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

[Diesel]

There were 9 gigs of space left on Fellowship? Wonder why they didn't take advantage of more of that blank space.

It probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but hey, ever byte helps


Says the audio is 24-bit. That is the one people are always complaining that movies' audio ISN'T in right?

[rileyparrish]

it could be some hd-dvd fanboy who is trying to get some revenge.

lol

[42041]

Originally Posted by Spike Killer

I honestly do not see what the fuss is about. The screenshots look fine to me?

Big budget movie shot on super35 that made a lot of money, 2004: http://media.cinemasquid.com/m00122/m00122_lrg_16.png

Bigger budget movie shot on super35 that made a lot more money and also recieved all sorts of accolades and critical acclaim, 2001:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4775/lotr11bd.png

don't know about you but i'm not quite satisfied here.

[rileyparrish]

Again...why do PNG images look nothing like what actually shows up on a screen? Also after looking at that image of LOTR I cannot believe it's captured from a Blu-Ray (or any high def source for that matter).

[svenge]

Cancelled my pre-order, will revert to a wait-and-see stance before buying it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

Also after looking at that image of LOTR I cannot believe it's captured from a Blu-Ray (or any high def source for that matter).

Well that's the just the problem, aint it
Taking accurate screencaps isn't hard. eric.exe's screencaps are accurate. I know because I've compared his past efforts with real discs. However, you watch movies in motion, so that must be taken into account.

[Maggot]

is that for the EPIC, modern day classics that there are, they have not been given an appropriate treatment like say the Wizard of Oz. And if they balk at that, then they shouldn't be making these transfers at all. That may sound harsh to some of you, but if I'm to repurchase something, let alone versions that are not considered by the vast majority to be the definative ones, let alone possible sub-par transfers against the level of detail, dynamics and color fidelity Blu-ray/1080p offers, then I also must, by default and sheer sanity, demand integrity in the transfers.

[billzfan]

I've seen thread after thread on Amazon, AVS, and here about how p-oed people are that New Line is releasing the theatrical version but not the extended. I, personally, have always liked the theatrical version more. The pacing of the movie flows so much better and the extended editions add a lot of footage that really has nothing to do with the core elements of the story.


Anyway, anyone else here prefer the theatrical version too?

Also, anyone here what the video and audio quality are going to be like on the blu-ray edition? I have mine pre-ordered.

[42041]

No, this topic's never EVER been brought up on this forum, you are the first

[Diesel]

Finally a (brief) answer from the guy with the blu about the AQ:

This post is for all you wondering about AQ. So far I've found the AQ extremely good. I haven't had a chance to watch them all at reference level yet (this is coming in the next day or two, but it was a noticeable improvement over the DVD as far as I recall, especially as far as the LFE is concerned.

[Nightshade]

Am I the only one that likes the Theatrical version of LOTR
yes

im jk

[AKORIS]

no you're not the only one-- the extended versions are for diehard fans of the series-- the movies are long enough as they are!!!

[Diesel]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2292

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2286



Return of the King uses 38.5GB
Two Towers 39GB


Um?

I thought RotK would take up over 40 gigs for sure...

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Also, anyone here what the video and audio quality are going to be like on the blu-ray edition? I have mine pre-ordered.

Check the last 2 dozen posts....... Fellowship (#1 or #2 I guess... not the 3rd one) looks TERRIBLE..... the others are alright I guess.

AQ apparently is great.

[rileyparrish]

Does anyone else notice PNG screencaps look like garbage? I don't know why ANYONE would look at those to try and get an accurate account of what the movie will look like. I whish there were some DECENT screenshots like the ones found here in the reviews, the ones over at AVS are crap...

[42041]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

Does anyone else notice PNG screencaps look like garbage? I don't know why ANYONE would look at those to try and get an accurate account of what the movie will look like. I whish there were some DECENT screenshots like the ones found here in the reviews, the ones over at AVS are crap...

are you blaming it on PNG, a lossless format?

[rileyparrish]

I have VLC open right now and am taking screencaps of some movies. Animated films look fine but regular films look horrible, the color is all out and the screen cap looks NOTHING like what I actually am seeing on the screen. I try to use FRAPS and they look the same...I made sure both are set to record PNG and not JPEG.

[42041]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

Ok...can no one else see that PNG shots look like crap? I have VLC open right now and am taking screencaps of some movies. Animated films look fine but regular films look horrible, the color is all out and the screen cap looks NOTHING like what I actually am seeing on the screen.

You're doing it wrong

[Batman1980]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcuDMoSOOrs
Looks horrible there, can't wait to see it in HD for the first time since 2001!

[rileyparrish]

Well my pics look just as crappy as the ones eric posted over on AVS (different movies) but the skintones look all hue-ey (not a real word)...theres no way I can be doing it wrong I've tried multiple applications...