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

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by mredman

How do you even know it was sloppy done. maybe FOTR can't look better because it was always shot soft. It seems to me you expected Transformers PQ. That i could have told you a year ago that it would never be such a transfer

Here is a review that says it looks very good:
"Overall definition remained very good, however. Jagged edges and moiré effects created no concerns, and I also detected no signs of edge enhancement. Source flaws remained absent and never cropped up in this clean transfer"

Taken from the review of FOTR from DVDTOWN

A soft picture and DNR are two totally different things. I wasn't expecting "Transformers". I was hoping for a transfer that wasn't plagued with DNR. Trust me take the DNR out and it won't look so smeary.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Just checked the set on our main living room setup. Once again, Fellowship looked fine, and the other two looked great. They are leagues ahead of the DVD's (I checked). We have a 48" LG plasma and PS3 in the living room for the record. Again, I'm not as hardcore as most when it comes to the specifics, but I didn't have any major problems with this set.

On a related note, I'm surprised by just how well Gollum and Treebeard have aged! Gollum still looks fantastic.

How far back are you sitting from your tv?

Originally Posted by mredman

How do you even know it was sloppy done. maybe FOTR can't look better because it was always shot soft. It seems to me you expected Transformers PQ. That i could have told you a year ago that it would never be such a transfer

Here is a review that says it looks very good:
"Overall definition remained very good, however. Jagged edges and moiré effects created no concerns, and I also detected no signs of edge enhancement. Source flaws remained absent and never cropped up in this clean transfer"

Taken from the review of FOTR from DVDTOWN

It could look better if they invested quite a bit of money and a lot of time into rescanning the film and creating a new master from scratch.

It would probably never look fantastic though.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I am not talking about the Jar Jar versions.

Yuck... I hate even typing that word.

Michael Bay loves Jar Jar he put 3 of him in Transformers 2

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I didn't say they rescanned it (which we don't know for sure if they did because Jeff didn't specify).

I said that they didn't simply just throw out an 8 year old master like your original post claimed.

Well, technically an 8 yr old telecine Master is still an 8 yr old master. Since they have not rescanned the negatives since the original masters were made, then what we are seeing with the Blu-rays is an 8 yr old telecine master with some tweaks.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Lucky me, I have a 40" tv

Thanks for continually stopping in to clarify things and give some perspective to the conversation at hand Ken.

No offense implied, I was just shooting for what I thought most people have in their homes

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure I could still spot all the issues I mentioned on a 40" TV too. Next time I'll reference a 19" CRT

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by emgesp

Well, technically an 8 yr old telecine Master is still an 8 yr old master. Since they have not rescanned the negatives since the original masters were made, then what we are seeing with the Blu-rays is an 8 yr old telecine master with some tweaks.

Again, I wasn't debating the point that they haven't rescanned it and created a brand spanking new master.

Your original post sounded like you thought they hadn't done any work on the films and just used what they created all those years ago as it was. That is what I was saying was wrong.

So basically at this point we are arguing about nothing

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

No offense implied, I was just shooting for what I thought most people have in their homes

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure I could still spot all the issues I mentioned on a 40" TV too. Next time I'll reference a 19" CRT

None taken

I'll probably think they look better than you do because I'm just not as keen at picking up on the small details as some of you guys are
Obviously I won't think it looks great though.
Heck, I even thought Mission Impossible was around a 2.5 or a 3

[Sith]

I am hesitant now, that review left alot to be desired, how could they
do such a crappy job when they had so much time to release them and these movies
looked so good in the theatre.

This smells like Gladiator or Gangs of New York all over again, after we all
bend over and let them grab our wallet, they release a remastered upgraded
one.

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Again, I wasn't debating the point that they haven't rescanned it and created a brand spanking new master.

Your original post sounded like you thought they hadn't done any work on the films and just used what they created all those years ago as it was. That is what I was saying was wrong.

Well of course they did some tweaks over the years. The first one that is obvious is the added DNR compared to the HDTV broadcast.

