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

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by radagast

If DNR is so bad, why do they use it?

I really hope you aren't saying DNR is a good thing now?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

My DVD of all three films has a discrete 6.1 channel, why should I be satisfied with a 5.1 on a Blu-Ray?

The 6.1 channel wasn't completely discrete. For 5.1 compatibility the information is still embedded in the SR+SL channels and then removed, instead of being matrixed and then processed.

What New Line did was take a professional decoder to the 5.1, output it in 6.1 and then encoded that discrete output. Another reason I hated their "7.1" discs (and it's also what LionsGate does) is take a 5.1 master output, run it through a de-matrix, and encode it as 7.1

It's not true 6.1 like what's on X-MEN: The Last Stand DTS-HD MA 6.1. or TrueHD 6.1 which use a different means of compatibility. TrueHD 7.1 is actually 9 channels where the back channels are mixed into the surrounds for 5.1 setups, then a different version which has all 7.1 channels discretely.

So all they did was losslessly encode the original 5.1 master and flag it for 6.1 ES Matrix, in other words the way it was intended to be heard.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

I really hope you aren't saying DNR is a good thing now?

I don't think he's saying that...... but to try to answer his question,
i'd say "because people seem to notice grain and dirt easier than DNR"

[dborgill]

It is pure speculation that the EE Blu-Ray version of FOTR will even be better... with WB's track record, do you think they will put the extra effort into it? I doubt it. The EE's will ALSO sell a ton despite the video quality of FOTR EE...

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

If DNR is so bad, why do they use it?

For the same reason record companies for the last decade or so have taken old CD releases, made them loud as hell, taken out all dynamic range, and released them as "remastered."

He:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post18376905
Sums it up perfectly.

[Fighter]

I'm still buying it on the 6th regardless

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Xylon posted this screen a while ago (year+) in the Dark City comparison thread, so I'm not sure what the source is. Anyways, I think it looks awesome:

[Show spoiler]

You can compare it to the BD:

[Show spoiler]

Here the PQ on the Blu ray looks very good. i can relax again i think

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by dborgill

It is pure speculation that the EE Blu-Ray version of FOTR will even be better... with WB's track record, do you think they will put the extra effort into it? I doubt it. The EE's will ALSO sell a ton despite the video quality of FOTR EE...

Who knows.

I can only speak for myself, but if the EE receives the same treatment I won't buy it. If they remaster it and release I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

It's hard to tell with Warner, sometimes they do absoluetly mindblowing transfers (especially with very old movies - take a looks at Wizardof Oz,) and even for non "ancient" stuff I thought Blade Runner was really great, and sometimes it just appears very little effort whatsoever goes into a presentation.

I also read that Warner is having a bit of financial trouble, which sucks. I'd imagine that something like that factors into to how much money is spent on projects like this... but I really have no idea how stuff like that works so that's purely speculation.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by mredman

Here the PQ on the Blu ray looks very good. i can relax again i think

The blu-ray is the second picture...

[KrugStillo]

Just a few comments to maybe soften the blow. I worked as a projectionist when FOTR came out and I can tell you from seeing the film print many times that it had a soft almost unfocusable look to it. I was constantly fussing with the focus on that one. The sequals I remember looking sharper but I remember the first one the most.

Also, if I'm wrong please correct me, didn't Peter Jackson actually make the prints from the finished computer files and not the actual negative. If this is the case the DNR could have been applied before the prints were made hense it is not removable, not saying that they didn't add more but this film may only be able to look so good.

Just because it is a multi-million dollar movie doesn't mean it has to look amazing. Remember any Peter Jackson fan knows that in general his films tend to have a soft look about them. He uses the Spielberg anamorphic thing from the early 80's where the focus sometimes tends to look off.

Not defending it just trying to add another perspective. I'm also sure the EE won't look that much better. They will probably look the same. I guess I'll pick it up when I have the cash.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Please give me an example of them being wrong before? You don't know what you are talking about.

Well i am quite positive that it doesn't look this bad. This source the pic is coming from is really wrong. If you serioulsy think it looks like a painting because that is how it looks in this picture. And am SURE it does not look like that at all. If it did it would be a half star PQ rating.
Of course t does not look like that

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

i'd say "because people seem to notice grain and dirt easier than DNR"

That has to be why.

People who don't know better whine about grain, but don't seem to notice that eliminating grain means eliminating detail too.

[DaViD Boulet]

Just a few comments to maybe soften the blow. I worked as a projectionist when FOTR came out and I can tell you from seeing the film print many times that it had a soft almost unfocusable look to it. I was constantly fussing with the focus on that one. The sequals I remember looking sharper but I remember the first one the most.

Agreed.

