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

[42041]

IGN gave Gladiator a near-perfect video score I think... better than Braveheart if memory serves me right

[Andes]

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.c...gs-motion.html

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by 42041

IGN gave Gladiator a near-perfect video score I think... better than Braveheart if memory serves me right

People still read IGN?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by 42041

IGN gave Gladiator a near-perfect video score I think... better than Braveheart if memory serves me right

Yep. Hahaha.

Good times.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Andes

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.c...gs-motion.html

Doesn't go much into the detail of the PQ, more about the movies than the Blu-rays... unless I missed something?

[Andes]

Originally Posted by Q!

Doesn't go much into the detail of the PQ, more about the movies than the Blu-rays... unless I missed something?

No, it's a firsthand review from the average blu ray consumer. Upon viewing he seems happy with his purchase. The point is most people will be happy with the significant upgrade from dvd. Since the EE are still two years away I'm sure the next edition will be better PQ wise.

[Diesel]

You know....I think I preferred the TE/EE arguing...

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Andes

Since the EE are still two years away I'm sure the next edition will be better PQ wise.

Well, don't count on it.

The vast majority of us assumed that this release would be an improvement over the old master and existing broadcast version quality wise.

Warner is just full of pleasant surpises. Very tricksy. Very false.

[ryan11]

I did alot of research before i bought Gladiator on blu ray. 90% of the reviews said the PQ was terrible. I still bought it because it is one of my favorite movies and I also bought it about 3 days after it came out. I have a hard time believing that reviews changed thier review of the film after everyone complained. Some might have but it would be a very small %. I can see why peolpe are complaining because the video code for the movie are VC-1 (I think). The Dark Knight had the same code and it looked great, but it was a newer movie. Please correct me if Im wrong but don't you need a HD TV or HD monitor to view those screen shots of the movie to compare? Also earlier in this thread there were screen shots comparing the DVD version to blu ray and the difference was huge. Where those screen shots fake?. I will most likely still by them aslong as the PQ is not to bad where I will notice.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Yes, you do need a PC monitor to compare the screenshots.

If you're reading this without a monitor you're either using your phone or you have some sort of AV superpower.

The DVD comparison screens were not fake. It is a jump over the DVD as the original DVD's weren't very good. Being better than the DVD doesn't make it great though.

That being said, it isn't nearly as big of a jump as it should've been. Since it's using the same old master it's the same (actually a little worse due to DNR) than the old broadcast version, which is disappointing. The issue here isn't that it was encoded using VC-1, it's that they didn't rescan and remaster it so it isn't the level of quality people were expecting.

[DMC86X]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yes, you do need a PC monitor to compare the screenshots.

If you're reading this without a monitor you're either using your phone or you have some sort of AV superpower.
The DVD comparison screens were not fake. It is a jump over the DVD as the original DVD's weren't very good. Being better than the DVD doesn't make it great though.

That being said, it isn't nearly as big of a jump as it should've been. Since it's using the same old master it's the same (actually a little worse due to DNR) than the old broadcast version, which is disappointing. The issue here isn't that it was encoded using VC-1, it's that they didn't rescan and remaster it.

OMG dude seriously?? Hes asking if your monitor needs to be HD, not if you need a monitor in genreal.

[42041]

Originally Posted by ryan11

I did alot of research before i bought Gladiator on blu ray. 90% of the reviews said the PQ was terrible. I still bought it because it is one of my favorite movies and I also bought it about 3 days after it came out. I have a hard time believing that reviews changed thier review of the film after everyone complained. Some might have but it would be a very small %. I can see why peolpe are complaining because the video code for the movie are VC-1 (I think). The Dark Knight had the same code and it looked great, but it was a newer movie. Please correct me if Im wrong but don't you need a HD TV or HD monitor to view those screen shots of the movie to compare? Also earlier in this thread there were screen shots comparing the DVD version to blu ray and the difference was huge. Where those screen shots fake?. I will most likely still by them aslong as the PQ is not to bad where I will notice.

if you love the dark knight disc, sounds like you'll get along with LOTR discs just fine

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by DMC86X

OMG dude seriously?? Hes asking if your monitor needs to be HD, not if you need a monitor in genreal.

This forum is great!


Hahaha.

If you guys don't understand how a PC monitor works, or how the 1920X1080 screens you're comparing are displayed, well - certain other members here start to make sense.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by 42041

if you love the dark knight disc, sounds like you'll get along with LOTR discs just fine

Agreed, the non imax scenes where bad.

[wildphantom]

I've come full circle on the matter today.

I admit I came on here having heard of the debate and gloated a little when I read Bill Hunt's positive review on digitalbits.
The reaction to that post wasn't good. One guy even copied and pasted what I wrote onto the AVS forum as he was so aghast.

I then took time out to really look at what people are so up in arms about with the screencap comparisons to the HDTV broadcasts. Seems we're specifically talking about Fellowship as I haven't seen comparisons of the other two films.

What they have done with the DNR is appalling. They have taken obvious detail from the film that pretty much defines what high definition brings to the table. Some of the caps of Gandalf's beard are awful. Heart-breaking. It's just not good enough and I whole heartedly retract what I said without seeing the screens for myself.

I hope digitalbits are receiving a ton of emails about it and post some sort of reaction as to how Fellowship gets a 17.5/20 mark if they've scrubbed out that much detail. DNR in the wrong hands is horrendous and must be stopped. Sites like digitalbits and bluray.com have an obligation to do their upmost in pressuring the studio for answers. It's as important a matter as the high definition format war was a couple of years back.

You do not scrub out detail from Lord of the ****** Rings!!!!

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by 42041

if you love the dark knight disc, sounds like you'll get along with LOTR discs just fine

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Agreed, the non imax scenes where bad.

agree on both counts...........

someone even said earlier that the PQ wasn't that important b/c the movie is so good you get drawn into it, and don't notice the DNR

[ryan11]

I know how monitors work vey well. I just wanted to bring up the fact that peolpe might not be viewing those screen shot with a proper monitor. I tried to word it without offending anybody or creating another argument which this thread has too much of already.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

What do you mean "proper" "HD" computer monitor?
Yeah, if they're using a phone it won't really work.

Hell, I can set my old CRT PC monitor to 800X600 and while it'll make those pics pretty friggin' big I can still compare 'em just fine - and not one person in the world is still using 800X600. Most people aren't even using CRT's anymore, they're using fixed pixel displays with high native resolutions.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by Diesel

You know....I think I preferred the TE/EE arguing...

Those were the good old days.

To be honest, the professional reviews I've read have all said same thing. The PQ is great, FOTR is slightly lacking but only in comparison to TTT and ROTK, and AQ is great, and it's well worth the purchase.

Hmmmm

Professional reviews > a bunch of people on a forum.

But hey, that's just me. I think I'll trust the people who watch these things and review them for a living. Just my two cents.

[42041]

Originally Posted by ryan11

I know how monitors work vey well. I just wanted to bring up the fact that peolpe might not be viewing those screen shot with a proper monitor. I tried to word it without offending anybody or creating another argument which this thread has too much of already.

I'm viewing on my old Samsung LN40A650 1080p TV which I set up as my computer monitor when I replaced it with a plasma.

I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't buy these or enjoy them, but i do wish people would stop insulting my (and their own) intelligence by saying I can't judge PQ from stills. I judge every movie from stills before I buy/rent, the playing field is completely even... and I'm holding these to the standard as other movies of similar financial ilk: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers, Iron Man, Casino Royale, I Robot, take your pick.