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

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by deeman54

I hope you guys are getting paid for this because probably 2% of Fans are listening lol.
The trilogy is good, and ill buy it 5 more times with all the negative, inaccurate, unprofessional advice. Go post something on a real critic website because your comments get no love nor attention. Look at the poll 62 percent still want it. Thats just bluray.com users which is probably less the 1% of worldwide bluray consumers. You are really just wasting your breath is what im trying to say.

Totally agree

[Maggot]

Earlier in this thread, I was one of several who railed on the 1st movie transfer per screenshots. After viewing all of movie 1 and now into 60% of movie 2 on my Panny V10 50 inch at 7 feet away on the wall, I can say the folowing:

1. Ken Brown's 2.5 rating on movie 1 is way too harsh. Granted this transfer is not where it should be, but to me, 2.5 is very wrong.

2. Per my viewing experience, the original screenshots on this site were actually a hell of a lot better than those Warner made them put up. The new screenshots do an incredible disservice to what is actually on the discs.

3. Although I'm not one to be incredibly picky when it comes to use of DNR, as I pretty much enjoy Patton, although it could use some more grain, it's clear......like Patton, there has been too much use of DNR.

4. For me, movie 1 looks to be a solid 3.5, with some instances hovering close to a 4, very few though. I believe this movie, given the right care, can look better, possibly a lot better.

5. After viewing about 60% of movie 2, it's clear the PQ goes up noticably from movie 1. Movie 2, for me, is a solid 4, with some instances reaching close to 4.5. I have no doubt, movie 3 will reach a solid 4.5 for me.

6. The PQ is head and tails, even for movie 1, over DVD. Again, that's not to say movie 1 is a great example of Blu-ray as it is not, still it blows away DVD.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by deeman54

I hope you guys are getting paid for this because probably 2% of Fans are listening lol.
The trilogy is good, and ill buy it 5 more times with all the negative, inaccurate, unprofessional advice. Go post something on a real critic website because your comments get no love nor attention. Look at the poll 62 percent still want it. Thats just bluray.com users which is probably less the 1% of worldwide bluray consumers. You are really just wasting your breath is what im trying to say.

It's a message board, dude. A place for everyone to voice their thoughts and opinions. If you don't want to read what others have to say, don't join the forum.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

If we are just to view the movie for their pure entertainment value, VHS would be good enough. The whole purpose of blu-ray is to provide more picture details and a minimum of 5x the improvement on PQ over DVD.

No it would not. And comparing this to the DVD, there is a very noticeable difference. Don't know how you would quantify whether there is a 5x difference but then again I doubt anyone is really using that measure in the real world.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

It's a message board, dude. A place for everyone to voice their thoughts and opinions. If you don't want to read what others have to say, don't join the forum.

ok moderator You are suppose to post you opinion and not try to make it a fact. Big difference student.

[Blu Titan]

OK...just my brief observations on The Fellowship of the Ring. The initial part of the movie is probably the weakest in terms of PQ. There's definitely a lot more detail and the colors are much more vibrant that the DVD version. I am not going to speculate on any technical issues, just my impressions from watching the movie. I do agree that the scenes of The Shire are the weakest in terms of PQ, but nothing in them is distracting and they are quite an improvement over the DVD version...I would rate them 3.5/5. The detail and overall picture quality of the movie continues to improve through the movie. Like many others have pointed out the part when their journey takes them to the mines are excellent in terms of PQ and pure AQ heaven...I will rate them overall (4.5/5). For the FOTR PQ = 3.75/5 and AQ 5/5. I really enjoyed the presentation in all possible ways. Its really funny to "see" all of the FUD that came about due to the same screenshots from the same tired old sources. I am watching The Two Towers in a couple of minutes, but I can tell you right now that this set is worth a lot more than $20 a movie...If people are happy with their DVd versions that's their perogative, but there's no comparison. And, again...how much did you pay for your DVD versions? How much is the Blu-ray set?

[ts0323]

Originally Posted by deeman54

ok moderator You are suppose to post you opinion and not try to make it a fact. Big difference student.

^ Sounds like you need to take your own advice.
It's all opinions man, everyone has a right to post his own. It's called free speech.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

And, again...how much did you pay for your DVD versions? How much is the Blu-ray set?

+1 nice, you just threw a curve ball, no a sinker lol.

Originally Posted by ts0323

^ Sounds like you need to take your own advice.
It's all opinions man, everyone has a right to post his own. It's called free speech.

sounds like that last message gets a solid -1

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by deeman54

ok moderator You are suppose to post you opinion and not try to make it a fact. Big difference student.

