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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Penton-Man is an executive at Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. He is very knowledgeable about the entire process from capture all the way to the disc, and every step along the way. (workflow)

I suggest you ask him why "frame" grabs are a faulty science. There are technical performance based issues in players and displays that he can explain, and why grabbing a single "frame" is like tossing a dart at a board in what result you may achieve.

That's why there are many, many, many caps taken at different times throughout the movie - not just a single one.

There has not been one movie yet, not one, that has looked lackluster in many many screens but magically looked great in motion, and not one film yet that looked fantastic in many caps that looked suddenly terrible in motion. Not one yet. Those caps ARE what is on the BD, they are perfect indicators of what you'll see in motion.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's why there are many, many, many caps taken at different times throughout the movie - not just a single one.

There has not been one movie yet, not one, that has looked lackluster in many many screens but magically looked great in motion, and not one film yet that looked fantastic in many caps that looked suddenly terrible in motion. Not one yet. Those caps ARE what is on the BD, they are perfect indicators of what you'll see in motion.

Maybe. And without understanding what you are claiming, you shouldnt argue.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's why there are many, many, many caps taken at different times throughout the movie - not just a single one.

There has not been one movie yet, not one, that has looked lackluster in many many screens but magically looked great in motion, and not one film yet that looked fantastic in many caps that looked suddenly terrible in motion. Not one yet. Those caps ARE what is on the BD, they are perfect indicators of what you'll see in motion.

So by that logic you judge the merits of the BD by still pictures taken from different points of the movie while looking at your computer screen? How that makes any sense is beyond all reasonableness.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Thas not been one movie yet, not one, that has looked lackluster in many many screens but magically looked great in motion

Contact says hi.

[-RONIN-]

Originally Posted by neo78956

I can't even remember what we're really arguing about anymore.

I think somebody used the jam knife in the peanut butter jar again!

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

So by that logic you judge the merits of the BD by still pictures taken from different points of the movie while looking at your computer screen? How that makes any sense is beyond all reasonableness.

Absolutely.

Caps reveal any and all DNR issues, and any all EE issues, and amount of fine detail, the list goes on and on and on.

The caps led people to believe Gladiator would be terrible (although people on this forum used to spend copious amounts of time defending it) and lo and behold - terrible. Braveheart caps looked amazing, movie looked amazing. This has been the case with every single BD I have ever seen.

Screen caps are absolutely invaluable when it comes to assessing image quality.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Absolutely.

Caps reveal any and all DNR issues, and any all EE issues, and amount of fine detail, the list goes on and on and on.

The caps led people to believe Gladiator would be terrible (although people on this forum used to spend copious amounts of time defending it) and lo and behold - terrible. Braveheart caps looked amazing, movie looked amazing. This has been the case with every single BD I have ever seen.

Screen caps are absolutely invaluable when it comes to assessing image quality.

I guess I am old fashioned, I actually watch the movie and decide for myself if it is a quality rendering.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, then that means that this is not the first time the advocates for the *screenshot scientists* who have been active, regular posting members of other forums (AVS, etc.) have shown up on this forum with little prior history of positively contributing here to other topics of Blu-ray concern only to now show up and post with reckless abandonment in order to bash a particular Blu-ray title.

...

In the past, the *screenshot scientists* have given us several examples of incorrect assumptions and conclusions regarding a particular Blu-ray product even when their ‘evidence’ has not been tainted either intentionally or out of ignorance by doing nonsensical things such as comparing I and B frames rather than I to I or B to B, for which the vast majority of their readership are clueless to the inherent inaccuracy of that ‘evidence’. What bothers me a bit though is that I know of no such posting irregularities by the screenshot engineer ‘eric. exe.’ So, we need a real-time expert like Mr. Robert Harris to clearly separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

As Joe B. so eloquently put it yesterday and I think it applies to LOTR on Blu-ray……..”This is a BIG F****ing deal , and not just for fanboys of the trilogy. What I’m getting at is that the DI process was in its infancy when LOTR came out, heck it was almost neonatal when the work was being done on FOTR because they were essentially using a Beta product at the time which evolved into what is now known among digital colorists as ‘Lustre’.

