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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by billzfan

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.

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. For reasons I can't explain, the color and definition on "The Return of the King" seem the cleanest, brightest, and sharpest of all the movies, although you will hear no complaints from me about any of the transfers. There are scenes here of ravishing beauty. In fact, I can't imagine any viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions.

Wahahaha, please.

[MCT]

Wasn't gonna by the TE's anyways, but all this negative backlash the PQ is getting really sucks. Hopefully, WB and PJ himself do whatever is neccessary to give ALL THREE films the makeover they so richly deserve when it comes time to deliver the EE's. This franchise hauled in like a billion dollars, there is no reason they should be anything less than 5 star quality when it comes to the picture quality.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by moreno

the dark knight is sub-par, just like Gladiator.

Wow that is just an insane statement right there

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by captclueless

I like how the reviewer said that if you are not sensitive to dnr, you will like the blu rays. I have never been able to notice that kind of stuff. Still don't know how to pick that kind of stuff out.

So I will be buying these AND the ee's when they come out.

And that's the thing everyone should probably keep in mind, particularly when evaluating my video score for 'Fellowship.' I imagine those who aren't annoyed by DNR will rate FotR's transfer somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.0, perhaps as high as a 3.5.

There are still too many inconsistencies, instabilities, etc to warrant a higher score IMO, but DNR drags it down another full notch in my book (especially considering that some sequences look quite good, and others like the Council of Elrond look quite bad). Thanks as always for posting!

[ts0323]

After reading the review, I'm definitely not buying this yet.
I'll get this off Netflix, and hope for a better extended transfer.

[billzfan]

The third thing you should know about this Blu-ray release, is that the A/V presentation quality is very, very good. The films are presented in full 1080p video (using the VC-1 codec), in the original 2.35:1 scope aspect ratio. To my eye, Fellowship isn't quite as crisp and detailed looking as the other two films, though I suspect this is less a BD mastering issue and has more to do with the film's actual post-production. Fellowship was completed first, on a tighter budget, and I recall from the theatres that there were shots here and there that looked a little more digital than the rest. The transfer is still very good - fear not. It's just that Two Towers and Return of the King are absolutely fantastic, with abundant detail and crisp, refined textures. Color and contrast is outstanding on all three. There's a little tiny bit of DNR applied here and there, as there is on almost every film these days, but I don't find it to be an issue quality-wise. Moving on to the sound, the new DTS-HD MA 6.1 lossless mixes are big, spacious and natural sounding, with smooth imaging, lively surrounds and satisfying bass. A Dolby Surround track is also included, and subtitles are available in English, English SDH, French and Spanish. Upon comparison, these Blu-rays are a massive improvement over even the previously outstanding 4-disc DVD sets - so much in fact so that I now have a very hard time watching the standard-def discs. Lord of the Rings was meant for Blu-ray and doesn't disappoint in that score.

"From DIGITALBITS.com"

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by billzfan

The third thing you should know about this Blu-ray release, is that the A/V presentation quality is very, very good. The films are presented in full 1080p video (using the VC-1 codec), in the original 2.35:1 scope aspect ratio. To my eye, Fellowship isn't quite as crisp and detailed looking as the other two films, though I suspect this is less a BD mastering issue and has more to do with the film's actual post-production. Fellowship was completed first, on a tighter budget, and I recall from the theatres that there were shots here and there that looked a little more digital than the rest. The transfer is still very good - fear not. It's just that Two Towers and Return of the King are absolutely fantastic, with abundant detail and crisp, refined textures. Color and contrast is outstanding on all three. There's a little tiny bit of DNR applied here and there, as there is on almost every film these days, but I don't find it to be an issue quality-wise. Moving on to the sound, the new DTS-HD MA 6.1 lossless mixes are big, spacious and natural sounding, with smooth imaging, lively surrounds and satisfying bass. A Dolby Surround track is also included, and subtitles are available in English, English SDH, French and Spanish. Upon comparison, these Blu-rays are a massive improvement over even the previously outstanding 4-disc DVD sets - so much in fact so that I now have a very hard time watching the standard-def discs. Lord of the Rings was meant for Blu-ray and doesn't disappoint in that score.

"From DIGITALBITS.com"

At least he seems to have gotten the audio part right.

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Agreed.

I saw it projected in 3 houses theatrically and was actually quite disgusted with the look of the 35mm print... blurry, muddy, flat contrast. In fact, in many ways the DVD looked *better* than the projected film (for LOTR) which, for me, was a first.

The HD version, as non-optimal as it may be measured by was would have been possible, is superior to what was projected when the film debuted. I still what it the best it can be, but it's at least a consolation that the disc in hand will equal or exceed the 35mm experience in this particular case.

Here's a funny story that some may find interesting. I worked at a theater in MA as projectionist when the film opened. I was actually the Booth Manager and was in charge of the other projectionists. Anyway, we received 3 prints. The night before it opened one of my co-workers decided that him and his drunk buddies were going to watch it. I come in at 11 a.m. to open for the day and he is standing in front of the platter for the film with a 6-pack and a film splicer. I asked him what went wrong he says him and his friends were so drunk that they weren't paying attention to the projector. Apparently due to the static electricity and other variables the print started to slide off the platter while it was running. Well, to make a long story short it fell off the platter and onto the floor. Anyone who has ever worked as a projectionist knows what kind of nightmare this can be. So in order to fix it he had to pull the film from the center of the pile as much as he could until it got tangled then cut it and resplice it back together. Regardless, there was a splice every 5 to 10 feet non-stop throughout the film on opening day. So we put that one in our worst house. Needless to say this kid didn't last but he absolutely destroyed that print. It was akin to going cut happy with scissors on that thing. My manager wasn't happy and we were amazed that we didn't get fined for that one. Anyway there's my FOTR story.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

I agree and it seems to be a consensus that at least FOTR has a soft look to it. But if you look at screens from this site of "The Da Vinci Code" it has a soft look to it but it also has a naturalness about it and looks better than the FOTR screens.

