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

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Its DTS-ES, not DD EX, but my good friend CaptVeg already alerted me to the fact that few DVDs mastered in DTS-ES actually had a discrete 6th channel - and while the LOTR EE discs are DTS-ES, apparently they are not 6.1 discrete...much to my annoyance. No wonder I had to reset all my sound levels when watching the LOTR extended editions...

Ernest, I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't make any comment towards the audio of the DVDs, and I haven't checked them to determine what they actually are (though I suspect they are DTS ES as well).

I was simply confirming that the so-called 6.1 EN DTS-HD MA track on the LOTR Blu-rays are actually 5.1 DTS-HD MA ES, with a "false" matrixed sixth channel, and not a discrete one. Listing them as 6.1 DTS-HD MA as if all channels were discrete is a slight misnomer, but the studios (Warner here, Lionsgate with T2, etc.) are doing it anyway.

EDIT: Peter explained it better than me. Glad we all are on the same page.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist
I do want to say that once we got people at Fox out of their foxholes(no pun intended), there was a lot of constructive dialog. The fastest way sh*t DOESN'T get done is when certain screenshot scientists wheel out the battleship and start a shore bombardment and get an angry mob in the landing craft. This goes for all the studios. The fastest way to be listened to is to be calm and constructive.

Just want to let you guys in here see what an industry insider thinks about all this.

Jeff couldn't be more right. An enraged mob crashes against the rocks, but calm consumers move mountains. Thanks for re-posting his thoughts!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

No, it's a good sized set and 8 feet is about average for that size.

Maybe he sits 1 feet away
Yeah 8 feet is how you watch a movie form your TV nobody sits right infront of your TV. That will hurt your eyes and viewing experience

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The other thing to keep in mind is that screencaps often present the best and worst a transfer has to offer. The reason I chose that particular screenshot is because it's as bad as the FotR presentation gets. Is it indicative of the entire transfer? Not at all. Like I mentioned in my review, entire sequences like the Mines of Moria and the landing and subsequent skirmish at Parth Galen look pretty decent. But if we were simply dealing with DNR, my score would have probably been in the 3.5 range. Once you factor in the various inconsistencies, the strange instability that affects the image from time to time, the sudden surges of noise reduction (during Bilbo's party, the Council of Elrond, Gandalf's showdown with the Balrog, and other iconic sequences), flickering, wavering, etc... it all combined to lead me to a 2.5.

That being said, I think it's easy to become so consumed with video and audio quality that we Blu-ray enthusiasts forget what sparked this heated debate in the first place: our love of the films! I adore 'The Lord of the Rings.' Was I disappointed with FotR's transfer? Sure. But at some point, I simply began to watch the film and found myself shrugging everything off, sitting back, and sinking into the wonder of Jackson's adaptation. It's just like going to a theater with mediocre projection. The problems are a distraction initially, but once the film grabs hold, the presentation is just window dressing. Does that mean picture quality doesn't matter? Definitely not. But at the end of the day, this set is going on my shelf. Imperfect as the transfers are (especially FotR's), the video presentation of the entire trilogy looks significantly better than its DVD counterpart, the DTS-HD MA mixes absolutely rock my surround sound system, and the set gives me three of my favorite flicks on Blu-ray.

We can nitpick and even complain, we can avoid releases or begrudgingly slide our cash across the counter, but at the end of the day, let's not forget the chief reason we buy Blu-ray releases: the films

So FOTR is definitely better then Gladiator or Gangs (old) ?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by captveg

Ernest, I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't make any comment towards the audio of the DVDs, and I haven't checked them to determine what they actually are (though I suspect they are DTS ES as well).

I was simply confirming that the so-called 6.1 EN DTS-HD MA track on the LOTR Blu-rays are actually 5.1 DTS-HD MA ES, with a "false" matrixed sixth channel, and not a discrete one. Listing them as 6.1 DTS-HD MA as if all channels were discrete is a slight misnomer, but the studios (Warner here, Lionsgate with T2, etc.) are doing it anyway.

EDIT: Peter explained it better than me. Glad we all are on the same page.

CV - the Extended Editions are DTS-ES on DVD, can't speak for the Blu-Ray versions (obviously) but all of the Extended Edition four-disc DVD sets were DTS-ES. I haven't watched any of the theatrical versions since - shoot - 2004? I only watch the Extended cuts, because I agree with Viggo, and don't consider the "contractual obligation" cuts to be "real" versions of the movie.

Question for you folks who prefer the theatrical cuts...how do you explain Frodo talking to Gollum in the Two Towers and telling Gollum he knows his real name (Smeagol) and that his life was a sad story? The scene explaining all of that does not appear in the contractual obligation theatrical cut of Fellowship of the Ring. I remember watching The Two Towers on opening night, and Frodo suddenly whipping out the Smeagol info, and it was akin to a record skipping. Smeagol? Who the hell is Smeagol? When did Frodo learn that? Sounds like its important if it's coming up now - and if it was so important to include in The Two Towers, why didn't we see it or hear it before? Answer - the REAL cut has the establishing scene, the contractual obligation cut (sorry...the "Theatrical Version") does not.

