|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seelbach
The Shire
Jun 30 2011, 2:54am
Post #51 of 94
(4073 views)
Shortcut
|
I seem to remember a comment from PJ that at the time they made the films, there wasn't a widely available HD format, so the behind the scenes footage and special features were shot in SD. If I can find the comment I'll post a link. It wasn't that long ago, I'd think more people would remember this.
edit: thinking about this some more, I am wondering if perhaps it was not PJ who made this point but some dvd website like thedigitalbits or something. In any case, I think the point is accurate.
(This post was edited by seelbach on Jun 30 2011, 2:58am)
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 8:18am
Post #52 of 94
(4047 views)
Shortcut
|
@shadowdog
Well, ok, sorry, I was just being diplomatic. To me, it's not hard to detect. The newly added tints inside Orthanc, on the Pass of Caradhras and over the Midgewater Marshes positively leap off the screen.
Granted, the first two can (just about, at a stretch) be justified artistically, but the Midgewater Marshes (from "into the wild" to "second breakfast") are now remarkably ugly. And, no, claiming "they're supposed to be" is no defence: the tint is extreme and causes some highly questionable and unpleasant results.
Watch Frodo and pals again as they discuss "A servant of the Dark Lord would seem fairer and feel fouler": their eyeballs are blue, right?
I agree with you on many of the other scenes, though: they look gorgeous.
(This post was edited by Kendalf on Jun 30 2011, 8:24am)
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 8:33am
Post #53 of 94
(4009 views)
Shortcut
|
@ElessarsOath
Yes, I absolutely agree. Colours do change when the format changes and, yes, Jackson and Lesnie did spend a considerable amount of time tweaking the colours prior to release and, yes, in many ways, the DVD does now look "washed out" in some scenes (though, I'd argue, more naturalistic in others)...
But none of that explains why Saruman is now bathed in blue light inside Orthanc, why the distant Misty Mountains now glow blue and why the fog on the Midgewater Marshes is now a thick green. Those are unarguably new additions that comparisons with the DVD can highlight strikingly and whether they're deliberate or not, they are still questionable...
|
|
|
SteveDJ
Rivendell
Jun 30 2011, 8:58am
Post #54 of 94
(4018 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They could still put all the SD content on one BD
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Instead of having 3 separate standard DVDs per movie, they could easily have put all the standard-def extra content onto a single BluRay disk, with room to spare - or at least, with much less compression and thus at least some improved quality (the very reason the original EEs were always on two disks, instead of compressed to fit on one).
All BluRay disks mean is an optical disk that holds what... 40 or 50 GB of data? (compared to 4.3GB on standard DVD, or is it 8.6 dual-layered) - anyway, you need all that space for a HighDef recording. But that doesn't mean that only HD must go on those disks.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 10:22am
Post #55 of 94
(4024 views)
Shortcut
|
@SteveDJ
Yep, they could easily have fitted the SD extras onto one BD (or at the very least the two original discs and maybe kept the Botes doc separate as it's "new" and self-contained). They could even have given them a little upscaling without too much bother.
But that would have involved all sorts of techno-jiggery-pokery (including integrating previously separate extras, designing new whizz-bang menus etc) which would have had a cost.
NOT that I'm justifying the decision: I think simply reproducing the original DVDs is a disappointing, lazy and transparent attempt to save money.
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 11:05am
Post #56 of 94
(4071 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well look at it from a business perspective...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
By putting it on DVDs instead of a Blu ray, they probably do save money.
But more importantly is the marketing of the entire set. While most fans already know what's on it, others will see the advertisements saying "15 disc set" instead of "9 disc set".
While I know that sounds a little ridiculous it still can make a big difference. 15 discs sounds much more grand than 9 discs and it sounds like your getting more bang for your buck so probably more people will buy it.
Really it's a win-win for the company. They save money putting it on to DVDs and probably make a little extra from the marketing value.
So, IMO, it's not really so much about laziness as much as maximizing profits.... even though they are still turds for doing it
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 2:37pm
Post #57 of 94
(3962 views)
Shortcut
|
I just went back and compared the blu-ray and dvd. I played each in my blu-ray player. In the EE dvd, in the marshes, you can see a blue tinge in the hobbits eyes. So I don't think Peter deliberately changed the color settings in select scenes. Rather, the color was enhanced and brightened throughout the film; probably as part of process of creating the HD. I didn't find it that horrible. Unless you are right up to the tv screen it isn't any more noticeable than the blue tint in many other scenes. And I didn't think the fog was all that green, unless, again you went right up to the screen.
|
|
|
MrCere
Sr. Staff
Jun 30 2011, 3:45pm
Post #58 of 94
(4006 views)
Shortcut
|
I checked and indeed, no HD on the extras. I have fixed the review in fact.
