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

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Its a direct quote from his comment. He recognised that there was SOME DNR in Fellowship, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't appear to be much of an issue.

The word "suffer" doesn't mean "it doesn't appear to be much of an issue".

I think you somehow misread or misunderstood what he actually said.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Its a direct quote from his comment. He recognised that there was SOME DNR in Fellowship, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't appear to be much of an issue.

On 'Return of the King' . Read his post again.

[Q?]

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ay-review.html
Here's another review, he is quite devastated by the transfer.

He even listed his "review system".
"Panasonic BD-60 Blu-Ray Player"
"Calibrated Epson 6100 Projector onto 120" screen"

[billzfan]

I know this isn't the popular opinion but I owned both the extended and the Theatrical and while the extended boxed set had a few more extras, I always wound up watching the theatrical because the films just flow better. 90% of the added material bogs down the pacing and adds nothing. I mean, even the biggest added scene, the death of Sauroman, was lame.

[threefiftyrocket]

I swear this thread is more entertaining than the movies themselves

[billzfan]

From the DVDtown review:

Video:
The New Line video engineers transferred the three "The Lord of the Rings" films to 1080p Blu-ray in their original aspect ratio of 2.40:1 using dual-layer BD50s and a VC-1 codec. The results are as good as any fan could reasonably ask for, and at least some of the scenes must rank among the best-looking live-action images currently available in high definition.

The engineers retain much of the film's light, natural print grain, noticeable mainly in wide expanses of sky because the reproduction is so clean. Facial tones are quite natural, too, although the smooth contours and polished textures of some facial features suggest the use of soft-focus lenses and a possible degree of filtering. As do a few lush, plush, dreamy scenes.

[42041]

Originally Posted by radagast

And obviously full trust in someone named Eric.

His screen caps have been accurate to my retail discs in the past, and he's been doing them longer than I've been on these forums. At any rate, he would have to be collaborating with a whole lot of people to carry on this ruse.

I think my opinion of "professional" reviews (never mind the lack of any particular qualifications for the title) is exactly what your opinion of screen grabs is Subjective opinions based on innumerable factors do not interest me when a degree of objectivity can be so easily had. Not to mention... if you really want to descend into paranoia, they could easily be paid shills

[s_corroon]

sorry but could somebody please post a link to theses screenshots please. Im dying to see them!

[42041]

Originally Posted by s_corroon

sorry but could somebody please post a link to theses screenshots please. Im dying to see them!

A few from all three movies some ways down this page: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...137098&page=68

comparison between an HDTV broadcast of fellowship and the Blu-Ray
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1237167

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Q!

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ay-review.html
Here's another review, he is quite devastated by the transfer.

He even listed his "review system".
"Panasonic BD-60 Blu-Ray Player"
"Calibrated Epson 6100 Projector onto 120" screen"

You can't trust him either. He's part of the conspiracy too.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

You can't trust him either. He's part of the conspiracy too.

I'm holding out for a review from someone with a 175+ inch screen and an NEC TriDigital HD4K projector

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Q!

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ay-review.html
Here's another review, he is quite devastated by the transfer.

Yeah, so devastated that he gave it four stars and says "Despite a disappointing video transfer, the Lord of the Rings is an impressive experience on Blu-Ray – largely bolstered by the dynamic and powerful DTS-MA HD mix each disc includes. The films themselves are as powerful now as they once were in theaters and are a pleasure to watch. A great list of extras that is more or less unchanged from the DVD release should not disappoint."

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm holding out for a review from someone with a 175+ inch screen and an NEC TriDigital HD4K projector

Why 175? I mean that's childs play... lets just make it an even 200!!! Heck... On something like that even my crappy eyes could see the destruction of these films...

[s_corroon]

Originally Posted by 42041

A few from all three movies some ways down this page: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...137098&page=68

comparison between an HDTV broadcast of fellowship and the Blu-Ray
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1237167

tanx man

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, so devastated that he gave it four stars and says "Despite a disappointing video transfer, the Lord of the Rings is an impressive experience on Blu-Ray – largely bolstered by the dynamic and powerful DTS-MA HD mix each disc includes. The films themselves are as powerful now as they once were in theaters and are a pleasure to watch. A great list of extras that is more or less unchanged from the DVD release should not disappoint."

Q! plainly stated he was referring specifically to the transfer. The vast majority of your quote is extraneous to that point.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, so devastated that he gave it four stars and says "Despite a disappointing video transfer, the Lord of the Rings is an impressive experience on Blu-Ray – largely bolstered by the dynamic and powerful DTS-MA HD mix each disc includes. The films themselves are as powerful now as they once were in theaters and are a pleasure to watch. A great list of extras that is more or less unchanged from the DVD release should not disappoint."

He basically said everything but the transfer is great. No real surprise there. It also seems that he let his love for the films boost his final score a bit.

Here's his full review of the picture quality for those who can't access the site:

It is no secret that many people, myself included, had high hopes for this release. These films were technically groundbreaking during their theatrical runs and deserve the absolute best transfer possible when going to Blu-Ray.

Now the question you’re all asking – just how good do they look?

Sadly the answer is – so so.

