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

[captveg]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Says who? He just approved them.

Which could mean he sat down and watched all 3 films in their entirety, watched just a few minutes of each film, or because he's busy - assumed the studio would do these justice and didn't watch them at all.

If he's too busy to be bothered to watch them in their entirety he obviously cares FAR less than you do about these films.

Look, when a director/producer is involved with approving a home video release they are usually fairly hands on. There was another release from about a year ago that people had complaints about on this forum, but what they didn't know is that the director had been so involved with the release that he rejected a prior build of the disc that was ONE FRAME out of sync between the audio and video. Do you know how next to impossible it is to notice 1/24th of a second of a sync problem?

[DaViD Boulet]

Did the person who said Contact looked fine sit like 1.5 screen width from their display? Or did they sit 3 screen widths away? You kind of got to that in the second paragraph. I've looked at the screen caps of Contact on this site and they don't look great but they certainly wouldn't look awful 2 screen widths away from the display.

This really hits on a key issue with "reviews" both professional and via members of this and other forums. If we're not watching true 1080p images from the same viewing angle, we can't even begin to compare our impressions.

Very few mastering problems that affect detail reveal themselves from 2 screen widths away. That's the old-fashioned "TV" mentality of mastering that got us filtered and edge-enhanced pictures with DVD, and for the last few years the HT community has been working hard to get the studios to adopt a new philosphy of "wide angle" quality so that their product can deliver true-to-film video reproduction in the home and support a 30 degree viewing angle consistent with what the director intended.

Blu-ray can attain picture detail that can support a 30 degree viewing angle easily, and in many cases look better than projected 35mm prints in common circulation.

viewing distances of 2 screen widths or more should *never* be used for reviewing blu-ray video, as those distances obscure the fine detail in the transfer and don't reproduce a cinema-worthy exeperience that representes home-theater. However, in practice, there are not only many review sites who use improper viewing distances to evaluate image quality, but also many video engineers as well. That tradition is slowly changing and with time we should see more and more image evaluation with Blu-ray Disc that utilized a 30 degree viewing angle.

In my reviews at dvdfile, I try to remember to state my viewing distance ratio from the screen in the review so that baseline is known for comparison.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

My DVD of all three films has a discrete 6.1 channel, why should I be satisfied with a 5.1 on a Blu-Ray?

Ernest, it's a matrixed channel. 5.1 DTS-ES will have a sixth channel pulled from the surround left/right, but it is not discrete.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

While I'll agree that with HDTV/Blu-ray increase in 'larger' television sales etc make it imperative for transfers to be very meticulous as much smaller errors have become much more noticeable.....

However... large projection screens, and "videophiles" aren't that recent of a phenomena, and many people scrutinized the image characteristics and transfers back in the DVD days.....

I remember it going all the way back to the VHS days, with many videophiles refusing to abandon Betamax because of its image quality...

[Bullseye]

I was going to buy these but PQ is more important to me than having a movie with a better AQ. We should expect more on titles like this. I wanted both the TR and SEE in my collection. I guess I'll just have to wait for
the SEEs and hope that the PQ and AQ is reference.

[42041]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Very few mastering problems that affect detail reveal themselves from 2 screen widths away.

This is true. I've been accused of sitting "too close" to my display when I was criticizing some past blu-rays. I sit exactly the same distance relative to the width of the screen as where I sit in the cinema. If that's an invalid way to watch a movie, they should remove the front half of the theater seating altogether. Sitting close makes any "minor" issue a glaring one, like the aliasing in the first 20 minutes of Braveheart that no professional review even picked up on but which was incredibly distracting during my viewing of the movie.

[Fang Dangerchili]

I'm going to pass on this one. I was hoping this would be my new show off material but that seems to not be the case.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by _ck

Wow, what a spectacular failure on WB/New Line's behalf. I wasn't planning on buying these anyway, but I'm shocked they would let such poor transfers slip through for such a high profile release.

The saddest thing is that a ton of people are going to buy these anyway. Even people in this thread who KNOW the video quality isn't what it should be say they're buying them, which is the same as telling WB/New Line that this is totally okay, when it really isn't. It's fine for those of us who know about this and can pass on buying them, but you gotta feel bad for those who'll cough up a pretty penny for this box set and end up disappointed.

There's no excuse.

Don't feel sorry for me, these are clearly superior to the dvd versions and that's enough for me.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

While I'll agree that with HDTV/Blu-ray increase in 'larger' television sales etc make it imperative for transfers to be very meticulous as much smaller errors have become much more noticeable.....

