Who's buying the Lord of the Rings Extended Blu-Ray set at the end of June?

[foghorn67]

IIRC, IGN had a great review of the TE and EE. I think they are 10 pages long for each film. It won't bore you if you are any kind of fan of LOTR.

 

[Soundmanred]

This crap is getting overblown, the same way it did when The Dark Knight came out.
Completely irrational and needless.
I'm loving them and haven't for a second been disappointed.
(I have an ISF calibrated 47" display, and at 5' they look wonderful!)

 

[Craig234]

yeah, wow. I can't see any difference in the Shire, but the snow scene looks like the dude adjusted his levels in the wrong direction. D:

I recall the DVD EEs are absolutely dreadful. I used to watch the hell out of them--still own them--but then after getting my plasma ~5 years ago, I watched TT once, and couldn't finish it. I have not watched one of them since. :|

Don't kow what to say, I watch TT DVD on my 65" LCD and it looks fine.

 

[Kev]

Yep, it's the refresh or interpolation, or whatever the hell they do with the new TVs. It makes everything look smooth and like a soap opera. I had to turn it off on my TV, I just couldn't handle it.

KT

I can't stand that.

I had an argument with my friend the other night, he had inception on with that forced 120hz bs on his tv. He thought it looked better but I was trying to tell him that it's not how it's supposed to look, it's just a gimmick. He refuses to believe me.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea its like early cg, made so smooth it looks fake

 

[KeithTalent]

I can't stand that.

I had an argument with my friend the other night, he had inception on with that forced 120hz bs on his tv. He thought it looked better but I was trying to tell him that it's not how it's supposed to look, it's just a gimmick. He refuses to believe me.

Yeah I don't understand how anyone can like that. I'm no expert, but as far as I know film is done at lower frames per second (24 or 48??) and the interpolation actually adds frames in-between to give it that smoothness, which is why it looks so unlike film. Looks awful.

KT

 

[zinfamous]

I'm holding out for the Special Limitied Platinum Lost Footage 4D Smell-a-vision Blu-ray Edition myself.

ewwww Hobbit feet

 

[zinfamous]

yea its like all cg, made so smooth it looks fake

ftfy

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah I don't understand how anyone can like that. I'm no expert, but as far as I know film is done at lower frames per second (24 or 48??) and the interpolation actually adds frames in-between to give it that smoothness, which is why it looks so unlike film. Looks awful.

KT

yeah, 24fps. The "shutter speed" for the human eye is ~27 or 28 fps, IIRC.

the added frames that you seem to get with this 120hz is noticeable and grating. It nauseates me, actually. It reminds me of the days of Pan and Scan. D:

 

[darkewaffle]

I agree that the forced framerate increase is very irritating to watch, though I don't think that's an inherent problem with 120hz itself but moreso with the source material. I'd be interested to see something shot natively at higher FPS turns out, isn't The Hobbit being shot at 48? I'm really curious to see how that looks when all's said and done.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree that the forced framerate increase is very irritating to watch, though I don't think that's an inherent problem with 120hz itself but moreso with the source material. I'd be interested to see something shot natively at higher FPS turns out, isn't The Hobbit being shot at 48? I'm really curious to see how that looks when all's said and done.

Really? OMG Why? D:

it will look like a fucking video game. ugh.

 

[irishScott]

I've got my DVD extended editions, and they have none of the color problems. Think I'll stick with upconversion for now.

 

[Todd33]

I got my copies yesterday. Watched half of TT and it looked brilliant. Love the case too.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Hmm, damn. Was planning to watch the trilogy this long weekend, but maybe I'll skip it for now and watch Carlos instead.

KT

I think the whole issue is a bit overblown. I haven't seen the discs yet, just the screenshots and some YouTube videos. However, about half the people in the thread at AVSForum are saying that the issue is really not that noticeable in motion based on their experience. I remember similar threads about The Dark Knight and Aliens (whether aspect ration shifting or changed color timing, those people always have something to complain about), and when I watched those movies, I didn't notice any glaring error. DNR and EE are a different story, because it's hard to miss all the people looking like wax figures, but that's not the case with these editions, which have less DNR and EE than the theatrical editions released last year, and thus give better detail (especially FOTR, the only one affected by the color timing issue).

Ultimately, I imagine if you pick these up and watch them, you won't see the color issue so much unless you're actively looking for it, and even then it sounds like it's minor enough to only affect a few minutes of the first movie (out of roughly 11+ hours of film for the trilogy). That's really not too bad. Granted, it's not ideal, but I think it's silly to let a minor issue like that ruin your enjoyment of the films.

 

[moshquerade]

I talked to Viggo... did I tell you the story?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Hmm, this is a bit disconcerting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lHX_LNcJ5U

The Shire parts look ok in both parts, but the snow scene in the EE looks, not so good. :|

Cancelled my pre-order for now until I can do some more reading.

KT

Wow that looks bad. I think the Shire even is noticeably worse. Its like they put a veil over it. That first panning shot on the snow is awful. Who the hell did that?

its been known for a few weeks that fellowship was overly green, there is a massive thread on AVS about it

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1307189

starts in the middle of that somewhere

It doesn't look overly green to me (well it does in parts), it looks dark and just not good. Its like there's some weird haze on everything. I don't mind a bit of oversaturation as long as its not at the expense of other colors, but that's why they should aim for reference values and then let the end user distort things as they see fit.

As for people saying its not a big deal. Well, yeah, if you're not seeing what it should look like its not that bad (and you will likely still be engrossed in the movie), but when should that ever be a good excuse for the clearly poor work done? There's simply no reason for them to go and seemingly deliberately fuck it up, I mean they had it right before, why would they change it? How does that even happen?