I would have bet the farm that I was told otherwise but I have very clearly not remembered what I was told and actually I need to thank you for correcting things because I hate to be critical of something that can't be helped.
It will not change it on the post above on the message boards but on the TORn home page and the archive it will be correct.
I have no choice but to believe in free will.
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
My blog
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 6:05pm
Post #59 of 94
(3995 views)
Shortcut
|
@shadowdog
I was simultaneously playing the blu-ray in my PS3 and the DVD in my DVD player to allow a more immediate flick-between the paused images and in that situation (rather than trying to remember what one looked like whilst loading up the other) the "new" tints were certainly striking to my eyes.
Granted, certain variations in the settings etc on each player would have had an impact on the image but certainly not so great as to make the comparison utterly pointless...I think.
I'll play both in my PS3 and see if the colouring is closer. Maybe the Midgewater Marshes will appear a little more similar (though I doubt it) but I sincerely doubt that the powerful blue tint inside Orthanc and on the distant Misty Mountains will suddenly appear on the DVD...
QUICK QUESTION: Has anybody checked the digital copy of FotR yet to see if the new colour timing issues affect it, too? I haven't yet. May check tonight. If they don't, there are two possibilities as far as I can see. One, the digital copy is just the old transfer from the DVD (though why would Jackson and Lesnie work on the colours then not use them for the digital version of the film, too?) or two, the tint on the blu-ray is a mistake after all. (It's interesting how the tint isn't on the thumbnails on the Scene Selection menu, isn't it? A clear example? Chapter 18.)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jun 30 2011, 7:53pm
Post #60 of 94
(3998 views)
Shortcut
|
Kendalf: (It's interesting how the tint isn't on the thumbnails on the Scene Selection menu, isn't it? A clear example? Chapter 18.)
You previously mentioned the common sense reasoning that menus would have to be redone to accomodate the bonus material on one Blu-ray instead of the DVDs. I think it is entirely consistent to also reason that the scene thumbnails were not changed for the same reason: save money by not reworking the menu system (or it was an oversight) - not because there was a mistake (even if there was a mistake). So although the scene selection thumbnails could support the idea of a mistake, they are certainly not conclusive.
I'll also add another answer - as an engineer familiar with the business goal of not causing additional customer support costs - to the question of why not use one Blu-ray instead of DVDs: If the DVD material were put on a Blu-ray disk, customers would then expect Blu-ray performance from that disk. You have now created new level of customer dissatisfaction where there was none before because the SD content on Blu-ray will be perceived as more inferior than the same content on DVD. It begs for complaints (articles, blogs, phone calls, emails, angry forum posts, etc) about why that rumored (and non-existent) HD content was not used to give us the full Blu-ray experience.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 30 2011, 7:54pm)
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 9:33pm
Post #61 of 94
(3956 views)
Shortcut
|
@shadowdog
Well, I went back and played both the blu-ray and DVD on the same piece of hardware this time (a launch-model PS3). As I've said before, watching the blu-ray alone, I daresay you'd adjust to the tone and the film certainly isn't unwatchable BUT this difference in colour cannot, in my book, be solely due to "the process of creating the HD", as you put it. Would you agree?
|
|
Attachments:
|
Saruman_A.jpg
(41.5 KB)
|
|
|
Saruman_B.jpg
(40.4 KB)
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 10:04pm
Post #62 of 94
(3973 views)
Shortcut
|
@JWPlatt
Your point about putting SD extras on an HD disc makes perfect sense. So, there are a raft of reasons why simply duplicating the existing DVDs was the only really sensible option. Accepted!
Your point about simply duplicating the Scene Selection thumbnails as well would be an excellent point, too...except there aren't any on the DVD. Instead, there are those "moving thumbnails" incorporated into that gorgeous hand-drawn menu whilst the chapter names are listed down the centre.
