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

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I took a very similar screenshot from that exact scene for my review. Looking at the image I took (as we speak), I can attest that the lefthand portion of the comparison is exactly what the scene on the Blu-ray edition looks like, heavy DNR and all. Sorry guys, I wish I could say otherwise, but it's the truth. If our screenshots were still live, you could see the striking (or not-so-striking, as it were) similarities for yourselves.

Ken,

just bcs I'm lazy ( ) can you remind me of your seating distance-screen ratio and your particular PJ?

I have a theory that when this comes out we'll see lots of front-projection folks with wide-viewing-angles (ie, correct, theatrical viewing angles) noticing the problems, and we'll have lots of "HDTV" viewers from greater than 2 screen widths not finding the filtering to be as objectionable (naturally, these are generalizations I'm predicting, displays and eyesight will vary).

I think that debates about image quality issues that deal with resolution and detail really begin to bring light to the evolving importance of "wide angle" viewing for proper cinema-worthy video reproduction in the home.

it took a while with laserdisc and DVD for HT enthusiasts to learn about "OAR" and widescreen... then there was anamorphic and progressive scan... then the HT commmunity learned about edge enhancement... and so on. Each time the transition to better and better display technology and media carrier was greeted with folks who discovered flaws in presentation, and folks who thought that everything looked just fine... on their old-school system that masked the flaws.

Now we have issues that are masked by narrow viewing angles that aren't representative of how the director wanted his/her films to be seen, yet televisions on walls watched from sofas farther away than 3 screen widths covers most viewing rooms, and may so-called "home theaters" as well. And just like at one time 16x9 viewers were the minority and continually got shot-down on web forums by those who didn't know what they were missing on their 4x3 sets, we have the same thing happening with wide-angle viewing versus narrow-angle viewing.

I think I'll change my signature...

[Paulst10]

Originally Posted by mredman

So what about the 2 here that have seen it and are saying they don't look as bad as those bad screen shots that have been posted. And no reviewer has said it looks as bad as the DVD all has said it is an upgrade

And the screenshots i posted is not bad at all they do show detail

I didn't say they didn't look as bad... I can't even find the scene for the image Ken posted have you got a timestamp for it please ?

What I said was... "Fellowship IMO, has more bad looking content than good but also has some spectacular looking scenes (Moria for example). When I say bad looking I don't mean horrendous by any means... it's better than the DVD but doesn't compare to the sequels.

Two Towers, I couldn't really fault it, roughly 95% of the film looks stunning on my system... maybe members with better systems/bigger screens will be able to find more faults, but I can't

Return Of The King is meant to be better still but I have only flicked through it briefly."

If someone post the timestamp I can re-check it

Oh, and ROTK never actually made into the BD player tonight so it'll have to be tomorrow now.

WRT seating distances, I am about 2.1m (83") away from my 50"

[Fred Bang]

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray yet, but is it possible that the DNRed textureless look is just how LOTR was made? I recall the movies having a heaving digitally processed look and smoothing.

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

More screencaps, this time from Xylon over at HDD. Look at how DNR on the BD wipes out the detail from their faces.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Ttthd4.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Tttbd4.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrhd1.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrbd1.png

OK--the differences are noticeable in the first group of shots (but I can't say that the BD image looks horrible), but I'm having a harder time distinguishing the shots in the second group--both pics look to have pretty much equal detail to me. Maybe my microscope isn't strong enough? (I'm viewing this on a laptop, BTW.)

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Fred Bang

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray yet, but is it possible that the DNRed textureless look is just how LOTR was made? I recall the movies having a heaving digitally processed look and smoothing.

Sigh. yes, this has already been discussed, at length. However, since the HDTV image shows real picture detail that's not in the blu-ray image, that tells you that the blu-ray image detail has been *further reduced* from the source files/DI, regardless of what compromises the DI already had.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Paulst10

What's the timestamp for that ?

Not sure, but the pic came from here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=359

Another pic of the DNR....

[Show spoiler]

[jkwest]

ugh...so effing disappointing..

what a travesty..

[Blu-Benny]

I’m not sure which topic I enjoy watching people b!tch about more……the EE’s not coming out yet or the PQ.

[VHS4Ever]

I bet all the effort was put into the EE and the theatrical version got screwed. I wasn't going to get the theatrical version anyways.

[Mordir]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I have a theory that when this comes out we'll see lots of front-projection folks with wide-viewing-angles (ie, correct, theatrical viewing angles) noticing the problems, and we'll have lots of "HDTV" viewers from greater than 2 screen widths not finding the filtering to be as objectionable (naturally, these are generalizations I'm predicting, displays and eyesight will vary).

At first I was freaking out. I thought I was going to be so upset by the quality. Since I'm one of those "HDTV" viewers I'm actually relieved and looking forward to it again. I did what I could with the space I had to work with while keeping WAF in mind.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

I’m not sure which topic I enjoy watching people b!tch about more……the EE’s not coming out yet or the PQ.

