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

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by wildphantom

You might be right that they're inferior to the HDTV broadcasts you've seen. I'm assuming you have seen those right? Or is this another 'based on screenshots' argument?
At the end of the day if qualified critics in the industry say LOTR looks really good on blu-ray then that's good enough for me. Early days yet, I'll wait for a few more reviews. But I'm encouraged with what I've read.

I live in the UK and we've only ever had the third film broadcast in HD without ad breaks. So I will happily take the other movies on blu-ray without ad breaks and deem them better versions than the ones I have on my Sky HD box.

I loosely used the term fanboy when perhaps I shouldn't have. I class myself as one for sure. However, I would rather wait and see the thing for myself, or read reviews from respected critics whose job it is to critique these things before making my mind up.

Do you know that people who review stuff don't always know what they are talking about? Why don't you take a look at the screen caps yourself? It doesn't take a trained eye to realize that LOTR doesn't look good, especially when you compare it to blus with good transfers.

It's too bad that you will wait to see the movies for yourself and if you are not pleased Warner has already scammed you out of your money.

[Fors*]

I'm just happy I care A LOT more about the AQ of this release than the PQ. There is simply too much subjective nature involved right now with the screencaps or screenshots for there to be a definitive answer IMO. Bottom line is what one person hears is not always what another hears, and this works likewise with what one sees. Lets just agree to disagree and move on please....

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by neo78956

So far so good, two professional reviewers gave the set very high scores. Can we all just relax now? Sheesh...

No, because the reviewers are wrong.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Hey, here's my review, it's actually just one fact:

Stinky Dinkins' official review: The Blu Ray version of Fellowship has poorer image quality than the old HD broadcast version.

Uh oh, my review has upset the super important review balance, considering reviews are more important than how it actually looks apparently.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I'm just happy I care A LOT more about the AQ of this release than the PQ. There is simply too much subjective nature involved right now with the screencaps or screenshots for there to be a definitive answer IMO. Bottom line is what one person hears is not always what another hears, and this works likewise with what one sees. Lets just agree to disagree and move on please....

How can you not see the excessive DNR in some of the shots? There is nothing subjective about it. We aren't judging how the lighting is, or how the set is decorated. We know what to look for in judging a blu-ray's picture quality and we have determined that it is not on par with the very best blus out there.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I'm just happy I care A LOT more about the AQ of this release than the PQ. There is simply too much subjective nature involved right now with the screencaps or screenshots for there to be a definitive answer IMO. Bottom line is what one person hears is not always what another hears, and this works likewise with what one sees. Lets just agree to disagree and move on please....

Do you honestly think people are just going to "move on" from talking about the image quality of this release? Are you high?

To claim that screenshot comparisons are "subjective" is absurd. They're subjective in so much as one person might have such terrible vision that they can't see the difference, but the fact remains that the broadcast version has fin details clearly not present in the Blu Ray version, and the Blu Ray version is smeared in many instances due to its use of DNR. For Christ's sake, there are comparisons in which to see the difference all you have to do is mouse over, it is as clear as day.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

How can you not see the excessive DNR in some of the shots? There is nothing subjective about it. We aren't judging how the lighting is, or how the set is decorated. We know what to look for in judging a blu-ray's picture quality and we have determined that it is not on par with the very best blus out there.

Don't even get me involved with this discussion, please.

[Mike2060]

Compare these two images and the difference is night and day between a good bluray and a poor one (or one with DNR one without).

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Do you honestly think people are just going to "move on" from talking about the image quality of this release? Are you high?

To claim that screenshot comparisons are "subjective" is absurd. They're subjective in so much as one person might have such terrible vision that they can't see the difference, but the fact remains that the broadcast version has fin details clearly not present in the Blu Ray version, and the Blu Ray version is smeared in many instances due to its use of DNR. For Christ's sake, there are comparisons in which to see the difference all you have to do is mouse over, it is as clear as day.

Here is the definition of subjective:

a subject's perspective, particular feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery made from information pertaining to a personal experience

Absurd it is not.......

[robertc88]

It will be the same as Gladiator as far as being priced attractively which will influence many many purchases (whichever side of the fence one was on).

One can always rent and judge for themselves but with something like this being released and considering the price, for the most part it will just be grabbed off the shelf! That's just the way it has been with some of the BD catalog releases, will be, and continue going forward.

