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

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Screen Caps in motion ARE the movie.

If the broadcast screens are superior to the Blu screens then the broadcast version is superior, end of story. It is glaringly obvious that Warner did not remaster for this release, they used the old master. If you put the Broadcast version on a BD, and gave it to these reviewers, the reviews would be either identical or slightly more glowing (as far as video aspects are concerned.) What does that tell you?

The fact is that a huge amount of "professional" reviewers praised Gladiator when it first came out says it all.

Blu-ray.com gave it a 3 is that a good PQ? Get your facts straight. Show us the links the gave it a good PQ review. I haven't seen one yet

[42041]

Originally Posted by Fighter

So does reading your posts!!

luckily for us both, there's an ignore button

[42041]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Only an idiot would go by screen caps

and why not, pray tell?
do you deny that I, Robot looks better than Gladiator?
do you deny that it looks just as better in stills?

[HAVOKK]

I finally finished watching the first, "Fellowship of the Ring", earlier today, as I was able to get a hold of the Blu thanks to a lucky friend of mine. (only get to borrow )

The thing is, with a movie, and series like LOTR, Its hard for me to nitpick on video quality, but at the same time I can't help but wonder how much better this could have been if the video had been of better quality. If I was to take out the fine detail of issues Gladiator had, I would be inclined to compare the two in overall image quality. That is what the quality reminded me of off the bat. It just felt so dull at many points, and honestly imo, I felt as though I could just as well be watching an up-converted DVD for the quality I was getting. I didn't find that crispness in video that I all so often see (and love) in Blu-rays.

Now those facts aside, this is LOTR and for that reason I can't complain about simple video quality issues, even if there were any real issues to complain about. A good movie gets you caught up in the story to a point where a simple lack of quality doesn't mean much, or isn't enough to be noticeable and sidetrack you from the film. That is what I found while watching LOTR. At the beginning I was a bit disappointed, mainly because of my misplaced high expectations, but It wasn't long before I fell captive to the lovable story and film as a whole.

The audio definitely stood out as a large improvement from the latter DVD releases, and I was very impressed by the quality, detail, and placement of the audio mix.


I did grab a few screens, and while they have been down compressed (carefully) to a more viewable size, they do compare well to their source and their overall representation is very accurate.

[Show spoiler]

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

The heart of the friction here is not whether we should debate the merits of these releases. The issue is that most members of this forum know better than to trust "screenshot scientists" and don't really want to be infected by them. There are much better resources than the AVS screenshot patrol - who in point of fact have been wrong more often than they've been right - to make an educated decision about whether or not to buy a release.

Have you actually seen the screen caps? That's what it's gonna look like on your display. They don't lie. You are just in denial that your precious LOTR trilogy looks bad.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Have you actually seen the screen caps? That's what it's gonna look like on your display. They don't lie. You are just in denial that your precious LOTR trilogy looks bad.

Well, let's not get TOO carried away. FOTR looks pretty bad. ROTK looks pretty good. But so do my HDTV copies I've had since before Blu-Ray, and they're extended

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

The "screenshot scientists" are now 0-3 against people who have actually seen the BD's as they were supposed to be seen.

Umm... reviewers PRAISED Gladiator on Blu-ray while these "screenshot scientists" raised hell about the awful picture quality. Guess what? Gladiator is being REMASTERED BECAUSE THE ORIGINALS SUCKED AND THE REVIEWERS WERE WRONG.

And the name "screenshot scientists" implies that the picture quality measurements are objective and not subjective as you get from some idiot reviewer.

Also, some of these "screenshot scientists" actually have the blu-ray and have watched the blu-ray and agree with original assessment.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Umm... reviewers PRAISED Gladiator on Blu-ray while these "screenshot scientists" raised hell about the awful picture quality. Guess what? Gladiator is being REMASTERED BECAUSE THE ORIGINALS SUCKED AND THE REVIEWERS WERE WRONG.

And the name "screenshot scientists" implies that the picture quality measurements are objective and not subjective as you get from some idiot reviewer.

Also, some of these "screenshot scientists" actually have the blu-ray and have watched the blu-ray and agree with original assessment.

Show the reviews. I found one that gave it 3 out of 5 and its not that good

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gladi...y-Review/4735/

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

What I don't get is that people are going off screen caps and saying the PQ is horrible, then reviewers are giving PQ 17 to 18 out of 20 (Digitalbits) 9 out of 10 (DVD Town). Lesson learn screen caps don't mean CRAP

The people who produced the screen caps say the picture is not great.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the screen caps are 1 frame of the blu-ray that you would see if you paused it on your display?

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Show the reviews. I found one that gave it 3 out of 5 and its not that good

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gladi...y-Review/4735/

I'm not going to go find them but they are out there. Sometimes too they change their reviews after they find out they got it completely wrong.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

I'm not going to go find them but they are out there. Sometimes too they change their reviews after they find out they got it completely wrong.

LOL thats a good one. I doubt that will ever happen.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

LOL thats a good one. I doubt that will ever happen.

??? they did.... It might have been digitalbits or something. why don't you go look in the big gladiator post on avs?

But don't worry, on your display the bds will look fine so I don't know why the hell you are arguing.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

LOL thats a good one. I doubt that will ever happen.

too late. DVDbeaver's first Gladiator review was glowing (they were the very first people to get their hands on the disc I think), they amended their opinion slighty once the internet blew up.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

The people who produced the screen caps say the picture is not great.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the screen caps are 1 frame of the blu-ray that you would see if you paused it on your display?

