and that looks like a hustle to me.

I also got some magic beans if you are interested Dwight K. Schrute just bought some.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2011 8:16:14 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
There is no hustle or trick, though. You're getting better quality. I would feel hustled if 'Return of the King' - a ridiculously long movie - were on one disc. It would have the average bitrate of a DVD! Once you make peace with that movie being on two discs, why not have the other two movies on two discs each? The quality will be better!

P.S. I also find it rather odd that "0 out of 3" people found my first post in this thread as not adding to the discussion. I think it has some pretty relevent information, especially about the new mastering that 'Fellowship of the Rings' got:

"I am very happy for the split discs. I would very much rather have higher quality than compression issues if the only cost is me getting off the couch to switch discs at the intermission.

The problem, though, is 9 DVDs. Could this stuff not have been transferred to 1, MAYBE 2 Blu-ray discs? *THAT* is just laziness.

Now, the upside of all of this is that 'The Fellowship of the Rings' has been given a new master to bring it in line with the quality of the two sequels. THAT is something to be happy for."

- I bring this up again because I do feel like it's a waste to have *9* DVDs worth of extras when that could have been put on 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs. THAT is a hustle.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2011 8:19:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2011 8:25:31 AM PDT
A/V guru says:
Ok, now you drag out a Sergio Leone movie. Again, it doesn't need the space LOTR does.

Unless it is VIDEO TAPE, 30 minutes of one movie, doesn't equal the space requirements of ANY other 30 minutes of ANY other movie.

Also, noteworthy yet not completely relevant, Once Upon a Time in America...the BD has the same soundtrack as the prior DVD, it isn't lossless.

And just to prove you don't have the slightest idea about "digital realm space"...

This BARELY fit on one disc...
Baraka-Remastered [Blu-ray]

Put it this way. At 96 minutes, Baraka Remastered is so visually lush you need a plasma, DLP, DLP Projector or D-ILA/LCoS projector to enjoy it fully. LCD and LCD projector need not apply.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2011 5:18:06 PM 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 27, 2011 5:18:28 PM 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 27, 2011 5:18:38 PM 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 27, 2011 7:19:11 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
The new master for 'Fellowship' is 2k because all of the effects were done at 2k. If the movie gets re-mastered at a higher resolution, all of the effects are going to have to be done again. That will be... expensive.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 3:16:01 AM PDT
Gerry says:
The ' Once Upon A Time In America ' Blu-Ray has got 5.1 DTS-HD Mater Audio and is a big step up from the ' Once Upon A Time In America ' DVD has got your standard 5.1 "lossy" , which has bad seperation , is tinny , Bass free and generally not good quality

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 3:35:45 AM PDT
A/V guru says:
Just goes to show Amazon is not the place to get product information.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 3:59:48 AM PDT
Afrobean says:
Anyone who thinks they couldn't fit the movies on one disc is dense. The quality may be "better" with it split, but it will be in an imperceptible way. All video on Blu-ray is lossy, so it's always possible to be "better", but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the image is able to avoid compression artifacts. So long as compression artifacts are not visible, it doesn't matter how compressed the picture is. And yes, good compression could absolutely have a movie as visually complex running for 4 hours. That's probably right around BD's limits, but yes, The Return of the King could, with a good encode, have a high quality presentation on a single BD. Bitrate is meaningless, what matters is subjective quality and whether artifacts are visible. And the person who cited the "8K" Baraka doesn't understand anything. Not only is Blu-ray limited to 1080p (which is less than 2K, even if the source master was 8K or more), but certain movies use absurdly high bitrates to achieve a quality picture when an equal picture could be achieved using lower bitrates and smart encoding. Yes, even a visually complex film.

Could it be perhaps that they're wasting disc space by making the four separate commentary tracks lossless multichannel tracks? I sure hope not. It's probably just laziness. Same as them using DVDs. They already have the material prepared in that way as it was for the old DVDs, so they're re-using it here. Only difference is that they're taking the 6 old 2K masters (part 1 and part 2 of each of the three movies) and re-encoding them at 1080p and with losslessly compressed audio. And don't even get me started on the Fellowship of the Ring thing. They DEFINITELY did not remaster it. It'll be a new encode. Misuse of terminology. But guess what. All three films (read: six parts) will be new encodes from 2K masters.

ps anyone remember them saying how much time it would take to put these together for release? What the hell were they working on? No new features and every old extra on old DVDs? Only thing that's new is a new encode of the movie itself... and frankly, putting together a new 1080p encode from a 2K master shouldn't take so long to put together and they shouldn't act like it's some monumental feat. Basically every single Blu-ray that has ever come out gets a new encode from a 2K master. Only difference is that these movies are a little longer. And split into 6 parts. Stupid.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 4:10:32 AM PDT
A/V guru says:
Afrobean,

You can have a lessened image for your Vizio TV.

