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

[frezaina]

i bet if people complain a lot about the FOTR blu ray they will launch a remastered version. because the other two look fantastic. shame on you NEW LINE.

[Grand Bob]

After seeing the latest screen captures, I feel alot better. If Warner and New Line have half a brain, they know their credibility depends on a high quality release of this title.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

After seeing the latest screen captures, I feel alot better. If Warner and New Line have half a brain, they know their credibility depends on a high quality release of this title.

I imagine the first one looks just fine and to be fair, it wasn't filmed in 2k so it might not be as easy to make that one breathtakingly beautiful.

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I imagine the first one looks just fine and to be fair, it wasn't filmed in 2k so it might not be as easy to make that one breathtakingly beautiful.

yes. it's not as easy, it requires more time to scan the negatives and it requires more money and that's the problem! i don't understand, they made fantastic remasters like the wizard of oz and braveheart and they can't do it to one of the most wanted movies in blu ray and for me the best movies of all time.it's an EPIC.come on...

[Q?]

Originally Posted by frezaina

yes. it's not as easy, it requires more time to scan the negatives and it requires more money and that's the problem! i don't understand, they made fantastic remasters like the wizard of oz and braveheart and they can't do it to one of the most wanted movies in blu ray and for me the best movies of all time.it's an EPIC.come on...

Yes I agree, how would you rate the indivdual movies PQ wise?
And thanks for giving your input on this, much appreciated

[neo78956]

A few things.

1. I think it's a little redonkulous that people are using bootleg screencaps to hinge their purchase on. Rent the blu-rays from blockbuster or netflix when they're released if you're still unsure. See it in motion and on an actual HD TV before you call this a disaster.

2. FOTR never looked anywhere near as good as the first two films. As has been stated numerous times, it was shot in film, not 2K digital. It's a hell of a lot easier to turn a digitally shot film into a digital Home Video Format than a film print. That, and just go back and look at the DVDs and TNT HD broadcasts. FOTR always looked the worst, because Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie were still kind of figuring out how they wanted to really shoot the trilogy. Don't blame the PQ of the BD release, blame the original negative.

3. Speaking of which, the best way to get a great transfer from a film shot movie is to scan the original negatives. Isn't it possible that the original negatives aren't around anymore to scan?

As I've been saying this whole time, if you're still not convinced, wait till the films are out, rent them, watch them (all the way through) and then decide.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

EDIT: Read wrong post.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by frezaina

again, i only have a compressed encode but:

The Fellowship of The Ring:4.5 (it needs a bit more sharpness)
The Two Towers:5
The Return Of The King:5

That's nuts.

If Fellowship is anything like the screens indicate then it's no more than a 3,average at best. Particularly disappointing given the popularity of the film.

It looks no better than the existing HDTV broadcasts of it.

Braveheart is an example of a 5 on Blu Ray.

This Lord of the Rings release looks like DNR has scrubbed much finer detail out of the later releases, and Fellowship looks like a DVD upscale sans EE.

This sort of reminds me of Gladiator. So many on this forum refused to acknowledge that it looked, well, bad.

Hopefully they'll remaster these when they release the EE's, because these don't look impressive.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's nuts.

If Fellowship is anything like the screens indicate then it's no more than a 3,average at best. Particularly disappointing given the popularity of the film.

It looks no better than the existing HDTV broadcasts of it.

Braveheart is an example of a 5 on Blu Ray.

This Lord of the Rings release looks like DNR has scrubbed much finer detail out of the later releases, and Fellowship looks like a DVD upscale sans EE.

This sort of reminds me of Gladiator. So many on this forum refused to acknowledge that it looked, well, bad.

Hopefully they'll remaster these when they release the EE's, because these don't look impressive.

Wow as much as I don't want to, IF the site reviews don't say they're better than this, I will probably just rent the TEs and wait for the EEs to come out in about 2 years.

[Brandon]

[Show spoiler]

Stinky Dinkins - I don't have a trained eye so I want to ask - would you say this shot has excessive DNR? To me it looks like there is grain and plenty of detail on the face. Again, it's just a still shot so in motion it probably looks better.

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's nuts.

If Fellowship is anything like the screens indicate then it's no more than a 3,average at best. Particularly disappointing given the popularity of the film.

It looks no better than the existing HDTV broadcasts of it.

Braveheart is an example of a 5 on Blu Ray.

This Lord of the Rings release looks like DNR has scrubbed much finer detail out of the later releases, and Fellowship looks like a DVD upscale sans EE.

This sort of reminds me of Gladiator. So many on this forum refused to acknowledge that it looked, well, bad.

Hopefully they'll remaster these when they release the EE's, because these don't look impressive.

yeah you're right, a 3.5 for the first one would be more adequate.but for me the other two look really good! they probably will make a remaster of the first for the extended edition to make people buy it. that's a nice move to make more money. they offer the triology with the first movie bad encoded and then they tell people they will make a remastered edition for the extended blu rays.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by frezaina

yeah you're right, a 3.5 for the first one would be more adequate.but for me the other two look really good! they probably will make a remaster of the first for the extended edition to make people buy it. that's a nice move to make more money. they offer the triology with the first movie bad encoded and then they tell people they will make a remastered edition for the extended blu rays.

