Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010

[Stinky-Dinkins]

And for every other second of the day it's wrong. He's posted hundreds of scenes before and has never once been deceptive. His screens are always identical to what is on the disc.

Are you honestly claiming he has somehow altered those screens? To make Fellowship look bad? Hahaha, please. Funny, people here said the exact same thing about Gladiator.


Apart from that even, several other people have also posted caps of the BD and proven that his are 100% as the frames appear on the disc.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by robertc88

Eric endorsed Gladiator from what I remember for the most part and was confused as to why what he posted on his take was taken so negatively. Look through that thread and see for oneself.

This isn't Gladiator, right?

You're not remembering correctly, he was the one that created that thread and pointed out exactly where it demonstrated the problems.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1173155

[dborgill]

I don't know if this allowed or not but here is the first review I could find. Sounds pretty good to me despite the audio getting 8 out 10 (No excuse!!)

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by dborgill

I don't know if this allowed or not but here is the first review I could find. Sounds pretty good to me despite the audio getting 8 out 10 (No excuse!!)

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939

That review strikes me silly.. I mean, I'm looking at the first in the series right now.. I have popped some other BDs in just to make sure my eyes aren't deceiving me, and that I'm not being too harsh on the subject, but time and time again, everytime I look at this video it makes my eyes water. (in a bad way)

There is not much else I can say. To assume bad screens are due to people savataging the film is just being plain naive, as if LOTR is exempt from issues other major BDs have had in the past. Just because the movie is legendary, does not in any way mean the video quality must follow suite, and I can say the first in the series does not live up to the movie it is referencing. A complete let down to such a brilliantly mended story.

I'm about to pop in the 2nd so Ill post screens in a few.

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

You're not remembering correctly, he was the one that created that thread and pointed out exactly where it demonstrated the problems.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1173155

I might be but I don't think so, it may have been another movie whereby he first posted shots and gave his opinion and didn't understand why folks were so negative.

Even so, how many have access to HDTV broadcasts? These aren't going to be compared to those broadcasts as the majority don't have those and it they include lossless audio as well.

Now I'm not going to get into the "these should be better than what is being released". That isn't the point I'm making. The fact folks have bought BD releases (a la Gladiator) regardless cannot be discounted. Now it may have been for the fact of what some had been selling for when released having lots to do with it but still.

Disappointment and why these weren't released and delayed to begin with? Well I suppose but they will have to weigh that versus what they individually have for these movies now and if they want to wait that much longer after doing comparisons if they aren't horrific and worth it versus the SD DVDs.

I don't personally think where I was reading 10 or 15 percent of what was done harmfully on each of these movies is going to carry lots of weight considering they are each almost three hours long if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying that doesn't matter to me but we'll see.

[rileyparrish]

I don't know if this allowed or not but here is the first review I could find. Sounds pretty good to me despite the audio getting 8 out 10 (No excuse!!)

NOW we have audio issues to worry about too?

[dborgill]

I don't think the series is exempt from suckage I was just posting the only review I could find.

My expectations are huge but they have been grounded after reading all this. Either way, I will NOT be paying $60+ for this. I'll rent and hopefully the EE versions will get the treatment they deserve.

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by dborgill

I don't think the series is exempt from suckage I was just posting the only review I could find.

My expectations are huge but they have been grounded after reading all this. Either way, I will NOT be paying $60+ for this. I'll rent and hopefully the EE versions will get the treatment they deserve.

While I take all opinions in stride, I judge for myself with comparisons with what I have and take it from there. I had rather high expectations versus the SD DVDs and since I don't have access to the HDTV broadcasts, I still do. Time will tell.

[rileyparrish]

The opening sequences of "The Fellowship of the Ring" demonstrate the director's varying visual style for the films. The first sequence looks deliberately subdued, dull, and veiled to convey the feeling of a flashback, a memory. Then, when the film shifts to the present day in the Shire, it's absolutely glorious, the beauty of the landscape practically bringing tears to one's eyes. Colors are deep, rich, vivid, brilliant, glistening, and glowing by turns, with object delineation varying from slightly bland to remarkably precise.

That is true...the first scene with Frodo reading under the tree looks great, especially when he gets up and theres a close up of his face. It seems the quality is very inconsistent throughout the first film though, and while in my opinion its great it's nowhere NEAR the best of the Blu-Ray transfers as many people (myself included) thought it should be.

