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

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by halimali

I'm ok with theartical version of the movies but now I'm not sure as the website here mentions the BDs are dissapointing in terms of PQ. Any comments?

There's plenty of comments here. Read back a few hundred posts.

[JamesKurtovich]

Who do these people (Warner, Disney, etc.) have working on these transfers, anyway? Do these people know what they're doing? They seem unqualified as they often put out mediocre jobs. If every review site on the net has people picking apart the flaws in these releases, shouldn't the reviewers be involved in this kind of work? They seem to know better...

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Who do these people (Warner, Disney, etc.) have working on these transfers, anyway? Do these people know what they're doing? They seem unqualified as they often put out mediocre jobs. If every review site on the net has people picking apart the flaws in these releases, shouldn't the reviewers be involved in this kind of work? They seem to know better...

They know what they're doing. They are given a budget and they do the best they can with what they're given. Critics, on the other hand, tell the truth about what they see. Should critics be involved in the mastering process? No - amusingly no,. Your postulate assumes that critics have better eyes than the people who are mastering these films. That's not the case. The employees are simply working with what they have, with the budget they've been given. Don't bag on these hard working people, direct your frustration to the studio execs that approved an 8-year-old master for Fellowship of the Ring.

[Astalder]

I haven't watched LOTR in years so this transfer made the decision easy for me, I'll wait for the EE. If the EE is just as bad, I'll wait for the 5 movie set which and see if they do it right there. I love this series, but I was so into it back when it was new that I really can live with just memory and the DVDs while I wait (just like the original Star Wars).

[adamhopelies]

My UK copy arrived this morning, and I've had a quick scan through the discs to see how they stack up.

The first one really isn't that bad. Its not in the same league of bad as GoNY, or Gladiator, nor does it particularly distract while the film is in motion. The worst thing I could say about it is that its not especially spectacular. The Two Towers and Return of the King both look great. Compared to the DVD's all three films are streets ahead in terms of PQ, even the first film.

This entire situation is not the disaster that this thread seems to think it is. I don't think the average bear will even bat an eyelid at the quality of Fellowship. Its fine.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

DVD File review is up:

http://www.dvdfile.com/reviews/blura...logy-bd-review

Quote: "Video nerds are gonna be PISSED. Hampered by rampant, odious DNR (did Sauron have a hand in this?), and a lack of detail definition that makes some sequences look standard-def at best, these 1080p transfers are a nightmare for those who have been salivating for LOTR on high-def. The films' video presence improve with each film - it's without reservation that I say Return of the King looks a trillion times better than Fellowship - but even there, for a flagship title like this one that should be knocking all other BDs out of commission, these presentations are exhausting, tragic disappointments. Color accuracy isn't air-tight - flesh tones are hazy and even some of the films' more saturated hues are guilty of unfortunate bleed - and detail as a whole is smeary at best: I was literally appalled at the lack of punch in some of Fellowship's early town sequences. Edge enhancement is rampant, to boot, and the handling of grain on this set is wildly inconsistent. Do the films look better here than they did on DVD? By a hair. But those expecting a nearly nine-hour reference-quality video presence will be devastated almost immediately."

Ouch! 5.5/10 PQ!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Wow, I can quote too.

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

My UK copy arrived this morning, and I've had a quick scan through the discs to see how they stack up.

The first one really isn't that bad. Its not in the same league of bad as GoNY, or Gladiator, nor does it particularly distract while the film is in motion. The worst thing I could say about it is that its not especially spectacular. The Two Towers and Return of the King both look great. Compared to the DVD's all three films are streets ahead in terms of PQ, even the first film.

This entire situation is not the disaster that this thread seems to think it is. I don't think the average bear will even bat an eyelid at the quality of Fellowship. Its fine.

Are you viewing on a FP? Screen size? Seating distance?

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

They know what they're doing. They are given a budget and they do the best they can with what they're given. Critics, on the other hand, tell the truth about what they see. Should critics be involved in the mastering process? No - amusingly no,. Your postulate assumes that critics have better eyes than the people who are mastering these films. That's not the case. The employees are simply working with what they have, with the budget they've been given. Don't bag on these hard working people, direct your frustration to the studio execs that approved an 8-year-old master for Fellowship of the Ring.

Was just curious, that's all. Although I'd also like to know who decides to DNR these films and use EE and the like. Does foregoing that unnecessary treatment help the budget or what?

[Andes]

Just another opinion. It's fun reading the wide range of reviews.

