Search results

I may have misread this, but it was my understanding that some of the effects work was done in post after the 2K DI work. That may be a complete misunderstanding on my part. If that's not the case then, yes, there would not be a need to redo any of the effects. But if some of the effects were at...

Well, this is a question of short term investment vs. long term investment. The $5-6 million spent on the older films is from a budget for long term investment in restoration that doesn't expect an immediate return. This is an extremely rare occurrence. It simply isn't done very often, and the...

Completely different business models. Criterion *relies* upon the niche enthusiast for the vast majority of their sales. Besides, Criterion uses DRS and DNR tools on every release - just look at their liner notes.

For the record, I took the apologist comment in jest, as it's true I was being snarky. And truthfully I am presenting apologist reasoning.

That's my understanding too, Jason. The current DI was prior to the theatrical release in Dec 2001.

Interest and financial viability are two different things. I'm interested in a lot of things that are not financially viable to me.

My understanding, in summary: - Back in 2001 FOTR was finished on a tight schedule, and they finished ~70-75% of the film with new tools as a Digital Interpositive, while the remainder of the film was finished in traditional analog methods. - All video releases are based on this...

What you call "spin" I call "real world compromises". Sorry to bring some financial common sense into the conversation. "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

If I'm a CEO, and someone tells me the following, I know what I'm choosing: Option 1) We can release the currently available HD masters that are less than a decade old, with some tweaking to present them in the best way possible on the format given limitations, and please 99.99% of the people...

Multi-million dollar budgets to create new DI's for home video releases don't get approved easily. If the studios followed that adage of yours there might be 4-5 catalog releases a year. Maybe.

Let me repeat: Warner Bros. didn't make billions on this film. New Line Cinema made billions, and they no longer exist as an independent studio because of financial problems. Your IRS analogy would be more apt if like this: There are two brothers. One (Brother New Line) makes a product and...

Then I guess the post-production editing crew in 2001 should be ashamed of their use of DNR-like digital tools under a tight budget / tight delivery deadline too, eh?

Looks like blatant video noise on the DVD in the background and on his face to me. Especially in the background to the left.

Then prepare to be disappointed. From everything I've read those that have their bar this high will be upset. The appears to be that FOTR needs a new DI to look any better, and the simple truth is that Warner isn't investing the few million dollars or so it would take to do that right now. (And...

Video noise is also quite apparent on the DVD image.

I've yet to see DVD-BD comparisons. All the comparisons I've seen out there are of an HD broadcast and the BD. Every review I've read has stated this release in much better than the upscaled DVDs from 2002-2004, no matter how negative the reviews have been.

What I gather from that is that Mr. Harris' typical WB contacts are less helpful in this instance where the film was a New Line product. Here's hoping for further insight into what he stated (about "anomolies" and "eccentricities") here on the HTF in his patented "Few words about..." reviews.

IIRC, the person who demonstrated the framing issue on POTC did so in a calm, constructive manner. And GONY had a prominent person such as Robert Harris explain the problems. IMO, these were effective ways to voice concern of quality control issues. The general rhetoric in regards to this LOTR...

Re-read what I said. The sales of the home theater enthusiasts are a drop in the bucket. Look, I am well aware that many studio policies have been changed/improved with constructive criticism/feedback from the Home Theater community. But in the vast majority of those cases, it was not because...

You vastly overestimate the reach of home theater enthusiasts on the internet. Their lost sales are the proverbial drop in the bucket. Besides, the street date for this release is still 10 days away. Who's to say that Warner won't do such an interview/statement? If they were to do one, they...

If the HD broadcast has, say, a 8/10 for detail, then IMO the Blu-ray has 7.9/10. But that's just me.

The only facts about the transfer we have right now are that 1) it was approved by Peter Jackson, 2) Jeff Kliest from TDB says he was informed by a Warner employee about a year ago that they had done it at least five times in preparing this release, and 3) the Blu-ray of FOTR looks a bit over...

Perhaps new masters were actually created for the Extended Editions. Doubtful.

First of all, Mr. Kliest is not a Warner/LOTR representative, so the validity of his information/source can be called into question. What incentive does he have to lie? Second, he stated that new masters were created, not that he was specifically told that these Blu-ray discs were all...

Rich, the sales data Doug references can be found in Jesse Blacklow's post here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/298921/lotr-bluray-extended-cut/0#post_3671501

RAH originally was pleased with Patton. For all we know, PJ was viewing the BD on a small monitor, like RAH with Patton. And do we even know if he viewed all three movies, or just briefly looked at the ROTK disc? One can only go by Mr. Jackson's statement. "I've seen the Blu-ray as they sent...

Just to be clear: you aren't one of the personalities I was referring to.

That's an interesting take, Doug. What I think it *may* mean is that WB "massaged" the FOTR image for this release in order to adjust for this disparity in the initial process back 8.5 years ago. Under the approval of Jackson and the film's producers, of course. Which may be disliked by certain...

They aren't as bad as the online hysteria would lead you to believe, IMO. Trust me, there's a lot of false assumptions out there right now, as well as expectations being far too high for what the films themselves are capable of. To quote the digital bits' Jeff Kliest: "I would say that many...