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

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by MarkWM

My local Best Buy had probably 20 sets out on the new release shelf. Did BB get to jump the gun?

They've been known to do so in the past.

Originally Posted by borninusa

So, will this LOTR's thread go away when Star Wars is announced on blu?

It'll be revived as soon as someone gets a screenshot from Star Wars that looks bad and someone says, "This is LotR all over again!"

[captveg]

Originally Posted by sharkcohen

Blu-ray (23Mbps VC1) | HDTV (17Mbps MPEG-2) | Theatrical DVD

There's some DNR/compression issues on his beard on the BD as compared to the HDTV broadcast, but the other "detail" advantage of the HDTV broadcast seems to be video noise (such as on the walls).

The DVD by comparison is truly bad (and terribly blurry - look at the lone hair to the left of his head) and can be outright dismissed as a viewing option.

[jonmoz]

Just watched "Fellowship" all the way through and it was very good,which considering i was looking for faults more than usual,given the poor reviews,i am not unhappy with it at all.

Sure it's not the best Blu-ray i have ever seen,but i was not expecting it to be,as the whole film has a softer look to it,as it did when i saw it at the cinema.

The sound is awsome and better than i was expecting,all in all i can't wait to watch the other two,of course not everyone will like it but it's up to them.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

Aside from a slight difference in color temperature, the BD and HDTV shots look identical in quality to my eyes.

I agree. It also seems like the BD is a more clean transfer then the HDTV version

[mredman]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Just watched "Fellowship" all the way through and it was very good,which considering i was looking for faults more than usual,given the poor reviews,i am not unhappy with it at all.

Sure it's not the best Blu-ray i have ever seen,but i was not expecting it to be,as the whole film has a softer look to it,as it did when i saw it at the cinema.

The sound is awsome and better than i was expecting,all in all i can't wait to watch the other two,of course not everyone will like it but it's up to them.

Sounds good. How big is your TV?

[frogmort]

Alot of people on here are saying that Fellowship (and the others) looks as good as it possibly can,EVER! Although I'm not a videophile genius,I find it hard to beleive that some movies from the 30's,40's,50's etc. that have been restored look phenomenal,but not this!Why is it impossible for them to NOT use dnr and ee,and instead,actually go back in the studio and lovingly clean up the crap?

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by truffleshuffle83

not even close. there's terrible dnr in the bd, look at his nose and face and you can see that there is absolutely no film grain whereas in the hdtv cap there is

I wouldn't call it "terrible". Although DNR is obviously present it is far less offensive than some other movies that have been released. Also I prefer the colors of the bd over the hdtv version. the hdtv pic has washed out black levels compared to the bd. there's obviously issues with both.

That said, I think people are blowing up this whole thing WAY bigger than it actually is and its sad to say that this thread is reaching AVS levels of lame.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by truffleshuffle83

not even close. there's terrible dnr in the bd, look at his nose and face and you can see that there is absolutely no film grain whereas in the hdtv cap there is

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Just watched "Fellowship" all the way through and it was very good,which considering i was looking for faults more than usual,given the poor reviews,i am not unhappy with it at all.

Sure it's not the best Blu-ray i have ever seen,but i was not expecting it to be,as the whole film has a softer look to it,as it did when i saw it at the cinema.

The sound is awsome and better than i was expecting,all in all i can't wait to watch the other two,of course not everyone will like it but it's up to them.

I'm glad the AQ is superb...thats what i really care about...

[LOTR07]

bottom pic looks better then the top to me

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Alot of people on here are saying that Fellowship (and the others) looks as good as it possibly can,EVER! Although I'm not a videophile genius,I find it hard to beleive that some movies from the 30's,40's,50's etc. that have been restored look phenomenal,but not this!Why is it impossible for them to NOT use dnr and ee,and instead,actually go back in the studio and lovingly clean up the crap?

Follow the money. That's what it always comes down to. Not only does it cost money to do a dvd transfer, but a blu-ray transfer costs a TON more especially if the movie was shot in film, not digital. It's cheaper to use DNR and EE than to actually manually go through the film and restore it, clean it up, etc.

[Qaith]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Follow the money. That's what it always comes down to. Not only does it cost money to do a dvd transfer, but a blu-ray transfer costs a TON more especially if the movie was shot in film, not digital. It's cheaper to use DNR and EE than to actually manually go through the film and restore it, clean it up, etc.

That's not what he's asking. He's asking why people are saying that it looks as good as it possibly can, when that clearly isn't the case.

