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

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Exactly which just illustrates how subjective these issues are as far as how much or little they will bother you. Me and jonmoz could be sitting together watching this film at 108 inches and he could be saying, "you know, its not as bad as some have said!", while I am saying "man, these look just as bad as Dave, Xylon, Ken, etc.........have made them out to be"..........its all subjective and there are so many factors that will bring EACH individual to whatever opinion they come to as far as a given transfer.

If you can, find a reviewer who best mimicks your viewing tolerance as far as these issues and if possible on a similar size screen. Xylon and Dave are 2 guys for me that I have come to know and trust from what my eyes commonly see compared to what they are showing/describing.

Excellent points.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Yes, but I'd like to think the posibilites of Blu-Ray (50GB storage, etc.) was part of the reason for the studio support.

It was.

HD-DVD was getting killed every week by BD in sales before Warner jumped ship.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I don't see film grain in any of the three images.

Turn off your DNR and then you can see the difference between the 3 images.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Exactly and agreed. The difference between watching films on my tiny 46" plasma (in a non light controlled room) upstairs from ~2.5-3 screen widths view distance to my 94" projection screen from a 1.8 view distance is night and day (in a light treated room). The difference between upconverted dvd and blu ray on the 46" at 2.5-3 screen widths is minor at best for most material while on the projector it is drastic........hell the only upconverted dvds I can stand even watching on the projector anymore are the concerts that I cannot get on blu ray. This is how noticable the difference is on the projector..........the 46" from my longer view distance, upconverted dvd and blu ray both look atleast good (blu ray is better of course, but the difference is minor at best from my seat).

The other thing is IF you are not sitting within a optimal distance to your 1080p display, you will not see all the detail that 1080p has to offer, but on the other hand, you probably wont see a lot of the issues either, so it is a mixed bag. For 1080p, the optimal view distance to see all the detail is 1.5-1.0 screen widths view distance from my reading of various studies/articles............most people on here are MUCH further than that and when you combine that with a small screen in the ~50 inch range or lower it is no wonder many people find these problematic transfers to look good, great etc and also think some of us with bigger screens, closer view distances and higher sensitivity to these issues are loco!

Ignorance is bliss with A/V and I suspect that is also part of the case with many or at least some who find FOTR to be a "great" looking title. It might be wise to not educate yourself on issues like those present in FOTR so you can keep enjoying these problematic titles. For many of us who have educated ourselves, it can be somewhat of a curse since once you learn it, you cant unlearn it and turn it off

90% of the people have 40" or smaller screens with a viewing distance of 6-10 feet
5% have 40"+
5% have projectors

That's why you'll hear a lot of people post "the blu-ray doesn't look that bad" or "the HD broadcast and blu-ray look about the same."

You won't convience those who have small screens and long viewing distances that these "image enhancements"(DNR/EE) are an issue.
They will beat their drum all day long that this release is "good enough."
*Remember what format use to use that slogan. Maybe 720p/1080i & DolbyD+ should have been the minimum standard.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Who has Lord of the Rings the cheapest right now?

If you have a Frys near you, $59.77
Otherwise, Best Buy and other outlets will have it for $59.99.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by mredman

Yeah but jonmoz has seen it on a 108 screen. and says it looks good and definitely not as bad as some say and it is way better then the upscaled DVD

That's one of the issues some have with these subpar PQ releases.

You can look at a movie source as Jet fuel.
They take the Jet fuel and "water" it down for consumption for your Lamborghini.
When they give you good fuel(Transformers), it's about 98 octane.
When they give us subpar fuel(this release), they give us 89 octane when the minimum for our car is 91.
We know they can make it 91 or even 100 if they took the time but they rushed the processing and decided that 89 was good enough.

Then when the majority(40" or less) say that it looks "good enough", the enthusiasts(5% w/projectors) are unhappy because the blu-ray medium allows for higher quality releases but the studios decide, most likely for financial reasons to not take the time and care to properly master a film for release. They kick it out the door with minimal mastering that is an adequate release for the majority, which gives them higher ROI. That's why I believe they won't remaster any parts of the TE for the EE release because that would kill their bottom line. (They are a business, not a rock band)They will most likely just remaster the extended scenes(Gladiator anyone?) and those who are critical on PQ will notice this when the EE is released.

[jonmoz]

I think on this one "Todd" and "mredman" people have to make up their own minds,to weather or not it's good or bad.

As i said i have only very minor issues when watching this on my 108 inch screen,and these issues were on the Dvd as well,so i can't shake the feeling as much as i would love the movie to be as sharp as say "The dark knight",it is not possible in this case,now i am in no way saying that no improvement is possible,just will it be a big enough improvement to justify "New line" doing this,as i still feel the source and artistic choices is playing a big part here.

[micks_address]

when watching The Fellowship on my screen close up shots are razor sharp.. its background it a little lacking in detail.. is this what the complaint are about? can someone show me a screenshot of where i should see major problems? just curious more than anything else as i really enjoyed watching it

[D head]

Anyone got any pics of the inside of this set? Kinda curious after having seen the ouside of it... The sleeve has two thicker cases in it.. Don't know why they chose to put it in *two* cases that way.. Instead of three or one BIG case.. So yeah..