So, if instead you meant the Theatrical blu-ray (which I presume you did) that might indeed explain why the Chapter 18 thumbnail, for example, very clearly shows a white Saruman but the scene itself actually contains a "blue" Saruman. However, there'd still be a need to create new thumbnails for the added scenes (and perhaps some of the extended ones), wouldn't there? So, I had a very quick skim through the thumbnails for the added scenes only and I'd tentatively suggest that the thumbnails for Chapter 2 (Concerning Hobbits) and Chapter 17 (Midgewater), too, do indeed look different from the scenes as they appear in the film...
Conclusive evidence of a tinting error late on in production? Absolutely not. No way. Interesting nonetheless? Perhaps...
QUICK QUESTION: Still no news on whether the digital copy contains the tint? I was immensely disappointed this evening to discover my UK version doesn't contain a digital copy. As the tint's presence or absence on the digital copy would be MUCH more conclusive than its presence or absence on the thumbnails (though still wouldn't settle the debate, probably!), I'm eagerly waiting to find out.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jun 30 2011, 10:43pm
Post #63 of 94
(3922 views)
Shortcut
|
However, there'd still be a need to create new thumbnails for the added scenes (and perhaps some of the extended ones), wouldn't there?
I am assuming the EE BDs use the same scene selection thumbnails from the EE DVDs, not TE.
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Jun 30 2011, 11:59pm
Post #64 of 94
(3907 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't. I looked at both of your pictures and then looked at my blu ray HD disc. All of the Fellowship was color shifted frame by frame. Peter showed this in the Appendices. The transfer to HD enhanced the color of each frame. If there was a blue color shift, the HD has a brighter blue. Look at Hobbiton. It was yellow shifted in the original. In HD the yellow is brighter and more pronounced. I don't see any evidence that Peter went into individual scenes and shifted the color in select scenes just for the HD disc.
|
|
|
ElessarsOath
Registered User
Jul 1 2011, 3:32am
Post #65 of 94
(3925 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bonus features on a single BD wouldn't work
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Instead of having 3 separate standard DVDs per movie, they could easily have put all the standard-def extra content onto a single BluRay disk, with room to spare - or at least, with much less compression and thus at least some improved quality (the very reason the original EEs were always on two disks, instead of compressed to fit on one).
All BluRay disks mean is an optical disk that holds what... 40 or 50 GB of data? (compared to 4.3GB on standard DVD, or is it 8.6 dual-layered) - anyway, you need all that space for a HighDef recording. But that doesn't mean that only HD must go on those disks. There are 6 DVDs with the original bonus features from the EE DVD sets. The DVDs all approach 8gb. So, we have 48gb for those discs. Now we also have the Costa Botes documentaries. The one for Fellowship alone is 4.13gb. That surpasses the capacity of a BD-50.
(This post was edited by ElessarsOath on Jul 1 2011, 3:41am)
|
|
|
SteveDJ
Rivendell
Jul 1 2011, 3:59am
Post #66 of 94
(3920 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No no no - I said 3 disks on one (so, one bonus BD per movie), which easily fits //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
RoseCotton
Lorien
Jul 1 2011, 7:06am
Post #67 of 94
(3907 views)
Shortcut
|
The blue Saruman really doesn't look very good... 
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 1 2011, 8:18am
Post #68 of 94
(3886 views)
Shortcut
|
However, there'd still be a need to create new thumbnails for the added scenes (and perhaps some of the extended ones), wouldn't there? I am assuming the EE BDs use the same scene selection thumbnails from the EE DVDs, not TE.
Except that there are no thumbnails on the EE DVD, at least not on the UK version I have. Am I missing something?
Are you suggesting they isolated the "moving thumbnails" integrated into the gorgeous menu from the EE DVD and then picked one frozen frame from each to go on to the blu-ray? Perhaps, but that would seem to be an immensely awkward way of approaching things and almost as much work as just chosing new, static thumbnails from the new transfer, wouldn't it? No?
And, on top of that, why undermine your work on the colour for the new transfer by using thumbnails from a previous version of the film?!
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jul 1 2011, 8:49am
Post #69 of 94
(3926 views)
Shortcut
|
@shadowdog
"I don't see any evidence that Peter went into individual scenes and shifted the color in select scenes just for the HD disc."
Sorry, but it's well-documented and widely trumpeted that that's exactly what Jackson and Lesnie did for this new HD transfer.
Yes, FotR did have some digital grading applied originally (as the Digital Grading Appendix you've mentioned shows) but not to a standard that Jackson, 10 years later, was happy with. So, for this release (and in the light of the criticisms the TE blu-ray received) yes, he did go into individual scenes and shift the colours here and there.