I haven't watched the Contractual Obligation versions in over six years, I only watch the Extended Cuts. No way am I picking up the Contractual Obligation Version on Blu-Ray, and the lackluster video on Fellowship (the best film of the bunch) only cements that resolve.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Just want to let you guys in here see what an industry insider thinks about all this.

I dont really think I've been all that angry / unreasonable.

All we're doing is pointing out the lackluster quality. Being calm and constructive is definitely needed, but there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't have issues when it clearly does.

All the ranting and raving on both sides and all the zany consipiracy theories are silly though, and don't accomplish anything.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by petmic10

How about Ken, a reviewer from this site? He obviously has the discs
and FOTR is that bad. The other two are much better but still have
problems.

Did you read his review?

Yeah i read the review but have read what Brodo Faggins says about it. He says those screenshot does not give it justice at all

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I dont really think I've been all that angry / unreasonable.
All we're doing is pointing out the lackluster quality. Being calm and constructive is definitely needed, but there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't have issues when it clearly does.

All the ranting and raving on both sides and all the zany consipiracy theories are silly though, and don't accomplish anything.

Wow. I'd like to see a poll on that statement.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

Screenshots have always been useful for me in, I know what to expect from a Blu-ray disc. When I'm interested in buying a movie I can come here, look at the screenshot and get a fairly accurate idea of how the movie will look. Here are two examples:

Twister (Extremely soft through out. Fine detail is almost none existent)
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...=88&position=8

Man On Fire (Strongly detailed and sharp)
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...14&position=11


Now when I bought these movies and viewed them, I pretty much got what showed up on the screenshots. Twister never revealed fine detail and sadly it never became sharper. Man On Fire had a great amount of detail, just like the screenshots showed. I'm greatful for the screenshots because they do help you understand the image quality of the movie. I also can notice the lack of detail on Blu-ray discs on smaller screens. At times I'll watch a Blu-ray movie on a 21.5 1080p monitor and it's easy to see the difference between a movie like Twister and Man On Fire.

Thankfully, I never cared about the Lord Of The Rings Movie so it doesn't affect me, but it has brought forward a very interesting discussion.

I have Twister and it looks better on my TV then on that screencap.
Man on Fire looks like that i think. can't remember. But i can remember a lot of grain in some scenes but the picture was sharp throughout

[DaViD Boulet]

LOL, 46inch is VERY VERY small? so wtf is my 40inch then? TINY? So what the hell size do you all have? 80inchers + ?

Actually, in may cases larger. My screen is 106" diagonal.

:
Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins
If its not one thing, its another with you. First it was "your TV is not good enough", then "your TV is too small" and now "your viewing distance is wrong". As you seem to be the expert, please advise about optimal viewing distance for my screen size for the 46" and the 84".

there is a very simple rule of thumb to measure the optimal distance to sit from any 16x9 screen if you're talking about "home theater" and trying to evaluate blu-ray. It's 1.5 screen-widths. So if your screen is 1 foot wide, you'd sit 1.5 feet away. If your screen is 3 feet wide, you'd sit 4.5 feet away. if it's 4 feet wide, you'd sit 6 feet away.

Now, this rule of thumb doesn't mean you *have* to sit that close to your screen or else you're a bad HT enthusiast... it just means that if you don't sit relatively close to that range, you will be missing lots of detail in the picture and you wont' be getting the 30 degree viewing angle that makes movies "a movie" and not "TV"... that field of vision extending to your peripheral is what makes movies what they are in the theater, and the beauty of blu-ray is it has enough detail to let you do that at home as well... which is the way the director intended you to see the picture.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by mredman

So FOTR is definitely better then Gladiator or Gangs (old) ?

For me, 'FotR' looks better than the first release of 'Gangs.' Even at its worst. The only area in which 'Gangs' tops 'FotR' is in regards to consistency. 'Gangs' is consistently terrible; 'FotR' is intermittently mediocre, which can arguably be as distracting, especially when a particularly poor scene comes on the heels of a relatively impressive one.

However, comparing 'Gladiator' and 'FotR' isn't a good idea IMO. 'Gladiator' exhibits more consistent, noticeable, and severe DNR than 'FotR,' but 'FotR' suffers from other issues that don't affect 'Gladiator,' some of which screenshots simply can't capture and larger screen sizes will exacerbate (instability, faint wavering and flickering, slight wobble, etc). As much as this thread has focused on DNR, there are other issues afoot in 'FotR.'

