WHV Press Release: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Jason Charlton]

Sorry - I should have clarified. I think you've got the "wait" part covered, but it sounds pretty clear to me that you aren't going to "see" what you want to see. To expect a Blu-Ray transfer to be superior to the theatrical presentation of a film that is less than 10 years old simply seems extreme to me.

 

[dpippel]

Brandon - You can spin all you want. Again, we're talking the Lord of the Rings here. One of the most profitable film series in history. The Star Wars of their generation for many.

Jason - Where did I ever say that I expected the Blu-ray transfer to be superior to the theatrical presentation? I stated quite clearly that the source material is the limiting factor, as it is with any home video release.

You guys kill me. I'm expressing concern that there's a possibility these films aren't getting the treatment they deserve on Blu-ray and you're acting like that's a BAD thing. In the words of The Jesus: "Laughable man!"

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by dpippel

Brandon - You can spin all you want. Again, we're talking the Lord of the Rings here. One of the most profitable film series in history. The Star Wars of their generation for many.

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."

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by dpippel

IMO that includes going back and redoing the DI if necessary.

What am I missing?

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow /forum/thread/295947/whv-press-release-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-blu-ray/120#post_3677085

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton


What am I missing?

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 hybrid-finished master.

- In order to possible gain better clarity of picture, fine detail, etc., a new DI would need to be created from the film elements. And from my understanding you can't just do the other ~25-30%, but rather the whole shebang because you need everything to be on the same plane technologically, and DI tools have improved substantially since 2001.

- There's also the factor that some DNR-like post-production tools were employed back in 2001. So how much can be gained by doing a new DI would remained to be seen.

- Creating a new DI would, of course, be quite expensive.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway




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 who buy the product, for a budget of probably a few hundred thousand dollars, and with sales we'll be profitable with this release.

Option 2) We can spend, in addition to a few hundred thousand dollars, a few million dollars that *may* (because how do we know it would?) improve the video quality of 1 of the films, please 100% of the people who buy the product, and take far longer to be profitable with the release, if ever.

Now, from a business perspective the choice is obviously #1.

And we know from articles that Warner has spent $5-6 million on restorations of Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, A Star is Born, etc. in the last year or two, but what do these films have that are in common? They are all over 50 years old. So clearly Warner has some interest (and generally a much larger one than most other studios) at preserving older films that need it, and LOTR - as much as people love them - are not in that realm of *aged* prestige quite yet to get that type of non-profitable preservation budget.

Granted, this is merely my understanding of the variables involved having read statements from experts on the cost of such productions. I have no first hand knowledge of actual budgets here. But the scenario I outlined seems wholly plausible to me, and as I said, if I'm that CEO the choice is clear.

I'd like to think a company like Warner Bros. is interested in preserving movies in general, not necessarily those that are 50 years or older than that. If they think it's worth redoing the restorations of The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind (which were done, what, five years ago?) at a sum of 5 to 6 million dollars, wouldn't they also think it'd be worth redoing the DIs of the LOTR movies, if that's needed? I think a new scan would be sufficient enough, since the excessive DNR present on some shots aren't present on those HD broadcast versions, if those shots are correct.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst


I'd like to think a company like Warner Bros. is interested in preserving movies in general, not necessarily those that are 50 years or older than that.

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

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway


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 hybrid-finished master.

- In order to possible gain better clarity of picture, fine detail, etc., a new DI would need to be created from the film elements. And from my understanding you can't just do the other ~25-30%, but rather the whole shebang because you need everything to be on the same plane technologically, and DI tools have improved substantially since 2001.

- There's also the factor that some DNR-like post-production tools were employed back in 2001. So how much can be gained by doing a new DI would remained to be seen.

- Creating a new DI would, of course, be quite expensive.

Right, so am I correct in my understanding that the current DI was created prior to the film's theatrical release? If so, then creating a new DI would, effectively, create a presentation that may be superior to what people saw during it's theatrical run? If that's not the case, then I was mistaken in my previous post when I suggested that Doug's expectations were extreme...

Just want to be sure that I understand the process clearly.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Whoops - double post.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton

Right, so am I correct in my understanding that the current DI was created prior to the film's theatrical release? If so, then creating a new DI would, effectively, create a presentation that may be superior to what people saw during it's theatrical run? If that's not the case, then I was mistaken in my previous post when I suggested that Doug's expectations were extreme...

Just want to be sure that I understand the process clearly.