At no point did i try to say my opinion was a fact. One guy tried to claim that the HDTV broadcast was just a sharpened version of the Blu-Ray transfer. Based on those screenshots, that doesn't seem to be true. I've also clearly stated that until I'm able to rent the disc and watch it on my TV, I can't judge how good/bad the picture is. And since the screenshots from AVS are the only ones I have to go by, I can't say for sure whether or not they were or were not tampered with to make them look worse.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Its really funny to "see" all of the FUD that came about due to the same screenshots from the same tired old sources.

FUD that seems to be entirely justified as per your post

[ts0323]

Originally Posted by deeman54

+1 nice, you just threw a curve ball, no a sinker lol.



sounds like that last message gets a solid -1

oookay, well I suppose you'd prefer to be on a forum where there's no criticism and every transfer is praised.

I never said my opinion was a fact, I just simply think that FOTR could have looked a lot better.
I wish I had a way to take a screencap of the DNR, then I could show you what I mean.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

OK...just my brief observations on The Fellowship of the Ring. The initial part of the movie is probably the weakest in terms of PQ. There's definitely a lot more detail and the colors are much more vibrant that the DVD version. I am not going to speculate on any technical issues, just my impressions from watching the movie. I do agree that the scenes of The Shire are the weakest in terms of PQ, but nothing in them is distracting and they are quite an improvement over the DVD version...I would rate them 3.5/5. The detail and overall picture quality of the movie continues to improve through the movie. Like many others have pointed out the part when their journey takes them to the mines are excellent in terms of PQ and pure AQ heaven...I will rate them overall (4.5/5). For the FOTR PQ = 3.75/5 and AQ 5/5. I really enjoyed the presentation in all possible ways. Its really funny to "see" all of the FUD that came about due to the same screenshots from the same tired old sources. I am watching The Two Towers in a couple of minutes, but I can tell you right now that this set is worth a lot more than $20 a movie...If people are happy with their DVd versions that's their perogative, but there's no comparison. And, again...how much did you pay for your DVD versions? How much is the Blu-ray set?

Couldn't agree more. Especially since I just found out that the screencap guy use to be a HD-DVD backer.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

So you're saying that this:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png
is just a sharpened image of this:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png

I wish my Blockbuster had the Blu-Ray so I could really see for myself if that screen capture is accurate or not. Until then I won't know for sure.

Originally Posted by radagast

Oh great. Thanks a lot. We could have used this link about 10,000 posts ago. Makes perfect sense to me, though.

It actually isn't clear. Penton had this to say in his thread (note the multiple usages of the words "possible" and "possibly," meaning the answer is not, and may not ever be clear):

"I keep getting these PM’s from people asking me if I think (confidentially) whether or not the HDTV mpeg-2 version of FOTR is ‘truly” better than the Blu-ray edition or, was the HDTV broadcast master sharpened and therefore essentially just *appears better*.

I don’t know for sure, so please stop with the PMs.

To make it crystal clear, by the time I get around to actually watching the theatrical versions, the extended versions will probably be streeting, so in the meantime, I refer you all to the reviews of Ken Brown, Bill Hunt, and all the other real-time reviews that have been noted and linked to on this thread as well as the main LOTR thread which we have here on this forum to give you as many opinions as possible.

Bottom line, I can not tell from viewing on my never been calibrated stinkin computer display in my private office by examining one or even a couple stinkin screenshots posted of some ‘seasoned’ dude with a beard, which is all I’ve seen and plan to see concerning the whole issue. The matter is not as easy as you guys assume it to be. If you don’t believe me or can’t appreciate that, then without posting some proprietary images which I’m frankly not at liberty to do, I’ll refer you to this mini-tutorial………..
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut.../sharpness.htm

Scroll down to the ‘seasoned’ dude with the grey shirt and sweater, look at the acutance/resolution comparison stills. It is *possible* (if very good sharpening tools are available and carefully applied) to make and think of the

Acutance: High....Resolution: High image- as being analogous to the ‘possibly’ sharpened HDTV version of FOTR and the -

Acutance: Low….Resolution: High image- as being representative of an essentially unsharpened Blu-ray edition which is being perceived by many as less detailed compared to the HDTV version.

For those who love to look at facial textures in older dudes then click on this link…
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...sharp-mask.htm
and if your attention spans are short, then just scroll down and read the “REAL WORLD EXAMPLE” and do the mouse over thing going from ‘Original’ to ‘Sharpened’ as the author suggests."