 

[dainthomas]

I got my copies yesterday. Watched half of TT and it looked brilliant. Love the case too.

My wife got me the special version at BB with the six figurines. Yep, I love it.

 

[KeithTalent]

I think the whole issue is a bit overblown. I haven't seen the discs yet, just the screenshots and some YouTube videos. However, about half the people in the thread at AVSForum are saying that the issue is really not that noticeable in motion based on their experience. I remember similar threads about The Dark Knight and Aliens (whether aspect ration shifting or changed color timing, those people always have something to complain about), and when I watched those movies, I didn't notice any glaring error. DNR and EE are a different story, because it's hard to miss all the people looking like wax figures, but that's not the case with these editions, which have less DNR and EE than the theatrical editions released last year, and thus give better detail (especially FOTR, the only one affected by the color timing issue).

Ultimately, I imagine if you pick these up and watch them, you won't see the color issue so much unless you're actively looking for it, and even then it sounds like it's minor enough to only affect a few minutes of the first movie (out of roughly 11+ hours of film for the trilogy). That's really not too bad. Granted, it's not ideal, but I think it's silly to let a minor issue like that ruin your enjoyment of the films.

You are probably right; I got hung up and that snow shot and it really bothered me for some reason, but the fact that is one small scene in such an enormous trilogy, it is indeed quite silly for me to stop the purchase just because of it.

Oh well, it's $5 cheaper now at Amazon, so I guess I'll just go ahead and order it now.

KT

 

[Soundmanred]

Still loving this set. I really like the outer case with the magnetic closure, and the cases inside that are black instead of the usual Blu-ray blue.
It's a really well done set, design wise.
The breaks in the discs are well chose instead of just being in the direct middle point of the film. I wasn't all that happy when I found out that they would be split, but once the break in Fellowship occurred, I was ready for a break. (Plus I had a laserdisc player years ago, so I was mentally prepared.)
I had only watched the extras from the original Fellowship DVD back in 2002, so all of the extras from the other two films, as well as unseen ones from Fellowship have been great to watch. I haven't encountered any so far that were uninteresting.
To me, the sound and picture is excellent, no complaints at all. It's spectacular, even for a film I've seen multiple times.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You are probably right; I got hung up and that snow shot and it really bothered me for some reason, but the fact that is one small scene in such an enormous trilogy, it is indeed quite silly for me to stop the purchase just because of it.

Oh well, it's $5 cheaper now at Amazon, so I guess I'll just go ahead and order it now.

KT

I bought it today at Best Buy (same price as Amazon) and watched FOTR tonight. I will say that the green issue is definitely noticeable in a few scenes (though the snow scene that people make such an issue of is really not one of them; it's more in dark scenes, like the orcs at Isengard or the mines of Moria). But as a whole, you really don't see it unless you're looking for it. I haven't watched either of the other two films yet, but the picture quality on FOTR is solid; no EE, no DNR, great reproduction of fine details, it's just that damn green tint which is apparent through roughly 5% of the film. It's a MINOR issue. I hope they issue a replacement disc, but if they don't, I won't be bummed.

Totally worth it.

 

[Craig234]

Oh well, it's $5 cheaper now at Amazon, so I guess I'll just go ahead and order it now.

It is? Still shows $69.99.

 

[zinfamous]

Still loving this set. I really like the outer case with the magnetic closure, and the cases inside that are black instead of the usual Blu-ray blue.
It's a really well done set, design wise.
The breaks in the discs are well chose instead of just being in the direct middle point of the film. I wasn't all that happy when I found out that they would be split, but once the break in Fellowship occurred, I was ready for a break. (Plus I had a laserdisc player years ago, so I was mentally prepared.)
I had only watched the extras from the original Fellowship DVD back in 2002, so all of the extras from the other two films, as well as unseen ones from Fellowship have been great to watch. I haven't encountered any so far that were uninteresting.
To me, the sound and picture is excellent, no complaints at all. It's spectacular, even for a film I've seen multiple times.

I miss my Laserdisc player.


still the best digital release of those shitty Star Wars films, to date.

 

[KeithTalent]

It is? Still shows $69.99.

Amazon.ca; it was originally $64.99, but it's $60 even now, which is what I paid: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B004...A3DWYIK6Y9EEQB

KT

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah I don't understand how anyone can like that. I'm no expert, but as far as I know film is done at lower frames per second (24 or 48??) and the interpolation actually adds frames in-between to give it that smoothness, which is why it looks so unlike film. Looks awful.

KT

You do realize that we're going to be the crusty old men in this regard, right?

Interpolation will continue to improve, and digital filming will also increase the fps as well, until eventually people will be like 'frames, what frames?, what is this 20th century voodoo you speak of?'. I mean we don't complain about resolution ruining films, right? More detail = better, but somehow more smoothness is a tough adjustment. I have fond memories watching movies at a local small town theatre with a flickery projector, so there's an emotional connection to my childhood and starting to love movies, and the flickery low framerate is a recognizable part of that.

We'll eventually have to let it go though, higher fps really is better for anything that can take advantage of it, and I imagine that before too long, there will be a hdmi or displaylink-enabled trigger mechanism to disable interpolation or to mandate framerate for things that are deliberately choppy; eg there are scenes in Saving Private Ryan that have almost a strobe effect, and smoothing those out to a liquid 120fps would be artistically unsound. As for watching a character say in 'Bridesmaids' walk across the room, meh, I don't really care.

Fwiw, sports on a set with good 120 or 240hz is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. I think it's just gonna take some adjustment time for us, and the technology is still in relative infancy.