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

[Shroomhead]

I just pre-ordered a copy of the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy from Amazon.


I can't wait to see these movies on Blu-ray on my 50inch Samsung Plasma.

When the Extended Edition comes out i have no problem in trading in the Theatrical Edition for the Extended Edition.

In my opinion these are movies worth Double Dipping!

[Jonno2009]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It's common sense why they don't look "horrendous" on your TV, it has nothing to do with the screencaps on any level.

A lossless screencap is how it is on the disc.

You have a 46 inch TV and you sit 8 feet from it, that's why it doesn't look horrendous. Not only is that very, very small as far as HDTV's are concerned, that's also a long ways to sit back from a 46 inch TV.

LOL, 46inch is VERY VERY small? so wtf is my 40inch then? TINY? So what the hell size do you all have? 80inchers + ?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

I believe the DVDs don't have a discrete rear channel but your AVR's decoder is told that it's a DD EX source so it knows to up-mix the 5.1 to 6.1. The TE DVDs feature DD 5.1 EX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital). The EE feature DTS ES which can either feature a discrete or matrixed rear center channel. But the movie was mixed with the rear center in mind so it should sound natural no matter what version you are watching.

Its DTS-ES, not DD EX, but my good friend CaptVeg already alerted me to the fact that few DVDs mastered in DTS-ES actually had a discrete 6th channel - and while the LOTR EE discs are DTS-ES, apparently they are not 6.1 discrete...much to my annoyance. No wonder I had to reset all my sound levels when watching the LOTR extended editions...

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It's common sense why they don't look "horrendous" on your TV, it has nothing to do with the screencaps on any level.

A lossless screencap is how it is on the disc.

You have a 46 inch TV and you sit 8 feet from it, that's why it doesn't look horrendous. Not only is that very, very small as far as HDTV's are concerned, that's also a long ways to sit back from a 46 inch TV.

If its not one thing, its another with you. First it was "your TV is not good enough", then "your TV is too small" and now "your viewing distance is wrong". As you seem to be the expert, please advise about optimal viewing distance for my screen size for the 46" and the 84".

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

The first half of it, for me, is spot on. The Shire looks exactly how he describes it in FOTR. The colour is rich and vivid. Frodo's skin does look a little 'waxy' to me, but strangely, Gandalf's, not so much. But when you flick through TT and ROTK, you notice that these films are better.

Great to hear that the shire is full of color like intended. It seems to me like Bill Hunt says the FOTR PQ is how it is supposed to look so its not the transfers fault

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

Okay, i just saved the screencap and had a look at it through my Blu-ray player. Its nothing like viewing it on a laptop/PC. I switched between the disc and the screencap and theyre alot closer in likeness now. But the Blu-ray edges it slightly, not by much though. Most people would say the difference is negligible.

For anyone judging the screencaps from your PC/laptop monitor, id recommend testing it out through your TV.

I think it's easy to become so consumed with video and audio quality that we Blu-ray enthusiasts forget what sparked this heated debate in the first place: our love of the films! I adore 'The Lord of the Rings.' Was I disappointed with FotR's transfer? Sure. But at some point, I simply began to watch the film and found myself shrugging everything off, sitting back, and sinking into the wonder of Jackson's adaptation. It's just like going to a theater with mediocre projection. The problems are a distraction initially, but once the film grabs hold, the presentation is just window dressing. Does that mean picture quality doesn't matter? Definitely not. But at the end of the day, this set is going on my shelf. Imperfect as the transfers are (especially FotR's), the video presentation of the entire trilogy looks significantly better than its DVD counterpart, the DTS-HD MA mixes absolutely rock my surround sound system, and the set gives me three of my favorite flicks on Blu-ray.

We can nitpick and even complain, we can avoid releases or begrudgingly slide our cash across the counter, but at the end of the day, let's not forget the chief reason we buy Blu-ray releases: the films

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Jonno2009

LOL, 46inch is VERY VERY small? so wtf is my 40inch then? TINY? So what the hell size do you all have? 80inchers + ?

Yeah, 40 inch is very friggin' small.

The amount of visual detail between your set and what someone would see when viewing on a PJ setup is absolutely enormous.

In order to resolve even a decent amount of detail BD is capable of on your 40 inch set you'd have to sit very close.

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

If its not one thing, its another with you. First it was "your TV is not good enough", then "your TV is too small" and now "your viewing distance is wrong". As you seem to be the expert, please advise about optimal viewing distance for my screen size for the 46" and the 84".

I'm not insulting you at all, just stating facts.

The fact is sitting 8 feet away from a 46 inch TV it will be extremely difficult to pick up an any of these visual subtleties.

If you have an 84" PJ I don't know why you wouldn't use that instead.

Size is important.


That's why when measuring your set and telling people about it you should always start at the anus.

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by mredman

Great to hear that the shire is full of color like intended. It seems to me like Bill Hunt says the FOTR PQ is how it is supposed to look so its not the transfers fault

I suppose the only way we'll find out is from PJ himself and I cant see him reviewing these discs.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

If its not one thing, its another with you. First it was "your TV is not good enough", then "your TV is too small" and now "your viewing distance is wrong". As you seem to be the expert, please advise about optimal viewing distance for my screen size for the 46" and the 84".

Straight from Decilandia ....

THX TAP recommends 1.42 PH for the closest viewing distance (not to be confused with the bad front row seats where you damage your neck looking up!), while the minimum size you should be watching a film (the last row on a theater, the worst seat) should be at 3.61 PH.

