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

[P@t_Mtl]

I am stuck at work, so how is it in the stores? Is it a mad house?

[MarkWM]

Originally Posted by radagast

$15 extra for a fancy letter opener? I don't think it's worth it.

I looks worse 'live, in-person' than it does in the ad.

I guess if you have a Barbie that you want to dress as Zena, it might be okay.

[MarkWM]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am stuck at work, so how is it in the stores? Is it a mad house?

Don't know about now but my local Bestbuy was dead at 9AM.

[The_Basterd]

The sword was much better than I expected. It actually looks really cook, abd it is bot cheap plastic. It said it is a $30 value at te Lord of the Rings Blu-Ray Display. Waiting until I get home to open it. I will post pictures!

[beanham22]

Originally Posted by bluskiff

walmart canada wants 58. but future shop has it on for 49. just fortoday.

Well the walmart where I am (Barrie, Ontario) has it at $48.99 until the 8th while future shop has it at $49.99 until the 7th.

[bhampton]

Can we get more info on that 1.5 screen width stuff?

-Brian

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

This is pretty much my experience so far. I think FOTR is inconsistent, but not horrible overall. I personally think it's a source problem or directors intent, but not a "bad" transfer. A couple closeups of Gandalf and Bilbo, in bilbo's house, seemed weird, but it seemed more like a bad makeup job than DNR overload. Other closeups look great. I see plenty of grain in plenty of shots. Sound is worth the price on it's own. I watched parts of all three on TNT this weekend and the BD's are obviously better in all aspects.

Weird, but my set came with an extra copy of ROTK just floating around inside the case.

The softness in FOTR has everything to do with the source and the DI process originally used in post-production on the film and absolutely nothing to do with the encoding on the disc. I saw the film 17 times in theaters. I know what it's supposed to look like and this surpasses what I experienced in a variety of different theaters 8 years ago.

This whole debacle just goes to prove that you can not trust screenshots. Movies are not paintings and should not be judged as such. Judge it in motion, the way it's meant to be.

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Excellent and often overlooked question.

The rule of thumb for the 1.5 screen -width only applies to a 16x9 screen IMO. If you watch a 1.33:1 movie "pillarboxed" on that screen, for instance, I don't think that moving closer would be correct because 1.33:1 movies were narrower in theatrical exhibition as well... the screen wasn't as wide as 1.85:1screens. If you look at 1.33:1 screens in old deco movie houses they were indeed narrower... as a constant height set up would produce. The "30 degree viewing angle" phrase really applies to 1.85:1 movies. 1.33:1 would actually be a tad narrower... so keeping the same distance from the 16x9 screen when 1.33:1 stuff is displayed is correct.

2.35:1 material is a challenge for the 16x9 based home-theater as 2.35:1 films are really intended to be *wider* than 1.85 movies, not smaller top-to-bottom. So if one was a purist, you'd actually move *closer* to your 16x9 TV when watching 2.35 so that your viewing angle would get wider than 30 degrees... or of course have a constant-height front projection system that presents a 1.5 viewing distance with 1.85 stuff and then naturally widens to 2.35 for an even wider viewing angle without you having to move your physical position.

The catch with many 1080p sets however (and blu-ray discs) is that they lose resolution with 2.35 material since they are letterboxed, and so while moving forward or going "wider" is correct cinematically, it may reveal the limits of the blu-ray encoding or the display's resolution when blown up more than the 1.5-from-16x9 would show. constant height FP systems try to fix this by upscaling the blu-ray vertically to fill the whole 1080p grid, and that helps a great deal to smooth out visible pixels when the image is magnified.

Hopefully, with time we'll see *native* 2.35:1 projectors since with digital machines it's no harder to build than 16x9.

Great question. It's cool that you're thinking about these things.

Great info, David, and thanks again. I'm as much of an audiophile as a videophile (perhaps more so, actually), so I see this as the video equivalent of sitting in the "sweet spot". However, furniture-arrangement considerations in my small apartment are such that I have to sit at about 2.2 screen-widths away. The display still looks great, though....

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Can we get more info on that 1.5 screen width stuff?

-Brian

Pretty simple.

Movies are designed and filmed to be watched with an approximate 30 degree viewing angle. The idea behind this is that the movie image should just start to fill your peripheral vision, but not necessarily make you have to constantly turn your head to follow the action.

Having an image that fills your field of vision is one of the reasons why movies are "movies" and not "TV". Your brain actually processes the visual information differently when an image fills this larger area on your retina and it causes a much more profound emotional response. Without necessarily realizing why, this is the reason people often say "oh, you need to see that movie in the theater, not just rent it or watch it at home".

