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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

It is important to know about a user's video viewing conditions if you're going to apply his impressions in any useful way... whether he "liked it" is meaningless without context. To argue otherwise is silly.

If a user says "this is the best PQ I have ever seen!" but watches a 40 inch set at 9 feet away.... that has an entirely different spin than someone without a 110" PJ setup watching at less than 2 lengths away. The person with the 40 inch screen sitting 9 ft away saying "I see no DNR" is entirely different than the person with the 110" PJ setup claiming the same. Without knowing their viewing conditions this context is lost and those impressions have no meaning.

Ever wonder why reviewers list their equipment?

That's exactly why.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Ever wonder why reviewers list their equipment?

Not even once.

[kurtlingle]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Agreed.

My issue is trying to bring clarity so we can have a meaningful discussion. When 20 people all share their random "opinoin" of the picture quality, those opinions have no context on their own and cannot be related to each other. Only when the context of viewing angle (among other things) is factored into the discussion to the various "opinions" become meaningful and able to be interpreted and understood.

David,

I clarity is important. From what it seems, people with 40-50 (maybe 60) inch screens will be fine with FOTR (and the other 2) and people with the 108 inch screens (at 1.5) will not be (as) happy with FOTR.

I think it'd be a shame for someone with a 40 inch screen to miss out on LOTR based on some of these negative reviews. I almost decided not to get it until I realized:

1. LOTR is awesome
2. I have a 42 inch screen and sit 8 ft away - so I'm fine
3. It has LOSSLESS sound. With my new PA-120 sub - this will be soooooooo awesome (even Toy Story sounds awesome)

Anyway - I think we need to keep the clarity - since many of us on these forums don't have 108 inch screens - rather 40 -60 inch.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

David,

I clarity is important. From what it seems, people with 40-50 (maybe 60) inch screens will be fine with FOTR (and the other 2) and people with the 108 inch screens (at 1.5) will not be (as) happy with FOTR.

I think it'd be a shame for someone with a 40 inch screen to miss out on LOTR based on some of these negative reviews. I almost decided not to get it until I realized:

1. LOTR is awesome
2. I have a 42 inch screen and sit 8 ft away - so I'm fine
3. It has LOSSLESS sound. With my new PA-120 sub - this will be soooooooo awesome (even Toy Story sounds awesome)

Anyway - I think we need to keep the clarity - since many of us on these forums don't have 108 inch screens - rather 40 -60 inch.

Careful, you're about to get lambasted for having a "small" TV.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It is important to know about a user's video viewing conditions if you're going to apply his impressions in any useful way... whether he "liked it" is meaningless without context. To argue otherwise is silly.

If a user says "this is the best PQ I have ever seen!" but watches a 40 inch set at 9 feet away.... that has an entirely different spin than someone without a 110" PJ setup watching at less than 2 lengths away. The person with the 40 inch screen sitting 9 ft away saying "I see no DNR" is entirely different than the person with the 110" PJ setup claiming the same. Without knowing their viewing conditions this context is lost and those impressions have no meaning.

Ever wonder why reviewers list their equipment?

That's exactly why.

Exactly! I would make one little addition which is, ever wonder why "good" reviewers list their equipment?

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Not even once.

Well now you know

[ts0323]

I have a 40" HDTV and I sit about 2' away from the screen.

I'm getting this from Netflix on Wednesday; I'll state my opinion then.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Not even once.

OK, well - they do. Now you know why they do.

Context is important. Someone sitting "far" away from a "small" screen can neither see the full detail of a presentation nor pick up on its major flaws, even if they are an AV nut and know exactly what to look for. It's just not possible.

It's not anything to argue about even, it's just the way it is.

[opterasis]

I'm still on the fence about this. I've read so many opinions, and I think I'm over the PQ aspect of it. I do have a slight vision problem, I can obviously easily see the difference between DVD and bluray, but I don't notice things that some people do like DNR, noise, etc. I also watch on a 42inch tv from probably almost 10 feet away. So I really think the bad video score won't affect me much. Honestly, my biggest problem now, and I'm sure most people will think I'm an idiot, is that absolutely horrendous packaging. They seriously couldn't splurge on throwing us a third extra bluray case and put 3 discs in each one? It just screams of being cheap and lazy. I could throw them in the BB steelbook I got, but then I would still have 3 digital copies floating around.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I disagree. We can simply have a discussion about whether people like it or not. If we're talking about comparisons for the sake of recommendations, then perhaps viewing sizes, angles, and amounts of popcorn come into it.

Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with whether you like it or not. We're not going to convince each other to change our opinions.