So are we looking at "I" frames for both or "B" frames for both, in the sceencap comparisons?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

I suggest you continue underlining the next sentence, the most important one.

As has been said 1 billion times before all of Eric's shots have always been 100% accurate and never deceptive.

You keep saying the same things over and over again, and when someone responds with "His shots are always accurate" you wait, and then post the same thing about his shots being somehow faulty. That's never an issue with any of the credible screen cappers over there, they'll even give you the frame details if you ask.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17780617

Those known cappers, like Eric.exe and Xylon (where all of these screens came from) won't do I to B or B to I.

[sub24ox780]

which moon shot and from which of the three movies and I will grab it and post it for you (how far into the movie is the moon that is supposedly purple)

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by radagast

So are we looking at "I" frames for both or "B" frames for both, in the sceencap comparisons?

And is there any way to determine WHICH one was captured, before, during or after the process? You know, so we actually know what we are looking at.

[adamhopelies]

Right, I just googled "Eric", and it said absolutely nothing about him being a reliable source of information. I also asked my mother about him, and my uncle Terry, but neither know anything about him.

Something about this just doesn't sound right...

[sub24ox780]

I can use ffdshow to grab at 100% png and post a grab from anyframe you want from the the return of the king or the two towers

[Stinky-Dinkins]

He's been doing it forever - if he was deceptive or his caps were not accurate he would've been "exposed" long, long, long ago.

His caps are fine.

It's a fact, sorry.

[sub24ox780]

ya, its not like its hard to capture lossless frames to .png

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I suggest you continue underlining the next sentence, the most important one.

As has been said 1 billion times before all of Eric's shots have always been 100% accurate and never deceptive.

You keep saying the same things over and over again, and when someone responds with "His shots are always accurate" you wait, and then post the same thing about his shots being somehow faulty. That's never an issue with any of the credible screen cappers over there, they'll even give you the frame details if you ask.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17780617

Those known cappers, like Eric.exe and Xylon (where all of these screens came from) won't do I to B or B to I.

And read the sentence after the one about Eric. I never said Eric's shots were faulty. I questioned the assumption that he is always correct and never makes mistakes.

The sentence, about Eric, is the most important one...to you and Mikey.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

And read the sentence after the one about Eric. I never said Eric's shots were faulty. I questioned the assumption that he is always correct and never makes mistakes.

The sentence, about Eric, is the most important one...to you and Mikey.

Again, and now we're coming full circle for the 500th time, I'll ask you the same thing I asked you when you said that the first time - are you claiming those screens are somehow faulty? What exactly are you implying here? Some vague statement about how "so and so is not infallible, so and so makes mistakes." Yeah, OK fine, I agree. Nobody is perfect. So are you saying those screens are deceptive? Are you saying he's made a mistake here?

Then I say the same thing I said the first time, those screens are 100% accurate. They are not deceptive, they are not inaccurate.

Now you'll wait, pop up again in 20 minutes, and vaguely suggest the screens are somehow faulty.

This thread is like Groundhog Day. I'm still trying to figure out the magic words I have to say so I'll wake up and have it be tomorrow rather than today all over again.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Again, and now we're coming full circle for the 500th time, I'll ask you the same thing I asked you when you said that the first time - are you claiming those screens are somehow faulty? What exactly are you saying here? Some vague statement about how "so and so is not infallible, so and so makes mistakes." Yeah, OK fine, I agree. Nobody is perfect. So are you saying those screens are deceptive? Are you saying he's made a mistake here?

Then I say the same thing I said the first time, those screens are 100% accurate. They are not deceptive, they are not inaccurate.

Now you'll wait, pop up again in 20 minutes, and claim the screens are somehow faulty.

This thread is like Groundhog Day. I'm still trying to figure out the magic words I have to say so I'll wake up and have it be tomorrow rather than today all over again.

Agreed.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

This thread is like Groundhog Day. I'm still trying to figure out the magic words I have to say so I'll wake up and have it be tomorrow rather than today all over again.

Tomorrow is always a day away.

[sub24ox780]

I agree there accurate and lets be done with that.