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

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

and i haven't been keeping up w/the thread so is this another gladiator debacle???

Not as bad as Gladiator............if Gladiator is a 10, I would call this a 7 IMO............still totally unacceptable

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Personally I don't know what they were watching Fellowship on display-wise and I obviously can't argue what they saw through their own eyes, but Fellowship is not a good looking Blu-Ray and is in no way whatsoever "demo material." That's all there really is to it.

You haven't actually seen it tho!!! How on Earth can you make such a ridiculous statement!?

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

alright, thanks!!

No problem. To be clear, my 10 scale is what the studios would consider as a problem. Fans (as seen in this thread) are usually far more meticulous and hard lined about these matters.

But regardless of that, the difference between the problems on Gladiator and the less than fully realized ideal of LOTR is night and day, IMO.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Whats with the BOLD.

Why bold anything? To make it stand out more and create emphasis

[captveg]

Originally Posted by 42041

scan some film.

Why? The law of diminishing returns applies. If the producers of the film approves something, why do more? To what purpose?

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Who's emotional?

Disappointed is the word. It's a bummer.

No one is crying about it.

Im not just gatecrashing here. Ive been reading this thread since the beginning and almost all the recent posts. Quite a few of the posters are getting a little carried away and need to get a grip, and maybe put things into perspective.

Ill have this on Friday despite all the furore surrounding it. In an ideal world this would be reference material, but it wont render the discs completely unwatchable. The quality of the film itself should help you forget about all that while youre watching it, unless of course people watch Blu-rays for other reasons?

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

thanks!!



alright, thanks!!

Its probably worth pointing out that no one on here has actually seen the Blu-rays yet. They're damning the child before its even out of the womb.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Yeah, I have seen that quote...............Like I said, I question how involved he really was with this initial project.

I'm not sure how much more he could have been involved, or what differences would be expected. He either watches them and approves them, or he doesn't. If he did the former (as he claimed), and approved them, what else can he do? Watch them twice? Five times? 27 times?

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by captveg

Why? The law of diminishing returns applies. If the producers of the film approves something, why do more? To what purpose?

It really does not bother you that a crappy HDTV broadcast looks noticably better and shows noticably more detail than a blu ray version of the same film???? This is really "OK" with you???

[captveg]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Its probably worth pointing out that no one on here has actually seen the Blu-rays yet. They're damning the child before its even out of the womb.

Some of us have seen them.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by captveg

Some of us have seen them.

I was referring to the likes of stinky etcetera. The naysayers if you will.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by captveg

I'm not sure how much more he could have been involved, or what differences would be expected. He either watches them and approves them, or he doesn't. If he did the former (as he claimed), and approved them, what else can he do? Watch them twice? Five times? 27 times?

I dont know what his "approval" process was exactly and neither do you, but it is painfully obvious it was lacking..............do I need to link the comparison shots again? Those shots say it all..........do you really think he would approve this? I dont, and that is why I question just how involved he was with this "approval".

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Its probably worth pointing out that no one on here has actually seen the Blu-rays yet. They're damning the child before its even out of the womb.

You should read the countless posts in the Gladiator thread saying this very same thing........ and numerous reviews are out already from reviewers who HAVE seen it..........

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Its probably worth pointing out that no one on here has actually seen the Blu-rays yet. They're damning the child before its even out of the womb.

I have seen enough to know this transfer is a half ass job and LOTR deserves better.

Also, Dave has a VERY strong reputation and I fully trust what he is saying in this review which coincides with what I have seen of the actual screens..........

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ay-review.html




Video: 3/5

All three films come to us in VC-1 encoded 1080p video. if you would like more information on the encode please see my second post.

It is no secret that many people, myself included, had high hopes for this release. These films were technically groundbreaking during their theatrical runs and deserve the absolute best transfer possible when going to Blu-Ray.



Now the question you’re all asking – just how good do they look?

Sadly the answer is – so so.

Warner has yet again failed to perform due diligence when it comes to an important Blu-Ray release. While the films do get progressively better as far as PQ is concerned as you progress through the trilogy, they are simply good and rarely great. The Fellowship of the Ring has always looked a little “soft” – even in theaters as some of you may recall, but it never lacked in terms of fine detail. Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray release has been subjected to Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) to the extent that some HDTV recordings actually show better fine detail. It appears to me that rather than starting from a rescan of the source film Warner took their existing HD master and threw it through the DNR cycle on medium before making a few color timing fixes, boosting contrast ever so slightly and throwing it onto a disc in average bitrate VC-1.


I know that many of you are going to be disappointed reading this – and let me assure you that I am even more disappointed writing this. These films deserve better, they deserve to be treated with respect and demand that more time and money be invested to ensure they look their best. Warner has done a great job moving to Blu-Ray as a high def format – but they consistently let us down with their Blu-Ray transfers. Films like this should come to us free of DNR and digital tampering beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure they are true to Peter Jackson’s vision. So little care was in fact taken that there is actually digital noise present in certain dark scenes (00:24:02 in the Two Towers for example).


If the spiel I wrote in my introduction demonstrates anything, it should be just how important these films are to many of us. If I was to make a list of films that deserve to be fully remastered – these films would be right at the top. When I refer to remastering I do not mean taking the current master, applying a smattering of Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) and slapping it into a moderate bitrate VC-1 encode. I refer to a complete rescan of the original film stock at 4k or better resolution and a re-render for any effects that are dated or low res.