A forum like this isn't just a shout-out where folks say whether or not they like something. The general context of comments about image quality or image-quality related problems is whether or not they *exist* in the authored disc, and how distracting/destructive those defects may be.

Without knowing the viewing environment of a poster, a simple "opinion" only leads to confusion with other readers then trying to come up with some sort conclusion based on the various differing/conflicting reports they're seeing.

Asking folks to clarify their viewing angle isn't much of an inconvenience, and it then allows their opinion of image quality to be meaningfully understood.

If I told you that I didn't see any problems, what does that mean? It means something very different if I have a 19" NTSC TV, or a 50" HDTV, or a 120" projector. Without knowing what something *means*, it can't be understood. If it can't be understood, then why bother sharing it in the first place?

[Chordata]

LOL based on the reviews from people who have "small" TVs, I'm in good shape to enjoy this puppy tomorrow.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Careful, you're about to get lambasted for having a "small" TV.

His screen size is fine but should be sitting 4 feet away to experience FULL HD.

[Andes]

Just another review to balance the good and bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Erickson

Review at DVDtalk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3173ring.html

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Careful, you're about to get lambasted for having a "small" TV.

No one has insulted anyone in this thread for having a "small" TV, that's all in your head man, people have just pointed out the fact that when watching a small TV at further back distances these flaws in the transfer are no longer relevant, that's all.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

If I told you that I didn't see any problems, what does that mean? It means something very different if I have a 19" NTSC TV, or a 50" HDTV, or a 120" projector. Without knowing what something *means*, it can't be understood. If it can't be understood, then why bother sharing it in the first place?

I completely agree with you, good point. The problem is, as seen in this very thread, some posters insist on deriding the SIZE of others' TVs in an effort to support their conclusions, as opposed to ACCEPTING the review while simply taking the size into consideration.

If you said to me tomorrow: "O_V_N, I see you watched this on a TV less than 50", and it seems most people with that size TV have the same high opinion. I on the other hand have a 100" projection and it does not look good on my projector." then I would appreciate that.

Instead what I expect (not necessarily from you) is: "O_V_N, your TV is so damn small, no wonder you can't see how terrible this release is. Most of us have real TVs and can see how bad it is!"

One is healthy and productive; one is not.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

No one has insulted anyone in this thread for having a "small" TV, that's all in your head man, people have just pointed out the fact that when watching a small TV at further back distances these flaws in the transfer are no longer relevant, that's all.

Actually they have. I'd point them out but I believe some of them were deleted yesterday.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It is important to know about a user's video viewing conditions if you're going to apply his impressions in any useful way... whether he "liked it" is meaningless without context. To argue otherwise is silly.

If a user says "this is the best PQ I have ever seen!" but watches a 40 inch set at 9 feet away.... that has an entirely different spin than someone without a 110" PJ setup watching at less than 2 lengths away. The person with the 40 inch screen sitting 9 ft away saying "I see no DNR" is entirely different than the person with the 110" PJ setup claiming the same. Without knowing their viewing conditions this context is lost and those impressions have no meaning.

Ever wonder why reviewers list their equipment?

That's exactly why.

Correct.

Everyone in this thread should take this to heart as a chance to help the forum membership get on the same page about how folks can actually understand each other when they talk about "picture quality". It's not criticizing anyone's preferred viewing style or equipment, it's just about *understanding* how our various experiences are able to relate. Without that basis, the random opinions that get posted have no meaning that can be understood by anyone other than poster.

Viewing angle isn't the only criteria of how to gauge the viewing context/environment to help establish a context for discussion, but it's perhaps the most basic and probably the one criteria that has the most impact on how we evaluate and perceive image quality of a given disc.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

I have always had a hard time understanding Tom. His character confused me in many ways. A master of such a small domain, yet he had no desire to leave it. Obviously he was powerful in some acute way, but his purpose of the book was dificult for me to grasp. I think he provides some kind of alerternative approach to those always seeking and wanting of things. His "carefree" mentality was just odd to me.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Andes

Just another review to balance the good and bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Erickson

Review at DVDtalk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3173ring.html

No matter what your stance on this release, That was a very weak review from a technical perspective IMO.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Andes

Just another review to balance the good and bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Erickson

Review at DVDtalk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3173ring.html

I appreciate your post, but I'd consider that a "bad" review. Too much time spent on the story, not on the technical details. He just calls the video "excellent." Where's the meat of the review? Am I missing it?

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

No one has insulted anyone in this thread for having a "small" TV, that's all in your head man, people have just pointed out the fact that when watching a small TV at further back distances these flaws in the transfer are no longer relevant, that's all.

This is how I have perceived this as well.

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Actually they have. I'd point them out but I believe some of them were deleted yesterday.

OK