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

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Why then is the HDTV version of FOTR better than the BD?

You tell me. Weren't the HD masters done before the HD TV broadcasts? Are you saying that someone did a great HD master that was used for HD TV broadcasts (for FOTR) then Warner or New Line RE-mastered them again for the BDs? Why would they do that? That would cost more money.

So someone could conceivably record the HD broadcasts of LOTR, use editing software to remove the TNT logo (or TBS or whatever) and burn a superior copy of the movies on recordable BDs? The pirates are going to make a killing on this.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by blujacket

I double dipped on the dvd's, & was actually thinking of double dipping on the blu-rays. Not now.

I'm still undecided, I'm so tempted to just accept such a poor release, but at the same time I don't want to support such a mediocre transfer...

arhg!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Q!

I'm still undecided, I'm so tempted to just accept such a poor release, but at the same time I don't want to support such a mediocre transfer...

arhg!

Then rent them and see for yourself, to decide if you want to buy them. Or wait until the price comes down to a more acceptable level.

Or just wait until the EEs come out and hope they are better.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't need another try. Have you ever read what Tolkien's detractors wrote when they criticized LOTR?

Did they read the books? If they didn't it must be on some type of religious precedent. Sort of like Harry Potter and its witchcraft.

Anyways, your analogy is not in the same context at all of mine. As liking a book is purely subjective, compared to BD quality and speaker quality being objective.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Because the amount of fine detail scrubbed away by DNR will fluctuate througout the entire movie, just like in any bad DNR example. Think of Gladiator, some sections were so bad things were erased from frames entirely.

The spears and arrows were not erased by DNR(Digital Noise Reduction), they were removed most likely by DRS(Dirt and Scratch Removal) or DVNR(Digital Video Noise Reduction).

[Q?]

Originally Posted by radagast

Then rent them and see for yourself, to decide if you want to buy them. Or wait until the price comes down to a more acceptable level.

Or just wait until the EEs come out and hope they are better.

I cannot rent BD's here in Greenland.
We should never have to weigh the pro's and con's in the first place though.

Oh no, you've got me worried for the EE's now

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by sub24ox780

this from the return of the king (random screen grabs)

Now THOSE look fantastic.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Did they read the books? If they didn't it must be on some type of religious precedent. Sort of like Harry Potter and its witchcraft.

Anyways, your analogy is not in the same context at all of mine. As liking a book is purely subjective, compared to BD quality and speaker quality being objective.

How wrong you are. There are plenty of audiophiles who like one speaker system over another, even if both have excellent test results. Tastes in the sound of speakers is very subjective. There are also people who will buy speakers ONLY because they read it is the greatest, from some reviewer, only to hear another system later and like it better.

And yes the reviewers who disliked Tolkien's books did read them. And it had nothing to do with religion.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

They used the same HDTV master, then added DNR.


Well the HDTV airing was in 1080p and didn't have a watermark. But can't you see for yourself that the HDTV is better than the BD? If you can't then you really shouldn't be trying to argue stuff here.

I'll let you know once I see them for myself and not someone else's examples. I am skeptical and will remain so until I have evidence I trust, to consider.

Why didn't the DNR get added for the broadcasts?

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Now THOSE look fantastic.

Yes, no DNR there. Nice grain to them.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by I am blu

this comparison, these shots are clear enough for me!

couldn t imagine WB could screw up this highly anticipated release like this...

Agreed

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Q!

I cannot rent BD's here in Greenland.
We should never have to weigh the pro's and con's in the first place though.

Oh no, you've got me worried for the EE's now

Sorry. I think there is a good chance that enough people are going to complain about this release that they will not only re-do the TEs but be more careful on the EEs. If studio types do read reviews and visit forums like this, then they may go back and take another look at this. Especially if sales are less than they expect.

When you have respectable reviewers disagreeing on the same BDs, then it does give one some pause on whether or not to buy them. I will probably rent them first.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

If you're skeptical you are a joke.

"You've gotta be a little skeptical, Sharona. Otherwise you end up believing in everything."

[Diesel]

Let's refrain from insulting other members please...

There has been at least one warning already.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

He wasn't the first to post the LOTR screen capss. And not believing screen caps in how they relate to DNR thinking that some guy who has posted screen caps for many many years is just silly.

Screengrabs aren't always accurate. Sometimes people will take a screen grab and compress the file, or it will be just a picture of the persons screen that they took with a camera. NTM the whole in motion vs. still.

Eric.exe is generally pretty good, but I haven't always seen what his screenshots seem to present. IDK if it's just my monitor, or how he makes his screenshots, but sometimes when I watch the movie later I don't always see exactly what his screens presented. Generally speaking they are usually very accurate.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

"You've gotta be a little skeptical, Sharona. Otherwise you end up believing in everything."

Then I'm skeptical of the reviewers who are saying the movies looks amazing. They are much more likely to be under the influence of the studios than anyone else.

[dborgill]

I don't mean to be pessimistic but, what would any studio heads/execs care about the PQ of these Blu-Rays? There will be SOOOO many blind buys from:

- People who just want the Blu-Ray to have the Blu-Ray
- People who don't read forums or read review sites
- It is a HUGE title that no matter what the quality of the Blu, it will sell a ton (Twilight anyone?)

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Screengrabs aren't always accurate. Sometimes people will take a screen grab and compress the file, or it will be just a picture of the persons screen that they took with a camera. NTM the whole in motion vs. still.

Eric.exe is generally pretty good, but I haven't always seen what his screenshots seem to present. IDK if it's just my monitor, or how he makes his screenshots, but sometimes when I watch the movie later I don't always see exactly what his screens presented. Generally speaking they are usually very accurate.

Compressing an image file will not add DNR. You can't compare a screen cap on your computer monitor to how it will look like on your HT display as they are obviously calibrated differently. And if eric.exe somehow didn't grab a frame from the bluray correctly, it would show up in things like color, contrast, brightness etc. Not DNR.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

He wasn't the first to post the LOTR screen capss. And not believing screen caps in how they relate to DNR thinking that some guy who has posted screen caps for many many years is just silly.

You may want to visit Penton-Mans thread. An education awaits you there.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

You tell me. Weren't the HD masters done before the HD TV broadcasts? Are you saying that someone did a great HD master that was used for HD TV broadcasts (for FOTR) then Warner or New Line RE-mastered them again for the BDs? Why would they do that? That would cost more money.

So someone could conceivably record the HD broadcasts of LOTR, use editing software to remove the TNT logo (or TBS or whatever) and burn a superior copy of the movies on recordable BDs? The pirates are going to make a killing on this.

Yes, that master was done before the BD's, long before.

That's why Fellowship looks so lackluster, it's using that same old master.

And yes, suppose Eric put the DISH broadcast of the HDTV version he has on BluRay, when it comes to image quality, it would look better than the BD's.

It's blatantly obvious. THe BD of Felloship looks virtually identical to the HDTV version + added DNR. There's not a chance in Hell they remastered it.

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Screengrabs aren't always accurate. Sometimes people will take a screen grab and compress the file, or it will be just a picture of the persons screen that they took with a camera. NTM the whole in motion vs. still.

Eric.exe is generally pretty good, but I haven't always seen what his screenshots seem to present. IDK if it's just my monitor, or how he makes his screenshots, but sometimes when I watch the movie later I don't always see exactly what his screens presented. Generally speaking they are usually very accurate.

Eric's screenshots are 100% accurate and are not compressed (they're lossless .png's.)

Someone taking a "picture of the persons screen that they took with a camera" is not even comparable, Eric's are captures. They are what is on the disc. Not "generally speaking they are usually very accurate," they are always completely accurate.