I saw it projected in 3 houses theatrically and was actually quite disgusted with the look of the 35mm print... blurry, muddy, flat contrast. In fact, in many ways the DVD looked *better* than the projected film (for LOTR) which, for me, was a first.

The HD version, as non-optimal as it may be measured by was would have been possible, is superior to what was projected when the film debuted. I still what it the best it can be, but it's at least a consolation that the disc in hand will equal or exceed the 35mm experience in this particular case.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mredman

Well i am quite positive that it doesn't look this bad. This source the pic is coming from is really wrong. If you serioulsy think it looks like a painting because that is how it looks in this picture. And am SURE it does not look like that at all. If it did it would be a half star PQ rating.
Of course t does not look like that

The amount of noticeable havoc digital manipulation wreaks on picture quality varies greatly from scene to scene in this and any movie.

That frame isn't altered man, it's what's on the disc.

[Mitsjel]

I am really wondering now...
I remember PJ at some lotr convention after they won all the oscars saying something in the likes of "One of the things that really motivated us was we're absolutely terrified of letting you fans down."
If the transfers really are that bad, how could he endorse this?
What, the fans don't matter anymore so many years later?

I've been waiting a long long time for this release, I didn't mind double dipping for the EE's at all.
I'm still buying them, and still (naively) hoping that when I see it myself I'll say "oh, it ain't that bad"...

I honestly never ever put a tought into this release being possibly botched.

[rileyparrish]

For $49.99 in Canada at most stores IMO it's a great deal, why is it $63.99 on Amazon US?

[billzfan]

The New Line video engineers transferred the three "The Lord of the Rings" films to 1080p Blu-ray in their original aspect ratio of 2.40:1 using dual-layer BD50s and a VC-1 codec. The results are as good as any fan could reasonably ask for, and at least some of the scenes must rank among the best-looking live-action images currently available in high definition.

The engineers retain much of the film's light, natural print grain, noticeable mainly in wide expanses of sky because the reproduction is so clean. Facial tones are quite natural, too, although the smooth contours and polished textures of some facial features suggest the use of soft-focus lenses and a possible degree of filtering. As do a few lush, plush, dreamy scenes.

The opening sequences of "The Fellowship of the Ring" demonstrate the director's varying visual style for the films. The first sequence looks deliberately subdued, dull, and veiled to convey the feeling of a flashback, a memory. Then, when the film shifts to the present day in the Shire, it's absolutely glorious, the beauty of the landscape practically bringing tears to one's eyes. Colors are deep, rich, vivid, brilliant, glistening, and glowing by turns, with object delineation varying from slightly bland to remarkably precise. For reasons I can't explain, the color and definition on "The Return of the King" seem the cleanest, brightest, and sharpest of all the movies, although you will hear no complaints from me about any of the transfers. There are scenes here of ravishing beauty. In fact, I can't imagine any viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions.

"From DVDTOWN.com review"

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Mitsjel

I am really wondering now...
I remember PJ at some lotr convention after they won all the oscars saying something in the likes of "One of the things that really motivated us was we're absolutely terrified of letting you fans down."
If the transfers really are that bad, how could he endorse this?
What, the fans don't matter anymore so many years later?

I've been waiting a long long time for this release, I didn't mind double dipping for the EE's at all.
I'm still buying them, and still (naively) hoping that when I see it myself I'll say "oh, it ain't that bad"...

I honestly never ever put a tought into this release being possibly botched.

I doubt Jackson really pored over these presentations. He's a director, not a rabid videophile.

He probably popped it in, looked at it for a little bit (on God knows what display) and said "OK, looks great. Off you go."

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Just a few comments to maybe soften the blow. I worked as a projectionist when FOTR came out and I can tell you from seeing the film print many times that it had a soft almost unfocusable look to it. I was constantly fussing with the focus on that one. The sequals I remember looking sharper but I remember the first one the most.

Also, if I'm wrong please correct me, didn't Peter Jackson actually make the prints from the finished computer files and not the actual negative. If this is the case the DNR could have been applied before the prints were made hense it is not removable, not saying that they didn't add more but this film may only be able to look so good.

Just because it is a multi-million dollar movie doesn't mean it has to look amazing. Remember any Peter Jackson fan knows that in general his films tend to have a soft look about them. He uses the Spielberg anamorphic thing from the early 80's where the focus sometimes tends to look off.

Not defending it just trying to add another perspective. I'm also sure the EE won't look that much better. They will probably look the same. I guess I'll pick it up when I have the cash.

I agree and it seems to be a consensus that at least FOTR has a soft look to it. But if you look at screens from this site of "The Da Vinci Code" it has a soft look to it but it also has a naturalness about it and looks better than the FOTR screens.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

For $49.99 in Canada at most stores IMO it's a great deal, why is it $63.99 on Amazon US?

The price might drop just before release.

It might need to now.