Those of us with a plasma, DLP, DLP/D-ILA/LCos projector are happy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 7:46:29 AM PDT
Afrobean,

Finally, someone who understands BD video. Nice post, good to see you back.

Posted on Mar 28, 2011 9:51:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 3:24:41 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
@Afrobean

"All video on Blu-ray is lossy, so it's always possible to be 'better', but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the image is able to avoid compression artifacts. So long as compression artifacts are not visible, it doesn't matter how compressed the picture is. And yes, good compression could absolutely have a movie as visually complex running for 4 hours."

- 'Dances With Wolves' had compression elements due to the 19mbps bit-rate. 'Avatar,' arguably the best looking Blu-ray title, has an average bit-rate of 29 and peaks at around 40, never dropping below 25. Would 'Avatar' look as good if it were dropped down to 19? Short answer: No. The same can be said about these films. Why the hell are you people complaining that the movies will look BETTER because they will be split on multiple discs? Because you don't want to get up and change discs during the intermissions of 4-hour films? Wow. Are you really telling us that there would be no compression elements at all and that 'Return of the King' would look great for a Blu-ray if it were squeezed on one disc? Wow.

"And don't even get me started on the Fellowship of the Ring thing. They DEFINITELY did not remaster it."

- The theatrical Blu-ray did not use the original 2K scans. Since the film was only partially digital intermediate (DI), the master is film, and that's what they used. That's why 'Fellowship' has telecine wobble and the other two don't, and why the flashbacks to the first movie look better in the second - even though both were done on the same Imagica scanners Weta had at the time, as far as I can determine from various articles (thanks, 42041). The term "remaster" is definitely fine here, since that's what it is. It's just not being scanned at a higher resolution, but it will definitely be a new master. You are using wrong terminology if you are saying that re-scanning the film elements to make a complete DI is not creating a new master of the film. You are right when you say that they are all using new encodes, but 'Fellowship' has definitely been given a re-master. There's no denying that fact when the film elements are being re-scanned to make a complete DI. The other two movies are using the same DI they already have, hence they are not being called "remasters."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 9:53:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2011 9:57:01 AM PDT
"Not only is Blu-ray limited to 1080p (which is less than 2K, even if the source master was 8K or more), but certain movies use absurdly high bitrates to achieve a quality picture when an equal picture could be achieved using lower bitrates and smart encoding. Yes, even a visually complex film."

First of all, 1080P is the 2k of consumer broadcast standards (1920x1080). Cinema standards have varying aspect ratios, so they rate resolutions by the width and not the height (typical DIs are 2048 by whatever the intended ratio...sometimes movies filmed in digital HD are 1920 lines across). Secondly, studios have been scanning and editing film at 4k (35mm) and 8k (70mm) for archiving and restoration purposes. If editing at a higher resolution, there's a better chance of the quality to be improved when being scaled down to 2k. It also appears that you're ignorant of distribution of movies. The studios first master a film at 4k and 2k resolutions for film prints going to traditional theaters, and then 2k or 4k digital files for digital projectors. These files are not the same specs as blu-ray. For home distribution, one of the masters are sent to the group that will produce the master for BD and DVD. Apart from different encoding and more compression, the audio codecs might have to be converted, and the frame has to be matted to a fixed 16:9 ratio. The color depth also has to be converted from 12bpc to 8bpc.

As for the OP...I've said this before, but looks like I have to say again: you can't generalize and say that any movie is *acceptable* at 19,24, or even 32mbps. There are several factors that go into the decision for chosing an *acceptable* bitrate. One of the reasons, it appears, that LOTRs is on two discs is that there aparently are 2 extra hours of bonus features. It doesn't look like it's just a repackaging of the DVDs: looks like it's yet another *deluxe* set to bait loyal fans. I haven't bought any of the LOTR BD sets yet...so I'll probably wait for this set to go down in price and might get it eventually.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 10:36:07 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 28, 2011 10:36:56 AM PDT]
‹ 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
 


 

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