Originally Posted by slop101

Exactly! That's a lot of extra discs that just waste space. With blu-ray becoming more ubiquitous, I don't know why they aren't compiling massive multi-disc dvd sets into smaller blu-ray sets. Seems like a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by roger_d

Just read this on the Bits:


Now then... before we get to the release news today, we have a little more Lord of the Rings: Extended Blu-ray information for you. A lot of people have asked about the new 2K remaster of Fellowship. Specifically, a few people have wondered if WHV was cheaping out by not remastering at at least 4K. We've confirmed that 2K was the resolution of the final post-production/editorial master for the film. So unless and until someone goes in and rescans all the film elements at higher resolution, then rebuilds the edit and re-renders all the visual effects at the higher resolution, 2K is the highest resolution element available to master a Blu-ray from. And that's what WHV has apparently gone back to. Today, this kind of film mastering work is mostly done at 4K, but back in 2000-2001, 2K was standard.

A couple other comments on the set: A few readers have complained that The Appendices and Costa Botes documentaries are only included on DVD in standard definition. In other words: Why haven't they been upgraded to high-definition for the Blu-ray? Surely they were shot in HD? And the answer is no, they weren't. We've confirmed that all of The Appendices material was shot in 16x9 SD and the finished documentaries were in that resolution and aspect ratio. What's more, the Costa Botes documentaries were 4x3 letterboxed SD. You have to remember, from post-production to finished DVDs, this material was produced in the 1998-2003 timeframe. The HD transition had only just begun, and studios weren't in the habit of paying for HD behind-the-scenes material yet. I think it was closer to 2005-2006 that DVD producers really began shooting such material in HD in anticipation of high-def discs. In the last 5 years or so, it's obviously become standard practice to shoot "making of" in HD. But back then, not so much. So SD IS the final resolution of all this material. As to why all the SD bonus content wasn't collected onto BD-25s for this release, we can only assume it was done to save authoring costs. One other note: The set will include a collectible map of Middle Earth, and the booklets for each film will include a chapter listing and guide to all the extras. So there you go. For those of you've who had questions about these issues, we hope this clarifies things for you a little. We're expecting more technical information from WHV on the set soon, so we'll pass it on to you here as it comes in.

Originally Posted by roger_d

Just read this on the Bits:

... We've confirmed that all of The Appendices material was shot in 16x9 SD and the finished documentaries were in that resolution and aspect ratio. What's more, the Costa Botes documentaries were 4x3 letterboxed SD.

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Around 70-80% of FOTR had a digital intermediate when released theatrically. After ROTK, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie went back and finished the DI of FOTR. So while the previous DVD transfers were made from scan of an interpositive, the 2K files WHV are referring to could well be the DI for FOTR.

http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/...-middle-earth/
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post20186990

Originally Posted by RocShemp

That's not how I recall it. Recalling the docs, I believe you'll hear that Jackson said they were "digitally graded".

Originally Posted by RocShemp

They were very speicific during the release of TTT that the digital intermediate process for the sequel was totally different than the process done for FOTR.

Originally Posted by Jay G.

I think you're getting stuck on semantics here. In order to be digitally graded, a digital intermediate has to be created (since it consists of the final, digitally graded image).

From the previously linked article:
http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/...-middle-earth/


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading#DI


I've searched a bit on this, and from what I can find, the "totally different" part of the process was when they transferred the DI back to film, not in creating the DI itself:

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cg/video_rings/


Additional reading:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/di..._right_timing/
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/di...r_control_dps/

Originally Posted by mattysemo247

I thought it was pretty obvious why they leaving them on the DVDs. How else would they sell you on an upgrade when the first Hobbit film comes out on Blu Ray?

And then another re release when the second Hobbit film comes out on Blu Ray.

Originally Posted by Todd B.

Exactly why I think I'll be skipping this release. At this point, and given that there are so many discs in this set, I think I can wait until the complete LotR/Hobbit set comes out with EVERYTHING consolidated onto the proper number of BD discs.

Originally Posted by doraemon10

is the hobbit owned by WB? I thought it was MGM for some reason.

Originally Posted by Jay G.

WB/New Line owns the production rights, but MGM owns the distribution rights. This is what largely caused the large gap in production between the two adaptations, as WB and MGM hammered out a deal, and MGM dealt with its ongoing financial issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hob...%29#Production

Originally Posted by Giles

so then, who owns the video rights? WB or Fox ??

Originally Posted by Superdaddy

We all know these plus the Hobbit films are coming in a megaset in a few years time. That's what I'm waiting for.

I held off on the theatrical BDs until they were $7.99 at amazon. If these extended cuts get released separately and make their way to a bargain price--say $12 or so per movie, I might buy them that way to tide me over. Heck, they could even make the separate releases barebones since so many people own these on DVD already (myself included).

If that doesn't happen, I'll just wait it out.

Originally Posted by Jay G.

I don't know if that's publicly known yet. Due to the deal WB and MGM reached, both studios are financing the film, WB is distributing domestically, while MGM is distributing internationally. This would lead one to suspect that WB will be the domestic distributor on video as well, but this isn't absolute.

Originally Posted by theflyingdutch

Ya, and you might be dead by then.