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

[robertc88]

I'm waiting for dusk to begin watching FOTR. I'm thankful Netflix came through for me. Time will tell how I feel about the quality but I'm looking for more than "it isn't as bad as negative reviews are saying". Considering those were in the 3.0 or 3.5 range, perhaps I'll be able to enjoy it a bit more at least.

I've only seen a few opinions as far as a PQ score for the movie from viewers here. One post gave this movie a 4.5 for PQ? Well that is encouraging but off base compared to others, I will not dismiss it but something tells me I'm not going to see it that way.

Three strikes and you're out I suppose for a buy so:

1) The price is crappy if you ask me personally at this point
2) The quality isn't what it should be considering the time, delay and magnitude of this release.
3) The version isn't the one preferred by most from what I've read.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by ShockWave

Thanks for all the information and the formula.

I always went of this chart is this ok?

Hey shockwave,

this is a pretty interesting chart. I have seen it before, but it explains a lot to newbs.

BTW, my screen is too big for this chart......

[phansson]

Originally Posted by radagast

I think it's funny now.

Radagast,

I just noticed your signature. Someone needs to post a pic of him on Wikipedia under "tool".

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

I took the day off from my day job to watch this. Instead I took it back unopened to Walmart and got a refund. I can't deal with the fact that as a Walmart employee, I can only match the price of another store.

Your willpower is much greater than mine. If I had them in hand, I would have to watch them. I'm just hoping they get to my house today!

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by ShockWave

Huh? The chart is for distances.. Unless I am not understanding your post.

yes, but those specs are specifically talking about distance in relationship to resoultion.

blu-ray is 1080p, so that 1.5 screen-width fits inside the trinagle noted in that chart. But the real point of the "1.5" is that it creates the 30 degree *viewing angle* that movies are designed to be watched with. That's not so much a question of resolution as it is a question of immersion. if folks are watching native digital images and interested in the question of how close or far they need to be in order to see all the visible detail, that chart tells you that answer. But even if we had 4K discs and displays, we'd still watch our movies at 1.5 scren-widths because that's the distance from which they were meant to be seen.

IMAX is a different animal of course, and if we could do 4K resolution then IMAX films would warrant a closer seating distance for full immersion.

[Russell_L]

I think that chart is meant to illustrate the varying levels of visual acuity with different resolutions depending on how far away you sit, whereas what David and Todd are advocating (sitting 1.5 screen-widths away) has more to do with viewing angle, which more-or-less ensures that your entire field of vision is (mostly) filled with the image that the director intended.

[yoxodo]

I just watched Fellowship and i don't see what the problem is. It looks fine to me. There is plenty of detail in hair and fabric, and many of the scenery shots are gorgeous. Granted, the colors could be a little more vivid, especially in the Shire scenes, but other than that i'm very pleased with it. It seems the complaints about PQ were exaggerated.

[HeManster03]

Bout half way through Fellowship right now, and while not as crisp of a picture as we would all like to have, I must say that it isn't nearly as bad as previous posters made it out to be. Edge enhancement/DNR both are mildly bothersome during certain scenes, but in others it seems to be completely absent. The shot that sold me was when Galdalf rides to Minas Tirith to do research on the ring. When he comes over the hill and sees the white city, that shot is breathtaking. I'll put a full review up on my blog for all 3 movies when I'm done later today..http://pamanster03.wordpress.com/ if your interested to check it out.

[thePhoenix]

Gonna wait for the extended editions

[space-monkey]

I agree with the consensus of those who have watched it. It looks as good as we could expect of FOTR, which was ALWAYS soft in theaters. In fact, I remember remarking to myself at both TTT and ROTK, in the theater, how much crisper the images were.

FOTR looks great, but it will never and can never look like Transformers or Live Free or Die Hard.

Don't believe the hate.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Monkey

LOL, just wait until somebody posts the picture of the vertical line!!!!

Could be a classic in the making - like the photo of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot!

[Katt_n_TX]

Can't believe you guys would buy this version after owning the extended versions you'll be watching along and expect something to happen that won't due to not having your extended one playing... myself will keep my DVD and stay true to the extended cuts until it comes out on Blu... Watching this cut would just ruin the movie for me..

[42041]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

FOTR looks great, but it will never and can never look like Transformers or Live Free or Die Hard.

What makes you say that? Transformers never looked as sharp on 35mm as the original 2K DI does either, its irrelevant

[DMC86X]

Originally Posted by cstep11189

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of my favorites, but I have already owned three different editions and refuse to give any more money, especially at $59.99, and am waiting for the extended editions.

k

[owa]

Originally Posted by radagast

When I returned my unopened LOTR Blu-ray this morning, all the copies were still there.

There were 3 of us picking it up at BB this morning when BB opened and while that's definitely not a madhouse, I'm usually alone in the section on release day morning. So, hopefully that's a good sign.

Anyway, they're my favorite movies so I'm hoping it does really, really well on blu-ray.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Katt_n_TX

Can't believe you guys would buy this version after owning the extended versions

easy:
- not waiting until late 2012 for EEs.
- dvds are unwatchable now.

[Riff Magnum]

If someone could post a screenshot at around the 1:50:20 mark of the movie, i think that might steady some people who are on the fence.

[Q?]

We have a different packaging here, it's just a single box that contains all the discs.

It costs 89 dollars here though...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Katt_n_TX

Can't believe you guys would buy this version after owning the extended versions you'll be watching along and expect something to happen that won't due to not having your extended one playing... myself will keep my DVD and stay true to the extended cuts until it comes out on Blu... it would just ruin the movie for me..

That could be years, though - and these are available now. As former Seahawks coach Chuck Knox has said, "You play the hand you're dealt."

[loki993]

DVDs look decent on my TV from the PS3, so not a big deal.

Personally After seeing the EEs I find the TEs unwatchable. So I refuse to buy what I basically consider an inferior product. Also they need to be careful, because its obvious they are trying to milk people for as much money as they can and it could make some people pretty mad, I'm definitely more than a little annoyed about it.

Its ok though, Ill wait as long as it takes for the EEs.