Summary: If you’re a picture quality fanatic this release is not for you. The needless and inconsistent use of DNR has absolutely tarnished what could have been a groundbreaking release.

[phoenixram1977]

I kind of doubt that the extended editions will be any better picture wise. Although maybe poor sales on April 6th, will force them to put a new transfer. I was really looking forward to buying them, but now I am not sure.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

It really does not bother you that a crappy HDTV broadcast looks noticably better and shows noticably more detail than a blu ray version of the same film???? This is really "OK" with you???

My opinion is as follows:

- I wouldn't consider the HDTV broadcasts "crappy". On average, I'd give them an 8/10. (Generally speaking, on my scale bootleg is 1/10, best quality DVD is a 6/10, and Blu-rays are usually a 7-10/10, with a few notable exceptions like the first Fifth Element release or House of Flying Daggers. So, for the most part, "crappy" and "blu-ray" rarely go in the same sentence in my vocabulary.)

- I do not think the HDTV broadcasts show "noticeably" more detail. The difference is in my book quite minimal. If the HDTV broadcast are an 8/10, at worst the Blu-rays are 7.9/10, in my book.

- It's OK to me. And having looked at the DVDs very recently, they are DEFINITELY worth my money to upgrade. The DVDs are around 4-4.5/10 on this scale of mine (not helped by being 6-8 years old now, respectively.)

In a perfect world these would be 10/10. But it's not a perfect world. The best I can hope for is that efforts were made to present a good product. Not a perfect product, but a good product. And when the filmmakers approve of something, as is the case here, I generally consider it insight that we're getting a product that reaches that bar of being a good product. Especially when no one in our position knows what source limitations may or may not be.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by phoenixram1977

I kind of doubt that the extended editions will be any better picture wise. Althought maybe poor sales on April 6th, will force them to put a new transfer. I was really looking forward to buying them, but now I am not sure.

Don't kid yourself. This release is gonna sell like gangbusters (in terms of catalog titles). The message board enthusiasts are a very, very small part of the market for such a high profile release.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

You should read the countless posts in the Gladiator thread saying this very same thing........ and numerous reviews are out already from reviewers who HAVE seen it..........

Yeah, but still, you haven't seen it.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I have seen enough to know this transfer is a half ass job and LOTR deserves better.

Also, Dave has a VERY strong reputation and I fully trust what he is saying in this review which coincides with what I have seen of the actual screens..........

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ay-review.html




Video: 3/5

All three films come to us in VC-1 encoded 1080p video. if you would like more information on the encode please see my second post.

It is no secret that many people, myself included, had high hopes for this release. These films were technically groundbreaking during their theatrical runs and deserve the absolute best transfer possible when going to Blu-Ray.



Now the question you’re all asking – just how good do they look?

Sadly the answer is – so so.

Warner has yet again failed to perform due diligence when it comes to an important Blu-Ray release. While the films do get progressively better as far as PQ is concerned as you progress through the trilogy, they are simply good and rarely great. The Fellowship of the Ring has always looked a little “soft” – even in theaters as some of you may recall, but it never lacked in terms of fine detail. Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray release has been subjected to Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) to the extent that some HDTV recordings actually show better fine detail. It appears to me that rather than starting from a rescan of the source film Warner took their existing HD master and threw it through the DNR cycle on medium before making a few color timing fixes, boosting contrast ever so slightly and throwing it onto a disc in average bitrate VC-1.


I know that many of you are going to be disappointed reading this – and let me assure you that I am even more disappointed writing this. These films deserve better, they deserve to be treated with respect and demand that more time and money be invested to ensure they look their best. Warner has done a great job moving to Blu-Ray as a high def format – but they consistently let us down with their Blu-Ray transfers. Films like this should come to us free of DNR and digital tampering beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure they are true to Peter Jackson’s vision. So little care was in fact taken that there is actually digital noise present in certain dark scenes (00:24:02 in the Two Towers for example).


If the spiel I wrote in my introduction demonstrates anything, it should be just how important these films are to many of us. If I was to make a list of films that deserve to be fully remastered – these films would be right at the top. When I refer to remastering I do not mean taking the current master, applying a smattering of Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) and slapping it into a moderate bitrate VC-1 encode. I refer to a complete rescan of the original film stock at 4k or better resolution and a re-render for any effects that are dated or low res.

Summary: If you’re a picture quality fanatic this release is not for you. The needless and inconsistent use of DNR has absolutely tarnished what could have been a groundbreaking release.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...ews032310.html

Bill Hunt the most respected member out!

Film Ratings (Fellowship/Towers/King): A-/A-/A
Video (Fellowship/Towers/King - 1-20): 17.5/18.5/18.5
Audio (Fellowship/Towers/King - 1-20): 17.5/18/18
Extras (Overall): C+

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939



hmmm next!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by captveg

In a perfect world these would be 10/10. But it's not a perfect world. The best I can hope for is that efforts were made to present a good product. Not a perfect product, but a good product. And when the filmmakers approve of something, as is the case here, I generally consider it insight that we're getting a product that reaches that bar of being a good product. Especially when no one in our position knows what source limitations may or may not be.

I dont expect 10/10 either..........what I do expect is for these to look the best they can and this transfer is FAR from that.

Also, if the HDTV broadcast is a 8/10, I would rate these as a 5/10 at best...........the DNR is terrible and just robs the picture of its detail. This obviously does not bother you, but to anyone who knows what to look for this is unacceptable