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

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

I remember all the fuss over Gladiator - I rented it and I saw why people complained. That said - was it terrible? No. It was probably better than the DVD (have not seen the DVD). Was Braveheart 100x better - yes. BR was awesome.

But Gladiator was certainly watchable - just not a 4.5 or 5. I'd say it was probably a 3.5 (in my opinion). Though I have a 42inch screen - so maybe on a 108incher it's unwatchable?

The distance away from the image is HUGE. LOTR will probably look fine 2 screen widths away although even at that distance DNR is very noticeable. If you sit like 1x screen width away you will be able to see all the flaws and some of LOTR will look really bad.

[jalabar]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

So you mean of every screen cap taken there was not one with a bit of motion blur? I'm talking about all reference transfers as well.

If you see screen caps that show a sharp picture and/or grain structure in tact and/or fine detail, you know there is probably no DNR applied. So that way if you see screen caps from the same Blu-Ray that seem a little soft, you can probably rule out the possibility of DNR and assume it is motion blur or some other issue. Unless your brain doesn't work properly or something.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I'm going to stop reading some people's posts in here, that's what it's come to unfortunately. Grand Bob and radagast, is there a list of books I should read besides LoTR, Hobbit, Silmarillion and Forgotten Tales?

I missed this the first time through. Anyway:

Originally Posted by jalabar

Read the series "A Song of Ice and Fire" in preparation for the upcoming HBO series

Christ, I second this. Not even for the HBO series, just read them because they're ****ing awesome.

I've been waiting forever for DwD. Love Martin - Song of Ice and Fire is fantastic. Winter is coming mother****er.

Robin Hobb is, in my opinion, the most underrated fantasy author of all time... and I've read them all and then some. She's just as good as Martin - a little better in my opinion. Her Elderlings saga has to be read if you're a fan of fantasy (Start with Farseer Trilogy, move onto Liveship trilogy, then move onto Tawny Man trilogy which continues the storyline of the original Farseer trilogy.) Skip the last two books, Dragon keeper and Dragon Haven, they're not very good.... but the first nine books in the Elderlings saga are must reads.


Read Name of the Wind by Rothfuss, the second installment should be coming soon, it's fantastic shit.

By the way, don't go to Amazon and sort by ratings to get recommendations if you’re looking for good fantasy suggestions - ask serious fantasy fans instead. Some of the of the stuff on Amazon is fraudulent, fake reviews posted by self published authors to trick you into buying their god awful books. Google Robert Stanek + fraud for more information on this type of shit.

I've been reading this sort of shit for more than 2 decades. I love Tolkein, and he may have been the real first in high fantasy, but in my opinion he's not the best. People like Martin and Hobb have surpassed him.

So, if you want great fantasy start with Martin's AsoIaF. Move onto Hobb's Elderlings saga. Then read Name of the Wind. If you still want more shit you can go onto Erikson's Malazan.... although that's been tapering off in quality.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

OK but I feel that people are using that as a way to say that all the screen caps of LOTR are wrong which there's no way they can be to such an extent.

Some of them MAY be accurate. We dont know. Thats one of the flaws. We dont know what was captured?

Do some research on the I and B frames and how they are created. Some surprising info about players and displays.

Look at some of the reviews on this site and look at the screen caps. MANY of them look downright nasty. Then watch the movie and alot of the anomolies are no longer visible...even when heavily scrutinized.

LOTR might look awful. I'll know when I see it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Grand Bob and radagast, is there a list of books I should read besides LoTR, Hobbit, Silmarillion and Forgotten Tales?

Now that you mention it, yes. I would recommend "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter, which recounts the development and publication of LoTR in immense detail by "the Creator" as it was developed. One of the highlights is a humorous eight page response of Tolkien regarding the first attempt to film LoTR shortly after it was published.

