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

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I have a hard time accepting the sky is blue, yet it is.

It looks worse than the broadcast version. Sorry.

Good for you, like I said do not buy them then. Look on the bright side, you just save $60

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Your signature "If they release it, we will buy" should be the official slogan of this forum - it's perfect. For many people here it seems like just getting a release is the only requisite for purchase.

[kjacobs03]

Can someone with capture capabilities please post a screen the FotR when Frodo drops the ring in the snow? When it shows it with the fellowship in the background before Boromir grabbs it.

[wildphantom]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Again, it's the old "good enough" argument.

"I don't have the HDTV broadcast version, so it's good enough for me." "Good enough" is not "good," and anything less than legitimately good is a disappointment for this release.

It's as simple as this: The fact that it isn't as good as the HDTV version is a huge disappointment.

People seem to love skirting around this over here.

Thing is I'm on the fence. I think I've stressed that well enough but you seem intent on bracketing me as someone who has already decided they'll get them. I will get them if they get across the board good reviews, yes.

I accept that it will be disappointing if they are not as good as the HDTV broadcasts, but as I said - I do not have access to those to watch them instead.

Do you have the HDTV broadcasts to watch?
Or, should you (shudder) find yourself owning these blu-rays then bemoan that the films you're enjoying look worse than the screencaps you have on your computer of the HDTV versions?

Providing they get good reviews then I'll pick them up. But I would never pick them up if they didn't.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that stance is there??

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

That being said, I have a hard time accepting that the DVD or the TV HD broadcast look better then this Blu-ray release. Maybe some people are in need of justification for not buying them? It's ok not buying them, that is what I am doing, no need to find reason for not buying them.

I think this may be an example of "not seeing the forest for the trees". I am fairly confident that the BD's will be superior to any other available format, and I will enjoy immersing myself in the total audio/video experience on April 6.

[Fors*]

I biggest reason I am buying the release is for the DTS-HD 6.1 audio.....not the PQ.

[Mike2060]

If I was Warner I'd buy out all the reviewers then start releasing upscaled DVDs but packaging them as "Blu-rays". God, they'd rake in the money.

[rileyparrish]

I have downloaded EVERY HDTV broadcast encode and I can tell you right now they don't hold a candle to the Blu-Ray encode...screenshots are one thing, sure, but they really do not do justice to the picture you actually are seeing on your screen!

Also that review on the digital bits really gives us no information that we didn't already know...I could have typed that up without even viewing the movies...

[X400]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Review up on Area DVD (German).

They seem to knock FOTR in the review but gave it a 78% rating (which is low imo, but the review sounded like it deserved a lower score)

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

I have downloaded EVERY HDTV broadcast encode and I can tell you right now they don't hold a candle to the Blu-Ray encode...screenshots are one thing, sure, but they really do not do justice to the picture you actually are seeing on your screen!

Also that review on the digital bits really gives us no information that we didn't already know...I could have typed that up without even viewing the movies...

What does this even mean? This makes no sense whatsoever.

What magical element is not in the screenshots that makes the Blu Ray so much better?

You must not have downloaded the Dish version that eric.exe got his screens from.

The film is no more than the frames, individual screens, strung together. There's nothing magical at work here. The Blu Ray version does not look as good.

[rileyparrish]

I'm merely saying the Blu-ray looks NOTICEABLY better than the HDTV rip, and like I said, I've gotten every broadcast encode I can find and compared them all as well, took the best one and compared to the BD. Unfortunately the first few reviews up are pretty vague and dont go into much detail like the reviews on this website. Don't write off the set until you see it for yourself...

[robertc88]

I don't want the thread to get into a discussion about renting versus buying, but if folks who have had experiences with the HDTV broadcasts and you don't and they are raising concerns why wouldn't you look for yourself and then decide afterwards on purchasing?

For your inforamtion TBS is airing these starting April 2, one each night. I'm not sure if they HD broadcasts though.

[rileyparrish]

For your inforamtion TBS is airing these starting April 2, one each night. I'm not sure if they HD broadcasts though.

Probably pan & scaned to 1.78:1 and butchered with commercials...and in Canada we don't even get TBS or PeachtreeTV HD yet.

[wildphantom]

I just checked out the screencaps myself and have to admit it doesn't look good.

[Spitfrnd]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

....It's too bad that you will wait to see the movies for yourself and if you are not pleased Warner has already scammed you out of your money.

Au contraire, that is what rentals are for.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

What does this even mean? This makes no sense whatsoever.

What magical element is not in the screenshots that makes the Blu Ray so much better?

You must not have downloaded the Dish version that eric.exe got his screens from.

The film is no more than the frames, individual screens, strung together. There's nothing magical at work here. The Blu Ray version does not look as good.

I imagine the HDTV image is interlaced and not progressive. This will have an effect during any of the action sequences or rapid pans. There tends to be quite a bit of camera movement in these films, an interlaced broadcast would no doubt have much poorer motion resolution than the progressive encode on the blu-ray.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I can tell you that I trust Bill Hunt and Robert Harris far more than I trust any (or all) screenshot scientist.

Did Bill compare it directly to the HDTV version?

There are two separate debates going on:

1. that the LOTR BDs don't look good period.
2. that the LOTR BDs don't look quite as good as the HDTV broadcast.

It sounds like Bill and RAH only commented about number one.

That can be true, while at the same time these BDs may not look as good as the HDTV feed which had slightly more detail.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I imagine the HDTV image is interlaced and not progressive. This will have an effect during any of the action sequences or rapid pans. There tends to be quite a bit of camera movement in these films, an interlaced broadcast would no doubt have much poorer motion resolution than the progressive encode on the blu-ray.

Any projector or processor that performs 3-2 pulldown for the 1080p conversion of the 1080i60 HDTV feed would resolve interlacing issues since it's a true-frame source.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

I'm merely saying the Blu-ray looks NOTICEABLY better than the HDTV rip, and like I said, I've gotten every broadcast encode...

Again, this makes no sense.

You obviously don't have every broadcast encode, or you have some magical Blu Ray version that no one else on Earth has because there are already screengrab comparisons of the broadcast vs the Blu Ray version and it is cut and dried.

The screens are the Blu Ray version. There's nothing magically absent in the screens that suddenly appear when the film is played. In motion it is merely the screens strung all together.

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I imagine the HDTV image is interlaced and not progressive. This will have an effect during any of the action sequences or rapid pans. There tends to be quite a bit of camera movement in these films, an interlaced broadcast would no doubt have much poorer motion resolution than the progressive encode on the blu-ray.

It's progressive.


It's almost like people here haven't seen the comparisons or are purposely ignoring them:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1237167

Here is an easy mouseover:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...6&postcount=37

[huntifosi]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I have a hard time accepting the sky is blue, yet it is.

It looks worse than the broadcast version. Sorry.

I have a hard time believing that any HD broadcast in 720p, 1080i at what ever compression rate on Dish, Directv, COMCAST or FIOS will ever beat a 1080p Blu.

So believe what ever you want, screencaps have time and time again proven they are completely WORTHLESS to compare video quality.

Have a nice day.....