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

 

[Sumnernor]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/295947/whv-press-release-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-blu-ray/120#post_3677142

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by dpippel


How snarky. Of course nothing is ever going to look better than the original source material, but these films in particular should receive the very best treatment they can get for their Blu-ray debut. IMO that includes going back and redoing the DI if necessary. Are you really arguing against that? I'm reminded of the old engineering adage: "If you can't find the time and money to do it right the first time, how can you possibly find the time and money to do it over?"

The amount of apologist defending going on in here is pretty ironic. I'm still trying to maintain a "wait and see" attitude.

Being snarky is one thing, but being darn right insulting needs to stop now.





Crawdaddy

 

[Brandon Conway]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Alright, I've altered my game plan for today. When I got back home, I not only finished my viewing of "The Two Towers", but then went ahead and watched "The Return of the King" in it's entirety. Since, I just spent about 6.5 hours of my day viewing The Lord of the Ring films, I'm not in any mood to do some sample comparisons between this BRD release and the prior SD DVD releases. I will do so either tomorrow or Sunday, but right now, I'm taking a break from Aragorn, Frodo and the boys.

Back to the video presentation of these last two films. IMO, "The Two Towers" is superior to the first film with a lot less DNR applied. However, "The Return to the King" was even better with a video presentation that was very good in my opinion and an audio track that sounded much better than the first two films for some reason. I'm going to have to go back and sample all three BRDs again because I was surprised to hear my surround speakers kick in even moreso on the last film versus the other two films.

In short, I would classify all three films with the following grade in comparison to other BRD presentations:

Lord of the Rings: B-
Two Towers: B+
Return of the King: A-

By the way, others might disagree with my opinion about the presentations and I'm fine with that because different sets of eyes and ears do not always see and hear the same thing.




Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Brandon,

We try to discourage namecalling here. Argue the point of contention without getting personal towards one and other.




Crawdaddy

 

[Stephen_J_H]

There's a part of me that wants to scream, "It's only a movie, people!" a la Shatner 's classic SNL sketch on Trekkies, but what really bothers me is that everyone is expecting a repurposing of a 2K DI to look as good as some recent restorations that have gone 4K. It ain't gonna happen, people. And all this talk about going back and creating a new DI? Keep in mind that all the visual effects would have to be re-rendered for such an endeavour, raising the price tag to far more than the $5 million or so it cost to restore GTTW, TWoO, The Godfather films, or A Star is Born apiece. We want the best possible presentation, which means we have to do the best we can with what we've got. The reality of modern filmmaking is that what we have isn't as good as what was produced back in the day because of our reliance on digital tools, which have been improving by leaps and bounds, but still have yet to catch up with the best that film has to offer.

I know it comes as a shock to some that LOTR will never look as good as, say, The Searchers or Sleeping Beauty, but when you have a Super35 originated production that has been handled via DI with CG effects, it will never look as good as a film with optical effects. Deal with the shortcomings, and move on.

 

[Robert Crawford]

"There's a part of me that wants to scream, "It's only a movie, people!"

At times, there's a part of me that wish I never heard of DNR and EE so I can enjoy my films on video in peace with ignorance, but without debate about the PQ presentations which is how most folks are viewing their video product.





Crawdaddy

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Memory being subjective and all, I do recall seeing haloing on release prints of Fellowship. Don't discount the possibility that some of the EE and DNR may be built into the DI.

 

[Flemming.K]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow ">[/url]

Look, you obviously seem to believe that the DVD had an above-par image, when the opposite has been proven for years now.
[/QUOTE]
No I just find the DVD image displays skin more detailed than the BD image does.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow [url=/forum/thread/295947/whv-press-release-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-blu-ray/120#post_3677019][img]">[/url]

It also seems that you confuse MPEG artifacts with grain and detail, because I'm looking at the same image, and I'm not seeing what you claim is detail. I see McKellan's age spots/darker pores on his upper nose and forehead, which are completely absent on the DVD. [/QUOTE]
I disagree thoroughly. The DVD image on the right below, shows more details, while the BD on the left has the pores blurred.




And I wonder, how it can be "expensive" to make a new DI for LOTR trilogy, considering the vast potential they have for sale on blu-ray being perhaps the quintessential movie in HD that can persuade not yet HD customers to embrace the format? Everyone I know want to buy this on blu-ray, but this will and has scared potential customers away. Yet little Criterion continues to deliver 5 stars video quality for small small titles and I guess, do not survive on charity alone.

DVD / BD