That's how The DaVinci code was shot. That being said the transfer had othter issues as well.

As for why studios used DNR, I'd say firstly that it was used because DVDs didn't have the requisite resolution to display film grain, resulting in images where detail was awash with artifacts and noise. By using DNR and EE they were able to provide resolution where the compression could not have on it's own. Now a-days I believe it's a combination of things. I think that for some it's a habit. I also believe that DNR is used to meld digital special effects into live action shots in an attempt to remove that rear projection look of some stop motion films or practical effects shots from the first half of last century.

I'm curious to hear from an expert on the possibility that special effects may have influenced the decision to use DNR on these transfers.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by billzfan

The third thing you should know about this Blu-ray release, is that the A/V presentation quality is very, very good. The films are presented in full 1080p video (using the VC-1 codec), in the original 2.35:1 scope aspect ratio. To my eye, Fellowship isn't quite as crisp and detailed looking as the other two films, though I suspect this is less a BD mastering issue and has more to do with the film's actual post-production. Fellowship was completed first, on a tighter budget, and I recall from the theatres that there were shots here and there that looked a little more digital than the rest. The transfer is still very good - fear not. It's just that Two Towers and Return of the King are absolutely fantastic, with abundant detail and crisp, refined textures. Color and contrast is outstanding on all three. There's a little tiny bit of DNR applied here and there, as there is on almost every film these days, but I don't find it to be an issue quality-wise. Moving on to the sound, the new DTS-HD MA 6.1 lossless mixes are big, spacious and natural sounding, with smooth imaging, lively surrounds and satisfying bass. A Dolby Surround track is also included, and subtitles are available in English, English SDH, French and Spanish. Upon comparison, these Blu-rays are a massive improvement over even the previously outstanding 4-disc DVD sets - so much in fact so that I now have a very hard time watching the standard-def discs. Lord of the Rings was meant for Blu-ray and doesn't disappoint in that score.

"From DIGITALBITS.com"

This has been posted several times already.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

This has been posted several times already.

I've been posting them again to remind people that these films are going to look on blu-ray as good as they probably can. Sometimes people are dissapointed in a film's picture quality when it quite likely is very, very close to the way the director intended it.

[commodus89]

wow! warner just managed to screw up one of the best movie trilogies of all times - how stupid can one company be?
well... i guess they'll still make a lot of money with this release because most people don't read reviews before they buy a movie..
let's hope the ee release gets the transfer it deserves with reference quality sound AND video.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

Please, dont feel bad for me. I am going to enjoy watching these films as they have never looked better. FOTR doesnt appear to be the best it could have been, but TT and ROTK look ****ing awesome. Then there is the audio.

How up there in bad would you say FOTR is. Da vinci code bad?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by billzfan

I've been posting them again to remind people that these films are going to look on blu-ray as good as they probably can. Sometimes people are dissapointed in a film's picture quality when it quite likely is very, very close to the way the director intended it.

Suppose nuclear war began tomorrow and literally the only master(s) they would ever have available for this movie were the one (or more) old, dated master(s) they already have (including the one to produce this BluRay presentation)... and they were unable, for the rest of time, to remaster it - what you said still wouldn't be the case... considering the old HDTV presentation actually trumps this one visually. Now, given the reality of actual remastering being a possibility your claim is ridiculous.

You can keep endlessly posting though, if you like. You seem to really dig doing it.

[marvinski]

I don't know how those movie majors still can complain that people are downloading "bad quality" illegal downloads when they're not offering an absolute difference?!I thought when they pushed back the release from autumn 2009 that they took the time to fix (remasterize) some of the "PQ Issues" that these movies had?! Aparently they don't give a flyin' f&%k!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by commodus89

let's hope the ee release gets the transfer it deserves with reference quality sound AND video.

The fact that people don't remember how these looked theatrically, that Peter Jackson approved them, that other industry types have verified the intended look of these Blu-rays, the ignorance is astonishing.

I will laugh heartily when the EEs don't look much different from these. Oh the teeth gnashing and online butthurt will be something to savor, judging by this thread alone.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I don't think he's saying that...... but to try to answer his question,
i'd say "because people seem to notice grain and dirt easier than DNR"

And so they think most people would find grain and dirt objectionable, so they try to minimize it? If so, then I suppose they try to find a middle ground?

By the way, thanks for answering the question instead of asking a stupid question back.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by 42041

I appreciate Ken Brown not inflating the video rating for Fellowship because it's a great film like many reviews do. The PQ standard should be elevated, not lowered, for movies like this... especially when they've been delaying the release for so long, you'd think they'd be getting the filmmakers to spend some time in a DI facility

+1 Glad to see I was wrong and Ken gave these transfers a score they deserved.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Suppose nuclear war began tomorrow and literally the only master(s) they would ever have available for this movie were the one (or more) old, dated master(s) they already have (including the one to produce this BluRay presentation)... and they were unable, for the rest of time, to remaster it - what you said still wouldn't be the case... considering the old HDTV presentation actually trumps this one visually. Now, given the reality of actual remastering being a possibility your claim is ridiculous.

You can keep endlessly posting though, if you like. You seem to really dig doing it.

I saw the HDTV presentation. It looked fantastic. I expect the same from the Blu.

[Teabaggins]

you guys expect way too much..in general...from life