Sorry I can't really offer a more concrete answer, but for me, it's an apples-n-oranges sort of comparison

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

Well said. There are probably two groups here. One who are LOTR/film fans, and the other who are Blu-ray fans. This might explain the opposing stances.

Wow. I suppose we can just disregard anyone's opinion/statements as fanboyism on either side.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that particular statement is way too general and simple.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

Wow. I'd like to see a poll on that statement.

That sounds like one Hell of an exciting poll Alf.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by mredman

I have Twister

My condolences.

Twister is the only movie I ever saw at Mann's Chinese on opening night where the entire audience booed the screenwriter at the end of the movie. People were openly laughing at the screen throughout the film. "That's Jonas! He's a corporate sell out! He's in it for the money, not the science!" Oy, the pain.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mredman

Yeah i read the review but have read what Brodo Faggins says about it. He says those screenshot does not give it justice at all

Again, it has nothing to do with the caps doing it "justice," the caps are what it is. It is a cap taken directly from the BD itself. The reason the caps look "different" on his TV is because he has a 46" LCD and sits 8 feet away from it.

If you dig up an older CRT 34inch HDTV and sit 15 away from it you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the worst transfer of all time and the best transfer of all time, that doesn't mean the caps are somehow misleading. This is such a simple, simple concept to grasp man.

[Ernest Rister]

[QUOTE=Stinky-Dinkins;3079591]Again, it has nothing to do with the caps doing it "justice," the caps are what it is.[QUOTE]

The caps are what it is? Um....what?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The caps are what it is? Um....what?

Yes.

He said saying that when he looks at a specific frame on his comp monitor it looks terrible


Then he puts the BD in, finds that frame, pauses on it, and it looks wonderful.

He thinks the screencap is the reason it looks terrible, he thinks the screencaps are somehow "bad" yet the same frames on the BD itself are somehow "better."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the cap and everything to do with his specific display. What kind of display it is, how big it is, how it is calibrated, and how far away he sits when he views it.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Question for you folks who prefer the theatrical cuts...how do you explain Frodo talking to Gollum in the Two Towers and telling Gollum he knows his real name (Smeagol) and that his life was a sad story? The scene explaining all of that does not appear in the contractual obligation theatrical cut of Fellowship of the Ring. I remember watching The Two Towers on opening night, and Frodo suddenly whipping out the Smeagol info, and it was akin to a record skipping. Smeagol? Who the hell is Smeagol? When did Frodo learn that? Sounds like its important if it's coming up now - and if it was so important to include in The Two Towers, why didn't we see it or hear it before? Answer - the REAL cut has the establishing scene, the contractual obligation cut (sorry...the "Theatrical Version") does not.

Eh, I can't, but oh well. I just watched the Theatrical versions on DVD in December and it didn't bother me. To me, it's like the Wicked Witch referencing the "little bug" she sent - the reference is for something that didn't make the cut of the film, but ultimately it means little to my viewing experience.

But then again I like both versions of LOTR enough to own each. I like my options to be open most of the time.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by mredman

Maybe he sits 1 feet away
Yeah 8 feet is how you watch a movie form your TV nobody sits right infront of your TV. That will hurt your eyes and viewing experience

That's correct if you're talking about "TV".

We're talking about "home theater".

Movies are made to be viewed with an ideal 30 degree viewing angle so your peripheral vision gets part of the picture. Blu-ray and 1080p are capable of enough visible detail to replicate this experience on-par with 35mm motion pictures (better in some cases) so you can achieve this in your own home. Watching an image wide-angle is actually about as important as watching a film OAR or going from DVD to Blu-ray in terms of how the film impacts your experience, but it's a relatively new concept for most enthusiasts since really before front projectors started to become affordable (and before we had Blu-ray) it wasn't practical or possible for most consumers.

However, even a large direct-view HDTV can be viewed from 1.5 screen widths... it just means moving your sofa or chair up close when you really want to see the movie the way it's meant to be seen. When decorating concerns or having a crowd over or other reasons are more important, then naturally move the sofa back to its 8 foot distance. But just realize from that distance what you're missing... there is a whole level of picture detail and impact that are lost once you move past two screen widths (which is sort of like being at the back of a large theater).

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Again, it has nothing to do with the caps doing it "justice," the caps are what it is. It is a cap taken directly from the BD itself. The reason the caps look "different" on his TV is because he has a 46" LCD and sits 8 feet away from it.

If you dig up an older CRT 34inch HDTV and sit 15 away from it you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the worst transfer of all time and the best transfer of all time, that doesn't mean the caps are somehow misleading. This is such a simple, simple concept to grasp man.

The cap I intially viewed was on a laptop. It looked awful. I later viewed the same cap on my TV. It was closer in comparison to the BD, the difference almost negligible.

Do you agree that most people would be viewing these caps on a laptop and therefore seeing what I saw initially, a terrile picture?