Both is quite annoying actually for the fans.

It would be worse, however, if any next release would have similar picture-quality.

But by now I'm pretty positive that, again, this is just a quick release.
They're throwing us a bone and something for them to sell.
There will definitely be a better actual remastered release.
I get the feeling that, if this Theatrical Edition isn't top-notch quality,
that the Theatrical Edition will be in a next release.
Whether or not it would be included with the next Extended Edition or another release specifically for both.

I'd still vote for both branched into one, a typical big film to do it with.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Both is quite annoying actually for the fans.

It would be worse, however, if any next release would have similar picture-quality.

But by now I'm pretty positive that, again, this is just a quick release.
They're throwing us a bone and something for them to sell.
There will definitely be a better actual remastered release.
I get the feeling that, if this Theatrical Edition isn't top-notch quality,
that the Theatrical Edition will be in a next release.
Whether or not it would be included with the next Extended Edition or another release specifically for both.

I'd still vote for both branched into one, a typical big film to do it with.

I don't think they will release the theatrical editions again. If they do it is the same transfer as now

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by mredman

I don't think they will release the theatrical editions again. If they do it is the same transfer as now

But if they remaster it for the Extended Editions, wouldn't it include the content of the Theatrical Cut?
If so, they could throw both into one package for the second or third release I meant.

But yeah, maybe they'll leave the Theatrical Edition, if not all remastered, just "consumer-grade".
Most people will just buy it and watch it, still many consumers don't even care if it's DVD or BD.
And only the bigger fans and enthusiasts will want the Extended Editions anyway.

[Russell_L]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Another pic of the DNR....

[Show spoiler]

I'm assuming the pic on the right is supposed to be the BD (it's a little less detailed), but that doesn't quite jive with the caption. The pic on the left, OTOH, is slightly darker and more contrasty, which would tend to bring out more detail.... Frankly, comparing these two pics, I wouldn't say the BD looks 'horrible' or is a 'travesty'. (But then again, I'm just looking at these pics on a laptop at the moment.)

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

But if they remaster it for the Extended Editions, wouldn't it include the content of the Theatrical Cut?
If so, they could throw both into one package for the second or third release I meant.

But yeah, maybe they'll leave the Theatrical Edition, if not all remastered, just "consumer-grade".
Most people will just buy it and watch it, still many consumers don't even care if it's DVD or BD.
And only the bigger fans and enthusiasts will want the Extended Editions anyway.

Yeah from the screenshots it really looked like the DNR'ed the hell on it. Not good at all

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrbd1.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrhd1.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Tttbd4.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Ttthd4.png

But maybe it does look better in motion. And there is some here that says it does not look as bad as the screenshots looks. Still they should have actually used the MPEG2 versions as seen here. They definitely look better. And they should have looked as good as Braveheart

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by mredman

Yeah from the screenshots it really looked like the DNR'ed the hell on it. Not good at all

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrbd1.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...gs/Fotrhd1.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Tttbd4.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...ngs/Ttthd4.png

But maybe it does look better in motion. And there is some here that says it does not look as bad as the screenshots looks. Still they should have actually used the MPEG2 versions as seen here. They definitely look better. And they should have looked as good as Braveheart

Too bad the color of the MPEG2-version isn't quite correct like the BD-version.
Otherwise that would have been the best one probably.
Cause you see like all the grain and stuff in the MPEG2-version, even if it's not totally perfect.
And it's definitely too soft, unfortunately caused by DNR, in the BD-version... :\

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mredman

But maybe it does look better in motion. And there is some here that says it does not look as bad as the screenshots looks. Still they should have actually used the MPEG2 versions as seen here. They definitely look better. And they should have looked as good as Braveheart

Bravehart: shot anamorphic Panavison with natural color and few optical effects.

LOTR: Shot Super35 with a different director and cinematographer, CGI from beginning to end, color graded in post production.

Yeah, I can see why they should look exactly the same.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Bravehart: shot anamorphic Panavison with natural color and few optical effects.

LOTR: Shot Super35 with a different director and cinematographer, CGI from beginning to end, color graded in post production.

Yeah, I can see why they should look exactly the same.

Perhaps he just meant in general quality, not all the details.
But yeah, that makes it a very different production.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Bravehart: shot anamorphic Panavison with natural color and few optical effects.

LOTR: Shot Super35 with a different director and cinematographer, CGI from beginning to end, color graded in post production.

Yeah, I can see why they should look exactly the same.

I agree Peter, except for on one thing. FoTR is the only one of the trilogy shot Super35, TT and RoTK were not.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Bravehart: shot anamorphic Panavison with natural color and few optical effects.

LOTR: Shot Super35 with a different director and cinematographer, CGI from beginning to end, color graded in post production.

Yeah, I can see why they should look exactly the same.

I meant the transfer itself. duh!