Sorry to muddy the waters of the debate even more. My suggestion? Watch the transfers and judge for yourself. Just try not to get so angry at those who don't share your positive/negative opinion

[42041]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, looks to me (like I said) we have another The Fifth Element situation where the HD broadcast was just a sharpened version of what was on the Blu-ray.

It's not, at least the HDTV comparison posted on AVS; they're nearly identical most of the time... which is the problem, for me. I expect an optical disc to blow away an MPEG2 broadcast every time.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Earlier in this thread, I was one of several who railed on the 1st movie transfer per screenshots. After viewing all of movie 1 and now into 60% of movie 2 on my Panny V10 50 inch at 7 feet away on the wall, I can say the folowing:

1. Ken Brown's 2.5 rating on movie 1 is way too harsh. Granted this transfer is not where it should be, but to me, 2.5 is very wrong.

2. Per my viewing experience, the original screenshots on this site were actually a hell of a lot better than those Warner made them put up. The new screenshots do an incredible disservice to what is actually on the discs.

3. Although I'm not one to be incredibly picky when it comes to use of DNR, as I pretty much enjoy Patton, although it could use some more grain, it's clear......like Patton, there has been too much use of DNR.

4. For me, movie 1 looks to be a solid 3.5, with some instances hovering close to a 4, very few though. I believe this movie, given the right care, can look better, possibly a lot better.

5. After viewing about 60% of movie 2, it's clear the PQ goes up noticably from movie 1. Movie 2, for me, is a solid 4, with some instances reaching close to 4.5. I have no doubt, movie 3 will reach a solid 4.5 for me.

6. The PQ is head and tails, even for movie 1, over DVD. Again, that's not to say movie 1 is a great example of Blu-ray as it is not, still it blows away DVD.

A fair and honest assessment.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's not, at least the HDTV comparison posted on AVS; they're nearly identical most of the time... which is the problem, for me. I expect an optical disc to blow away an MPEG2 broadcast every time.

Have you seen the movie? I will say this, screen caps from eric.exe (HD-DVD Lover) avs forum doesn't do the film justice

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

I'll wait for The LOTR Trilogy Blu-ray EE; meanwhile 'Avatar' is here April 22nd, on my Birthday which is Earth Day.

You won't double dip for LOTR but you will for Avatar? I say this because the Avatar you are getting on your birthday is a bare bones Blu-ray right? So to get any extras you'll have to get the Avatar edition they are releasing later in the year.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Have you seen the movie? I will say this, screen caps from eric.exe (HD-DVD Lover) avs forum doesn't do the film justice

Which seems to be a common occurance. Take a scene, pick the worst frame and use that to represent the scene and pick it apart. Same as what was done with the Star Trek films. Those were nowhere near perfect, but what was done in that thread was ridiculous. I remember the "face of God" scene being used. A scene that had a major strobe effect going on. Which frame was used? The one with the most washed out picture. Funny thing was when you ACTUALLY WATCHED THE FILM, the ONE screenshot was not representative of the scene. Surprise, surprise. And what made that whole thread so sad? There was plenty to legitimately complain about with that release. This one? No where near as much.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Have you seen the movie? I will say this, screen caps from eric.exe (HD-DVD Lover) avs forum doesn't do the film justice

I'm sure they don't. Screenshots represent one compressed frame of the movie, not the movie. However, that also applies to blu-rays that look great in screen caps, and the ROTK caps look a LOT better. And it seems like almost everyone who HAS seen the movies agrees that FOTR is not demo-worthy or at the level of the other two.

I'm not really complaining that it looks "bad". I would be satisfied if this was a lesser flick. I'm complaining that it doesn't look amazing, because this is Lord of the Rings. You could argue that it's faithful to the soft theatrical appearance, but eh, it's 2010, WB could've bypassed many of the limitations imposed by 2001 technology. It's routinely done for other films and I can wait on this one since I'm not really a big LOTR fanboy (though I do like them a lot, they just don't rank in my top 20).
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you're going to insult other people for drawing "unfounded" conclusions, don't confirm their conclusions in your reviews

[pchin]

For me, I don't mind the first movie PQ 3.5 to 4.0 (still quite good & way better than DVD). It's just that I prefer the extended edition. I would have purchased this trilogy without a second thought if only it's the extended edition regardless the PQ.

Oh well, will wait for a while & see if the studio will release another version in a year or two...otherwise if I can't control my urge, I might just pick up a cheaper used copy from Amazon.