[mrpink134]

Can we say Star Trek. I remember people said that the movies were unwatchable (except wrath of khan) but they weren't as bad as the screen caps implied

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Now that you mention it, yes. I would recommend "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter, which recounts the development and publication of LoTR in immense detail by "the Creator" as it was developed. One of the highlights is a humorous eight page response of Tolkien regarding the first attempt to film LoTR shortly after it was published.

All right, I'll get the whole bundle at once at some point next month, thanks for the heads-up.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Can we say Star Trek. I remember people said that the movies were unwatchable (except wrath of khan) but they weren't as bad as the screen caps implied

I have to disagree. Star Trek I doesn't look like film at all - it looks like 720p video cam due to the heavy DNR and moderate EE.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Can we say Star Trek. I remember people said that the movies were unwatchable (except wrath of khan) but they weren't as bad as the screen caps implied

Yeah, they really were.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Can we say Star Trek. I remember people said that the movies were unwatchable (except wrath of khan) but they weren't as bad as the screen caps implied

This seems to be more in the ballpark, IMO, though not even as bad.

In terms of scales of problems.....

FOTR
.
.
.
Star Trek 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Patton
.
.
.
.
Gladiator
.
.
Gangs of New York



IMO. And my personal line where it goes from "watchable" to "unwatchable" is between Patton/Gladiator.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Well, that's what you say. I don't see any, at least not of the Patton/The Longest Day/Star Trek kind. Added to that the fact that Peter Jackson approved these, I don't think these look that bad at all.

You asked, I answered
It's not me saying it. Ken Brown and other reviewers are confirming it as DNR and not just filters and such.




I think most of the caps I've seen from TTT and RotK look quite good. Fellowship doesn't look great but definitely not terrible.

[jalabar]

Personally I'd put Patton way ahead of Gangs since the DNR was so deliberate and waxy.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by jalabar

Personally I'd put Patton way ahead of Gangs since the DNR was so deliberate and waxy.

Well, once you get to that point it's like debating between which of the homely girls your mom is making you ask to the prom. To me, Patton is on the bottom of my "watchable" scale (and probably the worst a film could look relative in HD to its achievable ceiling and I still view it with enjoyment), while the original Gangs of New York was unwatchable.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by GlenR

CRT actually still has better color rendition, contrast and black level than flat panels so its not a bad device for comparison.

Not the last two we had. My old CRt was actually becoming distorted as if the pixels had shifted slightly giving a ghost image. It was especially bad around the edges of the screen. And the other one was losing its contrast levels making it look yellowish. Well, actually mine was doing that too.

That said, the problem with LCD screens is that they can suddenly develop banding defects. Like my current display. One day out of the blue, I noticed a series of vertical bands every couple inches across the screen. They're really only noticeable when playing games that utilize large swaths of greyish backgrounds like skies or terrain. For instance in games like the Total War series.

[LetoAtreides82]

Has Blu-ray.com received their review copy yet? It's getting pretty close to release day.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Has Blu-ray.com received their review copy yet? It's getting pretty close to release day.

Yes.

Ken is working on the review currently.

[dborgill]

Will it be the same for ROTR when the EE's are released:

http://www.theblurayblog.com/2010/01...ot-comparison/

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Will it be the same for ROTR when the EE's are released:

http://www.theblurayblog.com/2010/01...ot-comparison/

Those screen caps can not be trusted, you shouldn't post them in this forum. There is nothing wrong with the LOTR BD, it is reference quality because some reviewers said so.

[X400]

oh no u guys are bringing up patton.... i actually thought patton was great... and those screenshots they used didnt represent what i saw on tv (like the missing stars in the white stars of the flag, they were there on my tv)

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Not trying to single anyone out here but to keep arguing with someone who's too stubborn to see your point of view or what you're trying to say is repetitive and pointless. I'm going to stop reading some people's posts in here, that's what it's come to unfortunately. Grand Bob and radagast, is there a list of books I should read besides LoTR, Hobbit, Silmarillion and Forgotten Tales?

Actually I think Forgotten Tales is another book. "Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle Earth" is what I mentioned. Here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Num...9571462&sr=1-1