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrfellowshipbr.shtml

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrtwotowersbr.shtml

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrreturnofthekingbr.shtml


http://scifistorm.org/2010/03/24/lor...lu-ray-review/

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Are you viewing on a FP? Screen size? Seating distance?

I tested them on my 1080p Samsung 22" TV, and Sony BDPS360, which is the set up I have in my home office. I sit real close to that set up if I'm watching something for work, so did the same here, so I'd say I was sat maybe 3 feet away? We have a 48" LG and PS3 in the living room, but the missus doesn't really appreciate me fooling around with the TV on a saturday afternoon! I may give the first film a spin tonight (on the living room set up), but was planning on saving them for over the Easter break.

As you can tell by my set up I'm not much of an AV obsessive, and thats the sort of opinion I'm giving here. To an average guy, with a fairly inexpensive set up they looked fine. The TV is fully calibrated tho, so I have put a degree of effort into my setup!

[Q?]

What happened with the LOTR review here?
All the screenshots are gone..

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Was just curious, that's all. Although I'd also like to know who decides to DNR these films and use EE and the like. Does foregoing that unnecessary treatment help the budget or what?

Edge Enhancement is a hold-over from DVD transfers. Studios, generally speaking, keep doing it with BD because it's what they did with DVD and are slow to change their workflows.

DNR is a bit more complex because DNR can be, and is, applied to movies even for their theatrical releases. In the early days of filmmaking, various methods of filtering the lens were used, mostly on close-ups of the female leads, to give them a softer look. You may have heard how cinematographers back then would place a ladies leg stocking over the lens to achieve this type of softening effect. DNR is todays version of those types of methods and is applied by the director's instructions, and many times by the request of the actors, to reduce the harshness they feel may be in any given shot (usually close-ups), blemishes, bad skin, etc.

It becomes a problem, IMHO, when the transfer is being prepared for home video (i.e. DVD/BD) and even more DNR is applied, and to a much higher degree seemingly without rhyme or reason from one shot to another, in addition to whatever DNR existed (and was approved by the filmmakers) in the first place.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I tested them on my 1080p Samsung 22" TV, and Sony BDPS360, which is the set up I have in my home office. I sit real close to that set up if I'm watching something for work, so did the same here, so I'd say I was sat maybe 3 feet away? We have a 48" LG and PS3 in the living room, but the missus doesn't really appreciate me fooling around with the TV on a saturday afternoon! I may give the first film a spin tonight (on the living room set up), but was planning on saving them for over the Easter break.

As you can tell by my set up I'm not much of an AV obsessive, and thats the sort of opinion I'm giving here. To an average guy, with a fairly inexpensive set up they looked fine. The TV is fully calibrated tho, so I have put a degree of effort into my setup!

Thanks for the info

The type of issues being discussed become MUCH more obvious on a bigger screen and closer seating distance in all due respect. You may still not be bothered by them since tolerance for these type of issues varies from user to user, but IMO evaluating PQ on a 22" TV from more than 2 screen widths away is not a great test at all. Again, I mean no disrespect, just stating the facts.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Was just curious, that's all. Although I'd also like to know who decides to DNR these films and use EE and the like. Does foregoing that unnecessary treatment help the budget or what?

Ask CaptVeg and David Boulet - both men know their stuff and they are incredibly nice -- when God defined good people, he used David and CaptVeg for the definition. I'm not kidding. Incredibly good people, the both of them.

[Beta Man]

Last warning....... Enough with the personal attacks..... and foul language isn't necessary to make a point.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Q!

What happened with the LOTR review here?
All the screenshots are gone..

Warner doesn't want websites to use their own screenshots, and has instructed us to use a pre-approved series of studio images instead. As you can see though, the images they have provided are not 1080p screenshots. For now, we've loaded these images as an interim solution until we're able to get this issue resolved.

I'd like to apologize for any inconvenience this causes any of you. Rest assured, we're in contact with representatives from the studio, and we're hoping to have the situation resolved soon. Thanks as always for posting.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Farid

Thats what i did!

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Warner doesn't want websites to use their own screenshots, and has instructed us to use a pre-approved series of studio images instead.

I wonder why they would do that?

[saprano]

Thats not even funny, its sad.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Warner doesn't want websites to use their own screenshots, and has instructed us to use a pre-approved series of studio images instead. As you can see though, the images they have provided are not 1080p screenshots. For now, we've loaded these images as an interim solution until we're able to get this issue resolved.

I'd like to apologize for any inconvenience this causes any of you. Rest assured, we're in contact with representatives from the studio, and we're hoping to have the situation resolved soon. Thanks as always for posting.

Double