Though, I'm willing to bet FOTR would look 100X better if a new Master was made from a new 2-4k scan of the original negatives. A soft source and all, it would still be head and shoulders better than what they used for the Blu-ray.

Just look at the difference between the theatrical and Extended scenes of Gladiator. The extended scenes were scanned 2-3 yrs later than the original D.I. and it made a big difference with those elements in terms of detail.

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I am not sure that I have seen some one qoute themself before in this manner??


Right on


Oh and I agree with anyone who says

These will look as close to as they looked in the theater as possible representing what PJ ACTUALLY wanted. Do you remember what the picture looked like in your theater? Even if it was in a 100% digital theater, you cant remember that well (unless you are a projectionist) what it REALLY looked like, no you just want it to look THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD LOOK. And that happens quite a bit in these threads.

The question we should be seeking the answer to is "IS this what the person with the most artistic inregrity invloved in this project wanted and is happy with?" And if they are NOT involved, too bad we are then left at the mercy of what the dollar hungry studios want...OH WELL.....and that is my 2 cents, maybe 3.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Just wanted to briefly chime in. 'FotR' is, and has always been, a softer film. A fact I hope I effectively alluded to when I mentioned Jackson's shooting techniques in my video analysis. However, I feel confident that I was able to separate Jackson's intentions from technical issues with the release. It's a fine line, but DNR-smeared textures look quite different than soft textures. Moreover, while the DNR is getting a lot of attention in this forum, it's only a small part of the reason I gave the transfer a lower score. Watch the bright skies when the Fellowship first hits the snowy mountains - you'll see flickering, wavering, a dash of compression artifacts, and what not. Watch the Council of Elrond. Note the wide shots of the assembly (a bit of color bleeding and EE around Elrond, fluctuating textures in the leaves of the trees, smeary details) and the closeups of the newly formed fellowship (again, not soft, just... digitized and unsightly - some posters actually thought I had posted an upscaled shot from the DVD). Hop back to the opening Shire scenes. Notice the slight jitteriness in the image? The way the titles shift? The wavering, flickering, and inconsistencies that beset Frodo's face, sometimes in the same static shot?

Again though, that doesn't mean all is lost. Entire sequences look great, just naturally soft like many have mentioned. The Mines, the landing and third-act battle, the visit to Lothlorien -- these scenes look pretty good. They still have a few problems here and there (again technical, not source-based), but it isn't as bad as some of the film's more iconic moments.

If DNR were the only factor, I would have probably given the transfer a 3.5. But there are so many other issues, that it pulls it down. Is any one issue debilitating? Not in my opinion. But as they begin to stack on top of one another, relatively minor as each one may arguably be, they take a collective toll. More importantly, at the end of the day, I could just be wrong. There is no right or wrong answer like so many seem to think. This isn't an exact science, and not everyone will share the same impressions of a subjective experience.

Anyway, the reason opinions of the discs are varying so widely is because everyone's impressions are so dependent upon their home theater setup and their sensitivity to certain issues. Someone with a 40" TV, especially one teeming with optional bells and whistles like sharpening and contrast-boosting features, will wonder what the heck I'm complaining about. Likewise, someone who doesn't mind mild-to-moderate DNR, or doesn't notice the occasional instability of the image, or who simply doesn't pick up on some of the more minor issues will be quite pleased with the results. I was disappointed, but even if I didn't have a screener, I would buy a copy in a heartbeat. It's much better than the DVDs.

Instead of arguing about who's right and who's wrong, those who are sensitive to DNR should be educating readers about what they lose when DNR is applied or what a picture suffers when an issue is present. Screenshot comparisons and a friendly explanation go a long way. I still remember when I first moved from the Full Screen camp to the Wide Screen camp in high school. It was all because a friendly Suncoast employee showed me a screenshot comparison when I was buying the Star Wars Trilogy. The paper clearly showed what I was losing on the right and left sides of the image, and I never looked back. Instead of fuming, let's educate each other on why certain things spoil our viewing experience.