If you want to get that 30 degree viewing angle, you need to sit about 1.5 times away from your 16x9 display as your screen is wide.

[ShockWave]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Obviously you can sit wherever you want, but if you want to get the most out of 1080p, you want to be at 1.5 (or closer) view distance. To get this, take the horizontal view distance of your set and multiply by 1.5. Your horizontal view distance is what ~37"? You would want to be at 55" from your set to be at a 1.5 view distance. Since you are 4-5 feet away, your seating distance sounds perfect

Do you mean the horizontal measurement of the actual screen it self?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

Great info, David, and thanks again. I'm as much of an audiophile as a videophile (perhaps more so, actually), so I see this as the video equivalent of sitting in the "sweet spot". However, furniture-arrangement considerations in my small apartment are such that I have to sit at about 2.2 screen-widths away. The display still looks great, though....

I'm an audiophile too... started out with tubes, LPs, and two-channels long before DVD was even around. You're absolutely right with the analogy of the "sweet spot" as that's exactly what we're talking about... a video sweet spot as opposed to an listening sweet spot.

[bhampton]

Dude,... I was kidding about wanting more of the 1.5 width stuff.

-Brian

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by ShockWave

Do you mean the horizontal measurement of the actual screen it self?

yes.

Don't use the diagonal that you see on the tag at best buy or on your TV's box.

Measure the horizontal width of your 16x9 screen. Now multiply that by 1.5. That's your ideal distance for a 30 degree field of vision.

Naturally there's some room to wiggle, but that's a good guide if you're trying to maximize the impact of your home-theater picture to simulate real movie watching.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by ShockWave

Do you mean the horizontal measurement of the actual screen it self?

Yes, the horizontal measurement of the viewable screen surface. Sorry if I made that a bit confusing.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Dude,... I was kidding about wanting more of the 1.5 width stuff.

-Brian

Dude,

then use a smiley to show sarchasm.

There are a lot of HT newbies in a thread like this... many folks have never even heard of "viewing angle" before reading this thread, and everyone is watching and evaluting the image quality of these BDs from every imaginable distance/viewing angle making everyone's impressions impossible to relate to one another. A bit of helpful discussion to get everyone on the same page about the goals of home-theater and how to acheive that is a good thing.

[bhampton]

It's fine... I guess if people don't know about it ,... they should so carry on.

-Brian

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Dude,

then use a smiley to show sarchasm.

There are a lot of HT newbies in a thread like this... many folks have never even heard of "viewing angle" before reading this thread, and everyone is watching and evaluting the image quality of these BDs from every imaginable distance/viewing angle making everyone's impressions impossible to relate to one another. A bit of helpful discussion to get everyone on the same page about the goals of home-theater and how to acheive that is a good thing.

It's funny that 99% of the release threads here dont mention this at all.

I never knew what it was, and I appreciate the education. Likening it to an audio "sweet spot" makes perfect sense to me.

My viewing spot is likely nowhere near the audio or video "sweet spot," but it's the most comfortable place for me. If I'm missing out on a magical "better picture" or "better sound" as a result, then ignorance is truly bliss.

Ok. 25-minute lunch break is over. Must get back to the real world for the rest of the day. Look forward to reading user REVIEWS when I get back tomorrow!

[jonmoz]

I have just been looking over the "Fellowship and Towers" Blu-ray's again as well as the Dvd versions,if you check my home cinema gallery i have everything set up right and i sit the exact distance from the screen.

And they still look very good to me,the Fellowship is not as sharp as the Towers,but it's no different than i remember in the cinema,i keep looking these over to make sure i was not being to easy on these first time round,but i find myself wanting to watch them again and again,and they are a big improvement over the Dvd's.

All the talk of vastly different quality from scene to scene,also seems overstated to me.

I will watch the Return of the king tonight and give my opinion on that,i will also see if i can borrow back my Panasonic dmp-bd30 from my sister,just to see if there is any difference.

[kurtlingle]

Ok,


I picked my up this morning at Target on the way to work. They open at 8 and I was the first one (and only one) to grab one of these.

59.99 out the door (gotta love DE - no state tax).

So tonight I'm having a LOTR blu-ray party. Pizza, wings and Peter Jackson will attend (in spirit :-).

Can't wait to see it, feel it and hear it!

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I think you just "extended" the life of this thread by 5k posts.

LOL, just wait until somebody posts the picture of the vertical line!!!!