That sucks...the first one is my favorite

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Wow as much as I don't want to, IF the site reviews don't say they're better than this, I will probably just rent the TEs and wait for the EEs to come out in about 2 years.

Lots of review sites praised Gladiator to no end, and considering none of these are "Gladiator bad," well...

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by Brandon

[Show spoiler]

Stinky Dinkins - I don't have a trained eye so I want to ask - would you say this shot has excessive DNR? To me it looks like there is grain and plenty of detail on the face. Again, it's just a still shot so in motion it probably looks better.

trust me the still shots don't make justice to the video. and those are shots
from a compressed 9000 kps encode so the blu ray source will look even better, not to a huge entent but definitely better.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Brandon

[Show spoiler]

Stinky Dinkins - I don't have a trained eye so I want to ask - would you say this shot has excessive DNR? To me it looks like there is grain and plenty of detail on the face. Again, it's just a still shot so in motion it probably looks better.

I don't think either of the two later movies have "excessive" DNR, although I'm sure for some people anything over a touch might as well be considered excessive. Something like Patton is a good example of legitimately "excessive" DNR. The later two movies are actually not that bad, they're not spectacular either - but it does look like light DNR has scrubbed away some fine detail and grain. TT and RotK aren't bad, they're just not nearly as good as I would've expected considering the importance of the franchise. If Braveheart can get a completely new master and look as good as it ended up looking these films should've been given the same treatment.

It's Fellowship that I'm most disappointed about. It's absurdly soft. I didn't expect it to look as good as the other two as the original DVD didn't looks as good as the other two original DVD's.... but I certainly expected it to look better than just "average," that's for sure. It's like they didn't redo the master, which I'm sure is the case.

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I don't think either of the two later movies have "excessive" DNR, although I'm sure for some people anything over a touch might as well be considered excessive. Something like Patton is a good example of legitimately "excessive" DNR. The later two movies are actually not that bad, they're not spectacular either - but it does look like light DNR has scrubbed away some fine detail and grain. TT and RotK aren't bad, they're just not nearly as good as I would've expected considering the importance of the franchise. If Braveheart can get a completely new master and look as good as it ended up looking these films should've been given the same treatment.

It's Fellowship that I'm most disappointed about. It's absurdly soft. I didn't expect it to looks as good as the other two as the original DVD didn't looks as good as the other two.... but I certainly expected it to look better than just "average," that's for sure. It's like they didn't redo the master, which I'm sure is the case.

the low bitrate of the encode might have took some detail away.

check this one: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9...0pmkvsnaps.png

now tell me it doesn't look great.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by frezaina

the low bitrate of the encode might have took some detail away.

check this one: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9...0pmkvsnaps.png

now tell me it doesn't look great.

That looks fantastic. ROTK always had the best PQ of them all, but that's a pretty great screenshot

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by neo78956

That looks fantastic. ROTK always had the best PQ of them all, but that's a pretty great screenshot

now imagine the full bitrate blu ray! they had to screw it all with the fellowship...

two more:

http://img444.imageshack.us/i/cbgblo...pmkvsnaps.png/

http://img251.imageshack.us/i/cbgblo...pmkvsnaps.png/

Gimli's face hahaha:

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9...0pmkvsnaps.png

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by frezaina

now imagine the full bitrate blu ray! they had to screw it all with the fellowship...

two more:

http://img444.imageshack.us/i/cbgblo...pmkvsnaps.png/

http://img251.imageshack.us/i/cbgblo...pmkvsnaps.png/

That one of Gimli was the best one yet IMO. Seems like the best PQ in all three releases comes in the close-ups and such. One thing I am somewhat not looking forward to is that the high PQ on the films may make the VFX look a little dated, which, it kind of is. But that's what was so brilliant about the visuals of the film. The CGI was seamless and not too noticeable, it was the cinematography, sets, costumes, etc that really shone through. At the time, the films were groundbreaking CGI. With Avatar around, everything looks a little dated :P

Still, the screens from TTT and ROTK are pretty breathtaking.

[frezaina]

Originally Posted by neo78956

That one of Gimli was the best one yet IMO. Seems like the best PQ in all three releases comes in the close-ups and such. One thing I am somewhat not looking forward to is that the high PQ on the films may make the VFX look a little dated, which, it kind of is. But that's what was so brilliant about the visuals of the film. The CGI was seamless and not too noticeable, it was the cinematography, sets, costumes, etc that really shone through. At the time, the films were groundbreaking CGI. With Avatar around, everything looks a little dated :P

Still, the screens from TTT and ROTK are pretty breathtaking.

YES. the CGI is much more noticeable now in HD. but even after almost 10 years! Gollum and treebeard still are for me the best animated caracters ever created!
the amount of people involved in Avatar can't be compared to the EPIC lotr. for me avatar is just special effects.