A studio like Warner, or any studio for that matter, does not want to put out a lousy product. Like any good business, they want to give the market what it demands. If the market demands less grain, artificially sharpened pictures, etc... that's what it will get. The more people who understand what's wrong with a transfer like the one afforded to 'FotR,' the more that viewpoint will become the prevailing viewpoint. It's simple economics, simple supply and demand. If you continue to calmly convert the masses rather than bickering about it all, you'll see positive change, just like we did when Full Screen releases ruled the land

This is an awesome post Ken. So the guy from DVDfile. Is really exaggerating VERY much by saying it is only a hair better then the DVD

What size screen did you see it on and what if you have 50" TV is is good there?

[Damage Inc.]

I'm still going to wait for a next release.
It MIGHT be better, perhaps, or should I say probably, but we'll see by the time it comes out.
I'm not in a huge rush to get this on BD still.

[Sky_Captain]

Is Diesel a Warner employee? The amount of attempted damage control, even after Warner have pulled the screenshots is frightening. Go have a Coke and a smile.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

Is Diesel a Warner employee? The amount of attempted damage control, even after Warner have pulled the screenshots is frightening. Go have a Coke and a smile.

What damage control?

[Sith]

If our reviewer feels only 1/3 films really has bad pq, and audio is perfect, is that worth not buying it I know we're all gonna hate having to dish out $$ twice. And most likely those of us that buy it next month will inevitabely buy it twice,

Let's be honest this is my triple dip and probably most everyone elses.

But being how long we're gonna have to wait, I'm not sure I personally can.

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Blu2U

I am not sure that I have seen some one qoute themself before in this manner??


Right on


Oh and I agree with anyone who says

These will look as close to as they looked in the theater as possible representing what PJ ACTUALLY wanted. Do you remember what the picture looked like in your theater? Even if it was in a 100% digital theater, you cant remember that well (unless you are a projectionist) what it REALLY looked like, no you just want it to look THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD LOOK. And that happens quite a bit in these threads.

The question we should be seeking the answer to is "IS this what the person with the most artistic inregrity invloved in this project wanted and is happy with?" And if they are NOT involved, too bad we are then left at the mercy of what the dollar hungry studios want...OH WELL.....and that is my 2 cents, maybe 3.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Diesel

What damage control?

I beg your pardon?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Sith

If our reviewer feels only 1/3 films really has bad pq, and audio is perfect, is that worth not buying it I know we're all gonna hate having to dish out $$ twice. And most likely those of us that buy it next month will inevitabely buy it twice,

Let's be honest this is my triple dip and probably most everyone elses.

But being how long we're gonna have to wait, I'm not sure I personally can.

Is renting an option for you?

If so, just rent and see if the quality is good enough for you to make the purchase. If not, you'll have gotten your fix for a while and might be able to hold out for the EE's and a possible, though not guaranteed, better transfer.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Diesel

How far back are you sitting from your tv?

Around 5 feet away from the screen. It honestly doesn't look anywhere near as bad as some are saying. My only complaint would be that Fellowship doesn't look especially "spectacular", but the others are great.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Is renting an option for you?

If so, just rent and see if the quality is good enough for you to make the purchase. If not, you'll have gotten your fix for a while and might be able to hold out for the EE's and a possible, though not guaranteed, better transfer.

See Diesel, that's another issue.

If we already had word that the exteneded editions would have a different transfer, than we'd be stupid to buy now.

But if it's going to be this transfer, and the audio is already great. Than it's a very difficult decision to hold off . If the transfers the same I can watch them now and rent them later, and have them in less than 2 weeks.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Around 5 feet away from the screen. It honestly doesn't look anywhere near as bad as some are saying. My only complaint would be that Fellowship doesn't look especially "spectacular", but the others are great.

Ok, by great do you mean, above average? Or do you mean reference(Star Trek, Pixar) reference quality. And by doesn't look "spectacular" does that mean average or 50/100 which is what is was rated?