[SpaceDog]

I can tell you that I trust Bill Hunt and Robert Harris far more than I trust any (or all) screenshot scientist.

[Grubert]

Review up on Area DVD (German).

[Grand Bob]

I think alot of the worry presented here may be premature. I have my own concerns about "Fellowship", because it is my favorite of the three and seems to be most questionable. In either case, we're pretty much stuck with what we get until the EE's are released, and I plan on enjoying them.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I can tell you that I trust Bill Hunt and Robert Harris far more than I trust any (or all) screenshot scientist.

Do you trust them more than your own two eyes? It's not like you're having to take a "Screenshot scientist's" word that one looks better and one look worse, the comparisons are out there for you to look at yourself.

Listen, there isn't anything mystical about those captures. If the HDTV looks better frame by frame then it looks better in motion, end of story. Nothing has been altered.

Is this really that much a difficult concept to wrap your head around?

[wildphantom]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

What do you mean "Based on screenshots" argument? The old HDTV version is from a progressive Dish broadcast. If its frames look better than the Blu Ray version then it looks better in motion as well, it's as simple as that. Do you think there's some magic spell involved here?

The mere fact that it looks inferior to the old HDTV broadcast version is very disappointing. If you don't see a problem with this I don't know what to tell you man. People here seem to think that if it's better than the DVD it's "Good enough," and if it's "Good enough" it's legitimately good. I think that's a ridiculous argument.

Personally I was hoping, I dunno, that they'd remaster it. Guess that's too much to ask.

Do you remember how many "respected" critics praised Gladiator to no end? What exactly is that supposed to prove? Somehow comparing the actual frames of each presentation is a faulty argument but taking the word of a jackass with no proof whatsoever is a better way to go?!? Ok, makes perfect sense.

I'm not trying to defend the release. I absolutely agree with you that if it could be better then there's not really an excuse.
All I'm saying is that if all the reviews (and we're not there yet) say that they're really good transfers then I'm ok with that.

As I've said, I cannot get access to these HDTV broadcasts, save the ones I have on my HD box with adverts.

And Gladiator's transfer was a disgrace - which half the reviews pointed out so we could all make our decision. The battle scene at the beginning actually looked like a completely different film with the grain abscence, as well as the missing arrows and spear heads.

Its a little early yet to say these releases are not worth buying. Just wait until all the reviews are totted up.

[wildphantom]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Do you know that people who review stuff don't always know what they are talking about? Why don't you take a look at the screen caps yourself? It doesn't take a trained eye to realize that LOTR doesn't look good, especially when you compare it to blus with good transfers.

It's too bad that you will wait to see the movies for yourself and if you are not pleased Warner has already scammed you out of your money.

It's not too bad. I'll stress again, I won't buy them unless they get a good reaction across the board critically. The same as any other release.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Again, it's the old "good enough" argument.

"I don't have the HDTV broadcast version, so it's good enough for me." "Good enough" is not "good," and anything less than legitimately good is a disappointment for this release.

It's as simple as this: The fact that it isn't as good as the HDTV version is a huge disappointment.

People seem to love skirting around this over here.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think alot of the worry presented here may be premature. I have my own concerns about "Fellowship", because it is my favorite of the three and seems to be most questionable. In either case, we're pretty much stuck with what we get until the EE's are released, and I plan on enjoying them.

I saw all three movies in HD TV broacast.

Of the three Fellowship did look like the "weakest" of the three movies. Two Towers look very good. In all three movies I did find the FX shots look a bit off or weak or cheap. I won't be picking these set now, as I am only interested in the EE but I am looking forward to seeing them on Blu-ray. I am sure someone I know will be picking them up.

That being said, I have a hard time accepting that the DVD or the TV HD broadcast look better then this Blu-ray release. Maybe some people are in need of justification for not buying them? It's ok not buying them, that is what I am doing, no need to find reason for not buying them.

[Diesel]

I think they look good based on the screenshots. Not 'good enough', GOOD and better than the broadcast. Only a handful of shots at most looked bad to me.


That's the only opinion that matters to me.


I can't wait to see/hear the actual discs on my TV/sound system.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

That being said, I have a hard time accepting that the TV HD broadcast look better then this Blu-ray release.

I have a hard time accepting the sky is blue, yet it is.

It looks worse than the broadcast version. Sorry.