The Lord of the Rings Trilogy 4K UHD Extended & Theatrical (2001-2003)

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by Xorp

That's digital sharpening, not real detail. Sam looks like a cardboard cutout. There's a weird mishmash of softness and unusually sharp edges.

Correct.
Modern edge enhancement algorithms look for contrast threshold of lines and sharpen only edges that 'supposed' to be sharp, leaving anything below the threshold untouched.
Well, 'untouched'... DNR takes care of that.

When DNR and Edge Enhancement pushed too far you get Terminator 2, lack of texture detail and super sharp edges, cartoon like.
Luckily LOTR is not that, but they did slightly overdo it.

It looks fake, and that's how you ruin a classic.
Thanks WB.

[Tlen]

Sam looks like a cardboard cutout

Now that i thinks of it, it seems that they not only sharpened,

but they 3Ded the VFX parts separately (the countour of the character for ex), in order to make them pop-out.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...&l=0&i=10&go=1

It seems to me the exact default "halo edge" effect of Photoshop over a text.

you get Terminator 2. Luckily LOTR is not that

Well.... i would have some doubts about this.



It looks damn similar.

And i could hazard T2 looks even better.



But that's normal being T2 a real scan from 4K

[OutOfBoose]

It definitely reaches T2 levels of clay at times.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Well.... i would have some doubts about this.



It looks damn similar.

The source had terrible temporal (movement) artifacts in that particular shot so they had to remove it somehow for the 4k release.
This is yet another proof they did not use the original negatives, but same 2k source they used for the HD Blu-Rays, artifacts and all.

This is from EE Blu-Ray:

[James Freeman]

Man, T2 could have been reference 4k release being actually scanned in 4k, but they absolutely botched it with DNR.

[Tlen]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Man, T2 could have been reference 4k release being actually scanned in 4k, but they absolutely botched it with DNR.

Look at the eyebrows of T2.

They are just damn real.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

It definitely reaches T2 levels of clay at times.

The Balrog is so hot that he's literally melting:

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

It definitely reaches T2 levels of clay at times.

Can confirm. My wife who usually has no opinions on PQ but as a big LOTR nerd said that all the characters look like wax. This is a downer.

[CreasyBear]

Hopefully they fix these for the next release and do them right. These films deserve better.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Hopefully they fix these for the next release

Of course they will! This time they will also redo all the VFX in 6K, just in case, replace Holm with Freeman and admit in a special press release that DNR is wrong. It will happen, we can be 100% sure!

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Correct.
Modern edge enhancement algorithms look for contrast threshold of lines and sharpen only edges that 'supposed' to be sharp, leaving anything below the threshold untouched.
Well, 'untouched'... DNR takes care of that.

When DNR and Edge Enhancement pushed too far you get Terminator 2, lack of texture detail and super sharp edges, cartoon like.
Luckily LOTR is not that, but they did slightly overdo it.

It looks fake, and that's how you ruin a classic.
Thanks WB.

I was looking at some T2 comparison shots, and then looked back at LOTR comparison shots. Idk, man, T2 showed more increase in detail. Both look bad, but it seems like LOTR pushed it even further imo, or maybe it just looks worse due to using more lower quality source footage.

[James Freeman]

The studio invested 9$, two gums, and a piece of candy for this restoration.
No doubt they will do a proper job for the 2021 release.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Some thoughts on DNR, noise, and detail:

1. In general for analogue film source:
a) Preserve grain to keep detail
b) Use DNR very sparingly, since it results in less detail

2) In general for digital film source:
a) Do not add artificial grain/noise, since it serves no benefit (e.g. cannot improve detail by reversing 1a) )

In essence, grain is not only good or bad. But it serves a purpose to preserve detail for analogue film. Clearly this rule seems to have been broken for LOTR 4K BD, where DNR has been used to no positive advantage, but only resulting in less detail.

Originally Posted by morphinapg

I would argue that in some cases, adding grain to digital can be done as an artistic effect, if it helps impact the tone of the movie. Another good example would also be to keep it in line with earlier film releases in a franchise (adding grain to the Hobbit movies would have been fine for this reason for example) Otherwise, I agree with this.

Yes, agreed. I should clarify that what I wrote was "with the aim of achieving technically high quality."

That said, there can be the creator's artistic intentions to take into consideration as well, like you also mentioned. But then the discussion becomes almost futile, since everything becomes acceptable. I.e. you can intentionally downscale from 4K->2K, clip highlights, use Super 8 film, etc.

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Hopefully they fix these for the next release and do them right. These films deserve better.

I basically lost hope with these big releases. The more culturally significant or hyped it is, the higher the desire to tweak, clean up, improve, modernize. I seriously hate it. We get freaking pristine transfers on cult classics and big movies are processed AF.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by androcell

Minor if any. This one should as well, but does the opposite. Legolas now gained one eyebrow.
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...48925&i=13&l=0

What a weird shot. Overall it looks like a wax fest, but there's actually nice uptick in detail in one place... I guess?

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...&l=0&i=13&go=1

[NoFro]

I've watched all 3 theatrical cuts now. The HDR is very, very, very nice but yeah, detail wise these are all over the place.

I'm hoping the 4K77 guys are Lord of the Rings fans at this point.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by NoFro

I've watched all 3 theatrical cuts now. The HDR is very, very, very nice but yeah, detail wise these are all over the place.

I'm hoping the 4K77 guys are Lord of the Rings fans at this point.

Only watched the first half of fellowship extended so far but overall it’s solid. The HDR is textbook as in nicely boosting highlights without overdoing it or blowing anything out. Blacks are also pretty good and quite consistent. There is some digital witchcraft here with some inconsistencies from shot to shot. I still think overall I’m pleased though.

I’ll have to watch the rest and tally it all up. The reviews here at Blu-ray.com seem to be quite favorable regarding video so while they’ve noticed some DNR it wasn’t as bothersome to them. So opinions vary here for sure.

[imsounoriginal]

Well I think the Fellowship theatrical cut looks pretty great. There are nits to pick as usual, but the positives far outweigh the negatives. It's a massive upgrade from the BD.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Anyhoo, my steels arrived in perfick condition. What I want to know is who decided to put part 1 of the EEs on the left hub with disc 2 covering the theatrical cut disc on the right? They're a monster, a MONSTER I tells ya! I swapped them all over so the theatrical gets the left hub and disc 1 & 2 of the EE now overlap each other. Nerd, moi? Too ****in' right

Haha first thing I changed when looking at the sets.

[Phillip c. Niethe]

I would have liked the collectors box to have been as high quality as the Bluray's Black and Gold box was.