There is sooo much you dont understand.

[Mike2060]

I swear, sometimes it feels like I'm dealing with 10 years olds on these forums.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

There is sooo much you dont understand.

Why don't you explain genius? Instead of just saying I don't understand.

[HAVOKK]

Yes screens only represent a single frame in a certain sense, but yes that is a frame out of the movie, and if the overall movie quality sucks, that frame will suck also. If the movie is brilliantly flowing with crisp and vibrant video, you will get a good screen. So yes, a dull video is going to have a dull screen, a sharp one, a sharp.

If you cannot accept the screens as being a part and frame of the actual film, you are only kidding yourself because you will eventually find out the hard way when you watch the film.

The five screens I took, posted with my short review some short posts back were a very good representation of what the movie as a whole looked like. And luckily, being that I watched the film and I took the shots, I can tell you that if my screens are bad or wrong, the movie is bad or wrong. I cannot speak for any other screens, but If they look too bad to be true, I wouldn't be so sure about their "inaccurate" representation.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

I finally finished watching the first, "Fellowship of the Ring", earlier today, as I was able to get a hold of the Blu thanks to a lucky friend of mine. (only get to borrow )

The thing is, with a movie, and series like LOTR, Its hard for me to nitpick on video quality, but at the same time I can't help but wonder how much better this could have been if the video had been of better quality. If I was to take out the fine detail of issues Gladiator had, I would be inclined to compare the two in overall image quality. That is what the quality reminded me of off the bat. It just felt so dull at many points, and honestly imo, I felt as though I could just as well be watching an up-converted DVD for the quality I was getting. I didn't find that crispness in video that I all so often see (and love) in Blu-rays.

Now those facts aside, this is LOTR and for that reason I can't complain about simple video quality issues, even if there were any real issues to complain about. A good movie gets you caught up in the story to a point where a simple lack of quality doesn't mean much, or isn't enough to be noticeable and sidetrack you from the film. That is what I found while watching LOTR. At the beginning I was a bit disappointed, mainly because of my misplaced high expectations, but It wasn't long before I fell captive to the lovable story and film as a whole.

The audio definitely stood out as a large improvement from the latter DVD releases, and I was very impressed by the quality, detail, and placement of the audio mix.


I did grab a few screens, and while they have been down compressed (carefully) to a more viewable size, they do compare well to their source and their overall representation is very accurate.

[Show spoiler]

Why has nobody commented this? I'm worried actually, now I really hope more reviews comes soon, put this debate to rest, but it's not looking good for the first movie though.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK
I finally finished watching the first, "Fellowship of the Ring", earlier today, as I was able to get a hold of the Blu thanks to a lucky friend of mine. (only get to borrow )

The thing is, with a movie, and series like LOTR, Its hard for me to nitpick on video quality, but at the same time I can't help but wonder how much better this could have been if the video had been of better quality. If I was to take out the fine detail of issues Gladiator had, I would be inclined to compare the two in overall image quality. That is what the quality reminded me of off the bat. It just felt so dull at many points, and honestly imo, I felt as though I could just as well be watching an up-converted DVD for the quality I was getting. I didn't find that crispness in video that I all so often see (and love) in Blu-rays.

Now those facts aside, this is LOTR and for that reason I can't complain about simple video quality issues, even if there were any real issues to complain about. A good movie gets you caught up in the story to a point where a simple lack of quality doesn't mean much, or isn't enough to be noticeable and sidetrack you from the film. That is what I found while watching LOTR. At the beginning I was a bit disappointed, mainly because of my misplaced high expectations, but It wasn't long before I fell captive to the lovable story and film as a whole.

The audio definitely stood out as a large improvement from the latter DVD releases, and I was very impressed by the quality, detail, and placement of the audio mix.


I did grab a few screens, and while they have been down compressed (carefully) to a more viewable size, they do compare well to their source and their overall representation is very accurate

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>

The video issues are hardly "simple". And saying that basically the Blu-ray is good enough because the movie carries it, is a joke. Why even bother getting the Blu-ray if your idea is that? Blu-ray is about resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity, not about medioctrity, especially on a huge release.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

LOL thats a good one. I doubt that will ever happen.

Really?

DVDBeaver, one of the most popular review sites, did precisely that. They originally called Gladiator "magnificent" and one of the "best looking Blu Rays" they had seen all year with no mention of DNR. They revisted and subsequently changed their revew after being contacted by someone at AVS and rewatching the film.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17047427

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post17056075

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Show the reviews.

Lots of reviews did.

It takes about 2 seconds of googling to find some.

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/3027.shtml:
Hotly anticipated, the Blu-Ray version of "Gladiator" was controversial weeks before its actual release already. Let me tell you right off the bat however, that all the hoohah about the supposed poor quality of the release is vastly exaggerated and mostly unfounded.
Gladiator" features a 1080p high definition transfer of the film in both its theatrical as well as the extended version which runs 16 minutes longer. The transfer is clean and without blemishes, just as you would expect from a Dreamworks release. There has been word that the release features excessive digital video noise reduction. I did not find this so. While the seems to be some DVNR that has been applied there was not a single occurrence where I found it degrading the actual experience