[HAVOKK]

Well I have to say, the second in the series is looking more like a BD. Certainly has its moments when the crispness and clarity shines through, although these moments are still rare. Regardless, rarity is more than nothing, so I definitely give The Two Towers a higher VQ rating than the first in the series.


Some Screens:

[Show spoiler]

[dborgill]

Well said on taking all opinions in. I read about 5 different Blu-Ray review sites and on some releases, the video rating varies from 3 to 4.5 out of 5 stars! So there ya have it..

Either way, I judge all earlier 2000 or so movies on the I, Robot Blu-Ray release. It's hard not to be spoiled by that..

[robertc88]

Actually, Eric on AVS endorsed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon so my mistake as I thought it was Gladiator. Even so, he knew the latter would sell well as most of us thought it would regardless.

I don't question the screenshots. It isn't the way I fly with judgment as I do that with comparisons via rental, especially with catalog titles before I take the plunge not HDTV broadcasts which I couldn't do if I wanted to since I don't have them.

[dborgill]

Either way, this set of Blu-Rays will sell like mad. I'll be renting them and watching them one by one. I'll be the judge on PQ and AQ

[radagast]

Here's where someone compares the BD to the DVDs:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

It all boils down to this:

1) If the BDs are noticeably better than the DVDs, and no one had ever seen the HD boradcasts, then we would be happy with the improvements in PQ over the DVDs (well most of us would)

2) If anyone prefers the HD broadcasts, then watch them on your PC through a HD monitor, or burn them to BD-R or whatever the format is called.

3) The rest can buy the BDs in a few weeks and enjoy watching LOTR without any artifacts from compressed HD broadcasts.

Since it has already been established that FOTR was shot differently than TTT and ROTK, it may be that FOTR will NEVER be able to look better.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by radagast

Here's where someone compares the BD to the DVDs:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

It all boils down to this:

1) If the BDs are noticeably better than the DVDs, and no one had ever seen the HD boradcasts, then we would be happy with the improvements in PQ over the DVDs (well most of us would)

2) If anyone prefers the HD broadcasts, then watch them on your PC through a HD monitor, or burn them to BD-R or whatever the format is called.

3) The rest can buy the BDs in a few weeks and enjoy watching LOTR without any artifacts from compressed HD broadcasts.

Since it has already been established that FOTR was shot differently than TTT and ROTK, it may be that FOTR will NEVER be able to look better.

QFT

Day one purchase for me. Never seen the HD TV broadcasts, don't have a DVR to record them. Only have the SD DVDs. Judging by that link, this will be more than worth the money, since from where I'm standing, those comparison shots look mind-blowingly better than their SD DVD counterparts.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Even without the existence of the HD Broadcast version it is still extremely evident that something is wrong with the Fellowship BD transfer. The HD broadcast version just provides a very easy visual screen comparison to demonstrate what people are talking about when they point out what's wrong with the transfer. Looking at the early screens of Fellowship I immediately knew something was off, this was before the HDTV comparisons existed, and I posted as much.

It has DNR issues and it absurdly soft. It looks like a very early BD transfer when the studios hadn't created new masters and weren't entirely sure what they were doing with the format.

If you don't think Fellowship can look any better you are absolutely fooling yourself.

I don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish here. Personally, I'm hoping that if enough people offer criticism of what is wrong they'll remaster it and fix the glaring issues with the transfer - just as Paramount is doing with Galdiator. What exactly are you doing? Defending the BluRay format (which is a ridiculous concept)? Posting for the sake of posting?

[dborgill]

And Stinky, your post is exactly why I will not be buying this. It is a blatant UNNECCESSARY double dip and if the transfers are lacking after 3 years of delay, they don't deserve our money.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Even without the existence of the HD Broadcast version it is still extremely evident that something is wrong with the Fellowship BD transfer.

I'm curious how anyone can look at those screen shots (side-by-side with the HD Broadcast or not) and NOT notice anything wrong with them

It's hard to tell if there was much detail even before the DNR!

For the fans.... I guess it's good that the others are receiving 'good' reviews..... although nobody is proclaiming them reference material from what I've seen (which, given budget etc.... you would kinda expect)

[neo78956]

I don't think anyone's saying that there's nothing wrong with it. Some may just be happy with what we got, which, while not perfect, is better than nothing. Isn't it possible that some of us are just happy to have LOTR in HD? I am.

[hurm]

Sorry to change the subject... again, but doesn anubody know where I can buy the Extended Editions on DVD? Amazon doesn't sell them anymore...