For a 16:9 wide screen (1.78 wide), 1.42PH is 0.8 screen widths.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Its DTS-ES, not DD EX, but my good friend CaptVeg already alerted me to the fact that few DVDs mastered in DTS-ES actually had a discrete 6th channel - and while the LOTR EE discs are DTS-ES, apparently they are not 6.1 discrete...much to my annoyance. No wonder I had to reset all my sound levels when watching the LOTR extended editions...

AHEM!

https://forum.blu-ray.com/3077741-post5344.html

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The other thing to keep in mind is that screencaps often present the best and worst a transfer has to offer. The reason I chose that particular screenshot is because it's as bad as the FotR presentation gets. Is it indicative of the entire transfer? Not at all. Like I mentioned in my review, entire sequences like the Mines of Moria and the landing and subsequent skirmish at Parth Galen look pretty decent. But if we were simply dealing with DNR, my score would have probably been in the 3.5 range. Once you factor in the various inconsistencies, the strange instability that affects the image from time to time, the sudden surges of noise reduction (during Bilbo's party, the Council of Elrond, Gandalf's showdown with the Balrog, and other iconic sequences), flickering, wavering, etc... it all combined to lead me to a 2.5.

That being said, I think it's easy to become so consumed with video and audio quality that we Blu-ray enthusiasts forget what sparked this heated debate in the first place: our love of the films! I adore 'The Lord of the Rings.' Was I disappointed with FotR's transfer? Sure. But at some point, I simply began to watch the film and found myself shrugging everything off, sitting back, and sinking into the wonder of Jackson's adaptation. It's just like going to a theater with mediocre projection. The problems are a distraction initially, but once the film grabs hold, the presentation is just window dressing. Does that mean picture quality doesn't matter? Definitely not. But at the end of the day, this set is going on my shelf. Imperfect as the transfers are (especially FotR's), the video presentation of the entire trilogy looks significantly better than its DVD counterpart, the DTS-HD MA mixes absolutely rock my surround sound system, and the set gives me three of my favorite flicks on Blu-ray.

We can nitpick and even complain, we can avoid releases or begrudgingly slide our cash across the counter, but at the end of the day, let's not forget the chief reason we buy Blu-ray releases: the films

Well said. There are probably two groups here. One who are LOTR/film fans, and the other who are Blu-ray fans. This might explain the opposing stances.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

Well said. There are probably two groups here. One who are LOTR/film fans, and the other who are Blu-ray fans. This might explain the opposing stances.

So you are implying that LOTR fans can't be critical of the PQ because they owe it to the film to 'look the other way' ????

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I do see some grain scrubbing in some of the screen caps from Fellowship (mostly taking place in Bag End for some reason), but otherwise the movie looks just the same to me as it always has. This includes the overall "softness" of the movie that everyone's complaining about. Even when I was watching DVDs on my standard def tube tv back in the early 2000s and everything looked "razor sharp", Fellowship was still a soft movie - just as it had been in theaters. It's just the way the movie looks.

To my eyes (based on the screencaps), the other films look awesome. Displayed on my HDTV, they obliterate the dvds a thousand times over. They're sharp, detailed, and as glorious as I could have asked for.

Personally, I have no idea how any reviewer could score Fellowship lower than Gladiator - which looked absolutely atrocious (all that Edge Enhancement!).

Some people are just to nit picky and is never satisfied. There is even some here that thinks TDK is as bad as Gladiator's PQ. Which is just absurd!

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

So you are implying that LOTR fans can't be critical of the PQ because they owe it to the film to 'look the other way' ????

I don't know if I like what he's implying. While not all of my movies are RQ or even 4/5, they don't have to be. As long as I can find what I want at a price I can stand, it's good enough for me. RQ transfers are just a very nice bonus, ie Iron Man.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I don't know if I like what he's implying. While not all of my movies are RQ or even 4/5, they don't have to be. As long as I can find what I want at a price I can stand, it's good enough for me. RQ transfers are just a very nice bonus, ie Iron Man.

I would hope many people took advantage of this when it was $50.75 on WB.Shop...... Transfer issues aside.... that seems like a good price to pay for what is being reported as being stellar AQ, and a noticeable upgrade from the DVDs, especially on the latter two films.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Seriously... I haven't seen something that horrid on Blu for quite some time. I guarantee it didn't look like that in the theatre or the HDTV broadcast.

Do you have the discs yourself. Since you can judge that?

[Batman1980]

Expecting it to drop at about $50 in almost 2 weeks, especially with what seems to be an Internet-wide outcry about the less than stellar transfers on the three beloved films.

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

So you are implying that LOTR fans can't be critical of the PQ because they owe it to the film to 'look the other way' ????

Not entirely, Ive said myself that FOTR is not as good as the other two. But, I know that these 'faults' will soon be forgotten while youre watching the film, just like Ken has just mentioned. It is nowhere near as bad as it is being made out, certainly not enough to keep you from enjoying the film. The way I see it, LOTR/film fans will very soon forget about the quality when they start watching, whereas Blu-ray fans will not even bother buying it.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

"Faithful to the source" should be the goal for blu-ray Disc. Not "better than DVD".

How do you know its not faithful to the source?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Expecting it to drop at about $50 in almost 2 weeks, especially with what seems to be an Internet-wide outcry about the less than stellar transfers on the three beloved films.

I hope you're right. I am wavering between waiting for the price to come down or making it a day one purchase.