The new look for Rivendell is the perfect example. If I understand you correctly, you keep suggesting that the HD transfer is simply making existing colours brighter, but Rivendell's not, is it? Quite the opposite.
Anyway, to me (and I accept you may not agree), the real question is: were the new tints added to certain scenes on top of the new grading intended to be quite as powerful as they have ended up being?
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 5:29pm
Post #70 of 94
(3895 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've only had the time and heart to view a little of Fellowship...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was saddened from the menu. What was once a parchment colored open book had an obvious sickly green tone . I gathered my courage in my hands (remember, I love this movie!) and looked at more.
I can't say that the green tint was obvious to me in many other scenes (for example, in motion, I couldn't see that the snow at second breakfast was cyan. ) That was a relief. I haven't watched the crossing at Caradhras, yet, though. But what upset me is that the overall look of the film is darker. Unnaturally dark, in fact. In several scenes, areas of the movie blend right in to the black bars on my set, and I can't tell where one ends and the other begins. I think this is the contrast issue many on the boards complain about but I don't know enough about dvd terms to know the name of it, I just know it is now an issue.
What can I say? I'm disappointed. I hate this trend towards making movies so dark. Someone on some other site called it when they said it was like watching this movie through sunglasses. I guess I will need to put my TV on vivid mode to watch it--something that I have never done before. I usually watch in standard, because the movie mode is too dark for me. But in order to see what's going on with Fellowship this may be necessary.
I hope that this movie will be re-released with the additional sharpening we have gotten with blu-ray but with the original color tint. This decision toward darkness has diminished this movie.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 5:58pm
Post #71 of 94
(3865 views)
Shortcut
|
Check for advanced settings in the picture settings menu. Look for the one labelled "gamma". Adjust it to a lower number. That should help.
Also you might want to adjust ambient light to a darker level.
******************************************
Brothers, sisters,
I was Elf once.
We danced together
Under the Two Trees.
We sang as the soft gold of Laurelin
And the bright silver of Telperion,
Brought forth the dawn of the world.
Then I was taken.
Brothers, sisters,
In my torment I kept faith,
And I waited.
But you never came.
And when I returned you drew sword,
And when I called your names you drew bow.
Was my Eldar beauty all,
And my soul nothing?
So be it.
I will return your hatred,
And I am hungry.
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Jul 1 2011, 6:03pm)
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 6:08pm
Post #72 of 94
(3900 views)
Shortcut
|
it's true, I do often watch blu-rays with a little light in the room. It seems to help with my depth perception. I will try watching with the room in total darkness. But as far as the picture goes, the look (if not the clarity) is definitely better on the DVD to me. Fortunately, I have a pretty good upconverting player, and I may end up watching my favorite of the trilogy in DVD.
and thank you, Darkstone.
Permanent address: Into the West
(This post was edited by Patty on Jul 1 2011, 6:09pm)
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 6:34pm
Post #73 of 94
(3863 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I checked the gamma setting on my TV...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
it's already set at low (it doesn't allow numerical settings--it's a 2007 build set.  ) Thanks for the advice, though. You can see I've never had to change it before--low was the factory setting default.
Permanent address: Into the West
(This post was edited by Patty on Jul 1 2011, 6:43pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 6:36pm
Post #74 of 94
(3843 views)
Shortcut
|
Most important make sure you have the best type of cable connecting the TV and the Blu Ray player. Using coaxial cable is like trying to run a Maserati on kerosene.
******************************************
Brothers, sisters,
I was Elf once.
We danced together
Under the Two Trees.
We sang as the soft gold of Laurelin
And the bright silver of Telperion,
Brought forth the dawn of the world.
Then I was taken.
Brothers, sisters,
In my torment I kept faith,
And I waited.
But you never came.
And when I returned you drew sword,
And when I called your names you drew bow.
Was my Eldar beauty all,
And my soul nothing?
So be it.
I will return your hatred,
And I am hungry.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 1 2011, 6:40pm
Post #75 of 94
(3879 views)
Shortcut
|
and an $80 cord at that. This is before I read where an $80 cord and a $5 cord will do the same thing for HDMI and it's not necessary to spend all that money on it.
I can only go by the difference between this film and any other blu-ray that I have. It shouldn't be necessary to fiddle with the settings to watch each movie, and I never have before. What did you think of it?
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
|
|