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Thanks for the review. 3 out of 5 on a 60"? Maybe some can understand how much this can bother some of us on 90, 100, 110, 120 inch screens from less than 2.0 screen widths away if a 60" from OVER 2 screen widths away view distance is getting a 3/5 rating

Maybe getting a little anal here, but when you say that you should sit 1.5 screen-widths away, are you measuring from the front of the screen to the seat-back of your viewing chair/couch? And is a "screen-width" the actual, published diagonal width or the width from left to right? I've got a 50" display, which of course is the diagonal measurement, but it's only about 43" left-to-right.

Measuring from the front of the screen to my seat-back cushion, I sit 95 inches away, which is either just over 2 screen-widths away, or just under... (Either way, it's not ideal, I know, but the superiority of Blu-ray over DVD is still readily apparent.)

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

Maybe getting a little anal here, but when you say that you should sit 1.5 screen-widths away, are you measuring from the front of the screen to the seat-back of your viewing chair/couch? And is a "screen-width" the actual, published diagonal width or the width from left to right? I've got a 50" display, which of course is the diagonal measurement, but it's only about 43" left-to-right.

Measuring from the front of the screen to my seat-back cushion, I sit 95 inches away, which is either just over 2 screen-widths away, or just under... (Either way, it's not ideal, I know, but the superiority of Blu-ray over DVD is still readily apparent.)

Measured from left to right of your screen, so you are ~2.2 screen widths away. Oh, and you measure from the front of your screen to your eyes.

[Darkhawk9587]

Originally Posted by D head

Anyone got any pics of the inside of this set? Kinda curious after having seen the ouside of it... The sleeve has two thicker cases in it.. Don't know why they chose to put it in *two* cases that way.. Instead of three or one BIG case.. So yeah..

Here you go.

http://bluray.ign.com/dor/objects/29...ng_032910.html

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I think on this one "Todd" and "mredman" people have to make up their own minds,to weather or not it's good or bad.

As i said i have only very minor issues when watching this on my 108 inch screen,and these issues were on the Dvd as well,so i can't shake the feeling as much as i would love the movie to be as sharp as say "The dark knight",it is not possible in this case,now i am in no way saying that no improvement is possible,just will it be a big enough improvement to justify "New line" doing this,as i still feel the source and artistic choices is playing a big part here.

I dont think anyone expects Dark Knight type sharpness (I assume you are talking about the IMAX portions), but rather expects no additional DNR (as the HDTV vs blu ray captures show) which has clearly scrubbed out fine detail and no additional PQ issues that are NOT director intent as Ken described so well in his review. That is what those of us want who are upset about this release and hope beyond hope gets fixed for the EEs (fingers crossed!).

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

(Either way, it's not ideal, I know, but the superiority of Blu-ray over DVD is still readily apparent.)

I believe that is one of the big debates/observations.
Yes, we all agree that it's better than DVD BUT it can/should be superior to DVD like you stated but it's more like "better" than DVD. Blu-ray should be 5x better than DVD according to all the blu-ray propaganda.

If we just wanted something better than DVD, perhaps HD DVD should have been the preferred format.
During the format war, the proponents of blu-ray praised more disc space & higher bitrate to allow higher quality releases but IF this release is not fully taking advantage of the blu-ray specs, that's some of the things the enthusiasts are complaining about. If the studios can provide a better release with the provided spec and leave out the "auto mode cleanup"(DNR/EE), then why not ? Money/ROI ?

[D head]

Originally Posted by Darkhawk9587

Here you go.

http://bluray.ign.com/dor/objects/29...ng_032910.html

Sweet, Thx..

[blu2]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

If you have a Frys near you, $59.77
Otherwise, Best Buy and other outlets will have it for $59.99.

If you are in Canada you can get for $49.99 from Best Buy and Future Shop.

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

I believe that is one of the big debates/observations.
Yes, we all agree that it's better than DVD BUT it can/should be superior to DVD like you stated but it's more like "better" than DVD. Blu-ray should be 5x better than DVD according to all the blu-ray propaganda.

If we just wanted something better than DVD, perhaps HD DVD should have been the preferred format.
During the format war, the proponents of blu-ray praised more disc space & higher bitrate to allow higher quality releases but IF this release is not fully taking advantage of the blu-ray specs, that's some of the things the enthusiasts are complaining about. If the studios can provide a better release with the provided spec and leave out the "auto mode cleanup"(DNR/EE), then why not ? Money/ROI ?

Well, I was just making a general statement that, even at my less-than-ideal viewing distance, I can easily distinguish Blus from DVDs, not about FOTR specifically, which I haven't seen yet. It's also easy to distinguish the better Blus from the less-than-stellar ones, so I'm fully expecting that FOTR will fall into the latter category....

[HDMe]

Someone (back a page or so) brought up the question of seamless branching and essentially asked, if they did it on DVD why not on Blu?

For the record, as I understand it...

DVD Theatrical release
DVD Extended release (each movie split across 2 DVDs)
"Deluxe" DVD release that included TE/EE on same "disc" (each movie again split across 2 DVDs)

So... in DVD-world, the EEs were always split across 2 DVDs... which meant that the "branching" edition also was split.

For Blu, I expect it would be pushing it to include TE + EE on a single Blu and keep the video/audio quality high. As I understand it the EE is also more than just extended/added scenes... but some slight re-editing/arranging as well in a couple of places.

Personally, while I do want TE and EE versions... I want them to each be on their own disc.

[sharkcohen]

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

[Underworld54]

I had to buy this set. Prior to the release I sold my TE dvd set for $25 and I got the Blu-ray set for $50 from WHV. So $25 out of pocket for the upgrade...not too shabby.