[jonmoz]

Mredman i watched it on my 108 inch projection screen,via an Infocus IN-82.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by truffleshuffle83

not even close. there's terrible dnr in the bd, look at his nose and face and you can see that there is absolutely no film grain whereas in the hdtv cap there is

You're not seeing "film grain" in a still screencap from HDTV. Sorry. Film grain really needs to be in motion or heavily magnified to be clearly identified, especially when dealing with a digital source, where "speckling" could be introduced to the picture from a number of reasons other than native grain. (And anyway, the speckling effect in the HDTV shot looks very "white". Film grain doesn't appear as white speckling, it appears as a pattern of diffusion and diffraction of the base color, which is virtually invisible in a still shot. What you're seeing there is probably digital noise; but again, it's very hard to tell with a still shot). What you can identify from a screenshot is a loss of detail...

... another thing you can identify from a screenshot is OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT DISPLAY SETTINGS, which is exactly why I say that screencap comparisons are complete Voodoo. There is absolutely no level of scientific rigor or integrity to a screencap comparison unless ALL of the controlling and varying factors are documented and verified, and/or kept uniform, which in this case, they visibly are not.

If you take screencap comparisons at face value, then I've got some pictures of Bigfoot and UFO's that I'd like to sell you.

[jonmoz]

Frogmort, some older movies look very good,some do not it depends on how the studio master has been looked after,"The wizard of oz" is very good indeed,but they spent a lot of money on the blu-ray transfer,and this movie had been restored before then as well,on older movies they tend to look very similar to what was shot on the day.

Newer movies however have a lot more post production,so the film you shot at the time can end up quite different when it reaches the screen,they can alter the whole look of the movie if they want to, the Lord of the rings movies,in particular the Fellowship have a soft almost "Fairytale" like feel to it,this films was never intended to look like "Transformers" etc,o.k as people point out they can be altered by remastering,but that may spoil the look of the film,and can cause more problems than it solves.

Also on older movies the color system employed is better in some cases than others,so not all older movies will look as good as "Oz",and i don't know about you guys but when i watch an older movie on blu-ray,i am a little more forgiving than on a newer title.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

You're not seeing "film grain" in a still screencap from HDTV. Sorry. Film grain really needs to be in motion or heavily magnified to be clearly identified. What you can identify from a screenshot is a loss of detail...

... another thing you can identify from a screenshot is OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT DISPLAY SETTINGS, which is exactly why I say that screencap comparisons are complete Voodoo. There is absolutely no level of scientific rigor or integrity to a screencap comparison unless ALL of the controlling and varying factors are documented and verified, and/or kept uniform, which in this case, they visibly are not.

If you take screencap comparisons at face value, then I've got some pictures of Bigfoot and UFO's that I'd like to sell you.

Are they in the SAME photo?!

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by captveg

There's some DNR/compression issues on his beard on the BD as compared to the HDTV broadcast, but the other "detail" advantage of the HDTV broadcast seems to be video noise (such as on the walls).

The DVD by comparison is truly bad (and terribly blurry - look at the lone hair to the left of his head) and can be outright dismissed as a viewing option.

Hmmm... I'm seeing just the opposite. The BD is slightly darker and more contrasty, and as a result I 'see' more strands of hair on his beard on the BD version. (It is supposed the be the left pic, correct?) It also looks sharper, perhaps because of the heightened contrast. Agreed that the DVD looks pretty fuzzy.....

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Are they in the SAME photo?!

Yes; Bigfoot is driving the UFO...
... or maybe it's my brother-in-law driving a chevy, I can't tell with all the DNR.

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Are they in the SAME photo?!

[petmic10]

Okay guys, here is my take/opinion on FOTR in two words:

"Very Inconsistent"

First of all, it is definately much better than dvd version,
it's soft at times and DNR is definately present in various
scenes throughout the movie. One particular scene when
Frodo and Sam are on the outskirts of the Shire, and are
about to leave, looked as if I was watching an upscaled dvd.
Bilbo's birthday party and subsequent scenes in his home
were soft and facial close ups lacked detail which was obviously
due to the use of DNR. It could and should have been
much better.

All is not lost, to me the PQ in some scenes were quite good
especially in the Mines of Moria, were blacks were inky and
detail was abundant(do I see film grain). Honestly the overall
PQ was better than I expected(I expected the worst). Don't get
me wrong, there are problems with this movie but it's not as bad
as some of the pics I've seen indicated. To me Gladiator was
much worse.

For those that care(I do) the audio is were this movie really
shines. In the scene after Gollum was tortured and the Nazgul
ride out on horseback towards the Shire, the sound of horses
galloping felt so strong and powerful it was as if they were
running wildly through my room. Bass is prevelant throughout
and packs quite a punch. Those who appreciate a good audio
track will be more than pleased.

I see DNR on my 60" screen from my seating distance
and I expect those with larger displays will see it also and
likely be disappointed. Viewing on a smaller screen tends to
hide the flaws in a transfer, so those with smaller screens
may enjoy the PQ.

Video: 3 out of 5
Audio: 4.5 out of 5

Screen size: Pioneer PRO151 60" Elite(calibrated with my I1pro meter)
Seating distance: 8 to 9 feet