Warner has yet again failed to perform due diligence when it comes to an important Blu-Ray release. While the films do get progressively better as far as PQ is concerned as you progress through the trilogy, they are simply good and rarely great. The Fellowship of the Ring has always looked a little “soft” – even in theaters as some of you may recall, but it never lacked in terms of fine detail. Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray release has been subjected to Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) to the extent that some HDTV recordings actually show better fine detail. It appears to me that rather than starting from a rescan of the source film Warner took their existing HD master and threw it through the DNR cycle on medium before making a few color timing fixes, boosting contrast ever so slightly and throwing it onto a disc in average bitrate VC-1.


I know that many of you are going to be disappointed reading this – and let me assure you that I am even more disappointed writing this. These films deserve better, they deserve to be treated with respect and demand that more time and money be invested to ensure they look their best. Warner has done a great job moving to Blu-Ray as a high def format – but they consistently let us down with their Blu-Ray transfers. Films like this should come to us free of DNR and digital tampering beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure they are true to Peter Jackson’s vision. So little care was in fact taken that there is actually digital noise present in certain dark scenes (00:24:02 in the Two Towers for example).


If the spiel I wrote in my introduction demonstrates anything, it should be just how important these films are to many of us. If I was to make a list of films that deserve to be fully remastered – these films would be right at the top. When I refer to remastering I do not mean taking the current master, applying a smattering of Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) and slapping it into a moderate bitrate VC-1 encode. I refer to a complete rescan of the original film stock at 4k or better resolution and a re-render for any effects that are dated or low res.

Summary: If you’re a picture quality fanatic this release is not for you. The needless and inconsistent use of DNR has absolutely tarnished what could have been a groundbreaking release.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

You can't trust him either. He's part of the conspiracy too.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm holding out for a review from someone with a 175+ inch screen and an NEC TriDigital HD4K projector

yeah, I also scoffed at the measly 120 inch screen

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, so devastated that he gave it four stars and says "Despite a disappointing video transfer, the Lord of the Rings is an impressive experience on Blu-Ray – largely bolstered by the dynamic and powerful DTS-MA HD mix each disc includes. The films themselves are as powerful now as they once were in theaters and are a pleasure to watch. A great list of extras that is more or less unchanged from the DVD release should not disappoint."

What four stars are you talking about?
He gave the PQ three stars, and what he's talking about is the sound experience.

"Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray release has been subjected to Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) to the extent that some HDTV recordings actually show better fine detail"
AND
"and let me assure you that I am even more disappointed writing this."

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, so devastated that he gave it four stars and says "Despite a disappointing video transfer, the Lord of the Rings is an impressive experience on Blu-Ray – largely bolstered by the dynamic and powerful DTS-MA HD mix each disc includes. The films themselves are as powerful now as they once were in theaters and are a pleasure to watch. A great list of extras that is more or less unchanged from the DVD release should not disappoint."

He gave the video of Fellowship (the thing we've been talking about) 3 stars, which is not good. The star rating you're giving is an average that takes into account the quality of the movie itself (not the technical quality,) the extras, etc.


Warner has yet again failed to perform due diligence when it comes to an important Blu-Ray release. While the films do get progressively better as far as PQ is concerned as you progress through the trilogy, they are simply good and rarely great. The Fellowship of the Ring has always looked a little “soft” – even in theaters as some of you may recall, but it never lacked in terms of fine detail. Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray release has been subjected to Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) to the extent that some HDTV recordings actually show better fine detail. It appears to me that rather than starting from a rescan of the source film Warner took their existing HD master and threw it through the DNR cycle on medium before making a few color timing fixes, boosting contrast ever so slightly and throwing it onto a disc in average bitrate VC-1.

I know that many of you are going to be disappointed reading this – and let me assure you that I am even more disappointed writing this. These films deserve better, they deserve to be treated with respect and demand that more time and money be invested to ensure they look their best. Warner has done a great job moving to Blu-Ray as a high def format – but they consistently let us down with their Blu-Ray transfers. Films like this should come to us free of DNR and digital tampering beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure they are true to Peter Jackson’s vision. So little care was in fact taken that there is actually digital noise present in certain dark scenes (00:24:02 in the Two Towers for example).

If the spiel I wrote in my introduction demonstrates anything, it should be just how important these films are to many of us. If I was to make a list of films that deserve to be fully remastered – these films would be right at the top. When I refer to remastering I do not mean taking the current master, applying a smattering of Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) and slapping it into a moderate bitrate VC-1 encode. I refer to a complete rescan of the original film stock at 4k or better resolution and a re-render for any effects that are dated or low res.

Summary: If you’re a picture quality fanatic this release is not for you. The needless and inconsistent use of DNR has absolutely tarnished what could have been a groundbreaking release.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Q!

What four stars are you talking about?
He gave the PQ three stars, and what he's talking about is the sound experience.

He gave the following out in star ratings -

Films = 5 stars
Video = 3 stars
Audio = 5 stars
Extras = 3.5 stars
Overall = 4 stars.

It was the overall score that I was referring to.

[42041]

i think this whole discussion has pretty well worn itself out at this point and became tiresome pages ago. save some brain cells, folks, and punch out of this thread while you're ahead