However... large projection screens, and "videophiles" aren't that recent of a phenomena, and many people scrutinized the image characteristics and transfers back in the DVD days.....

But that's what I am saying, you no longer have a small, niche segment of the population owning high-res equipment like you still see, unfortunately with music, although DVD-A and SACD certainly brought it closer to the masses, but alas they failed. People are buying up 1080p and Blu-ray like hotcakes. It's in the hands of just about everybody now. There's no faking it this time around. High-resolution has come to the masses. Everyone can now see a bad transfer, plain as day. The potential is out there now and they need to be mastering every movie for it. It has effectively become the standard.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by 42041

This is true. I've been accused of sitting "too close" to my display when I was criticizing some past blu-rays. I sit exactly the same distance relative to the width of the screen as where I sit in the cinema. If that's an invalid way to watch a movie, they should remove the front half of the theater seating altogether. Sitting close makes any "minor" issue a glaring one, like the aliasing in the first 20 minutes of Braveheart that no professional review even picked up on but which was incredibly distracting during my viewing of the movie.

So it wasn't just me imagining things, Braveheart really isn't RQ!

[Blu Titan]

Just read K.B.'s review and really enjoyed it, he did a great job. Disappointed in the PQ score for Fellowship (obviously) . However, I am still buying the set. I have been putting off watching the trilogy for over two years, and will enjoy watching/hearing them again (specially TTT and TOTK).

[Diesel]

My blu-rays of the theatricals and the DVDs of the EE I ordered ($26 including shipping, new/sealed) might be coming in at about the same time

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Don't feel sorry for me, these are clearly superior to the dvd versions and that's enough for me.

Ah, but you see, there in lies the dilema. Blu-ray and these 1080p screens are very picky, just like hig-def stereo. What may be superior to the last media incarnation can easily still not "cut it" with regard to what the technology can show. That's the problem here.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Just read K.B.'s review and really enjoyed it, he did a great job. Disappointed in the PQ score for Fellowship (obviously) . However, I am still buying the set. I have been putting off watching the trilogy for over two years, and will enjoy watching/hearing them again (specially TTT and TOTK).

ToTK? "New" work by Tolkien I've never heard of? Yeah I haven't seen them for 2 years myself or I'd keep waiting. I have a feeling these will soon become my most watched blus.

[dborgill]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

If what youre saying is right, and that screenshot has been posted to give people a feel of the Blu-ray, it is now me who feels bad for people choosing not to purchase this because of them. They could not be any more different.

Yeah, compare this shot: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=6

To this in TTT:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=7

Yes, I realize they are lossy and yes, it has been downsized but the difference between the two are night and day. The TTT looks like an OK Blu-Ray shot. The FOTR shot looks like an upscaled DVD.

Brodo, I hope it looks better than that shot! Weird..

[GORT]

Originally Posted by drtre81

3.5/5 pq.... for freakin LOTR????

This is just another persons OPINION on how it looks. you could set 100 people down to watch something and everybody will give a different OPINION of what they saw. I judge for myself.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Emotiva

I know that the goal is NOT that its better then DVD, I perfectly understand what Bluray was meant to be. I watch my movies in 1080P and Lossless Sound. I only prefer Lossless Audio, so I know what to look for. I hope everyone will be happy with whatever they buy. I dont need a lesson in home-theater, trust me.

Yeah really!

Also for everything technology related why do you upgrade? to get better then what you previously had, granted I'm not happy this set might be gladiator, but if its better then dvd and its noticeably better then it has accomplished something.

If they rushed it and just want people to double dip thats different. I will fully support outrage on that.

Originally Posted by GORT

This is just another persons OPINION how it looks. you could set 100 people down to watch something and everybody will give a different OPINION of what they saw.

Yep this might be perfect for some and a disaster for others.

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Yeah, compare this shot: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=6

To this in TTT:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=7

Yes, I realize they are lossy and yes, it has been downsized but the difference between the two are night and day. The TTT looks like an OK Blu-Ray shot. The FOTR shot looks like an upscaled DVD.

Brodo, I hope it looks better than that shot! Weird..

Im actually refusing to believe that was a screenshot from FOTR Blu-ray. It does look like an upscaled DVD. The Blu-ray I have checked does not.

[RYJAPE21]

I'll be waiting for the EEs.....

[SDon1969]

Haha, Brodo Faggins and Stinky Dinkins. Guess I met my silly chuckle quota for the day.