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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

i believe he has confused even himself. Hes been back and forth on this only to find out he hasnt even seen the BD. Its very tough to state something as 'fact' having never seen it. Thats the only fact I see outta this.

One of my first posts states I hadn't seen the BD. Once I saw the cas I cancelled my preorder and am now going to rent it instead.

It is a fact, look at the screens.

The HDTV screen has fine detail not present in the BD version. It illustrates DNR use in the BD version not present in the old HDTV presentation.

It is as plain as day.

I'm not back and forth at all.

I've been saying the same thing all along.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Being on Dish PPV in 2002 is not the same thing as being in HD in 2002.



Son, that's a review of a projector. Have you had too much cough-syrup today, or something?

"Son," that review is from 2002.

This is in the review:

I had the PLV-70 for about a month, and more evenings than not, I used it for general viewing of regular and HDTV images from my DISH 6000, as well as a variety of movies on DVD. This allowed me to see the effects of the tweaking on movie images rather than bars of test colors. One of my favorite movies is "The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring" (“LOTR”). Although I find the DVD a bit soft compared to the HD version (DISH PPV),

The HDTV broadcast version has been around since 2002, and that is precisely the version the caps are from.

[danman227460]

From the reviews, I don't mind the price I'm paying for them (price error in Canada) but for sure I wouldn't cough up new release price for them. Heck I doubt I would have gotten them if my price wasn't that low, I was more inclined to rent them to check it out.

I hope they fix it for the EE but if they do a re release of the TE in better PQ, it would irk some people.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Screen cap comparisons can be very, VERY unscientific (they usually are a joke). I don't put much stock in them. They can be very easily manipulated, or just simply misinterpreted.

You have a completely different experience from me.........usually a joke?? just going off Xylons screen caps, he has been right literally 100% of the time once I actually viewed the disc for myself. So while screen caps can be as you say, the ones that we are talking about are not like that since the sources are all proven as far as credibility going off their history performing this exercise.

You would have to be blind not to see that fine detail has been removed from the blu ray. There is NOTHING to debate as far as that goes, it is just fact. What is subjective is how much or little it bothers you (as well as the other issues) and how sensitive you are to it in your own environment.......It goes without saying that those of us in a uproar over these transfers are VERY sensitive to this garbage, and even if you are not sensitive, the fact remains that these should be better.

[Diesel]

How many pages has this same debate been going on now btw?

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by Diesel

How many pages has this same debate been going on now btw?

Way too many.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

At least 2 hundred.

[neo78956]

Off topic a bit, but does anyone else think that Jackson's hint at new bonus content for the Extended Editions might indicate a Maximum Movie Mode, considering that this is after all a Warner Bros. release?

So far, the Maximum Movie Mode blu-rays have been great (though I wasn't a fan of McG's version, as he's simply not the showman or presenter that Zack Snyder and Guy Ritchie are).

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Off topic a bit, but does anyone else think that Jackson's hint at new bonus content for the Extended Editions might indicate a Maximum Movie Mode, considering that this is after all a Warner Bros. release?

So far, the Maximum Movie Mode blu-rays have been great (though I wasn't a fan of McG's version, as he's simply not the showman or presenter that Zack Snyder and Guy Ritchie are).

....that would be aweomse

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

"Son," that review is from 2002.

This is in the review:

I had the PLV-70 for about a month, and more evenings than not, I used it for general viewing of regular and HDTV images from my DISH 6000, as well as a variety of movies on DVD. This allowed me to see the effects of the tweaking on movie images rather than bars of test colors. One of my favorite movies is "The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring" (“LOTR”). Although I find the DVD a bit soft compared to the HD version (DISH PPV),

The HDTV broadcast version has been around since 2002, and that is precisely the version the caps are from.

No kidding it's from 2002... when did I dispute that?
He is mistaken about it being a high-def broadcast. I watched that PPV version several times myself, and it was NOT hi-def. He's speaking in generalities about widescreen broadcasts; in 2002, there wasn't a lot of hair-splitting about what defines hi-def. In that review, the PQ or resolution of the broadcast was not the issue, it was how the projector compared to another display when viewing the same media, it's a totally irrelevant reference in this argument... and PJ had nothing to do with the review, that was nonsense.

Then there's the other guy who called it a "10-year-old mpeg-2 encode"... ten years ago, they were still in principle shooting.
Look, I realize that hyperbole is fun, but when you're basing your examples on it, you discredit your argument.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Those screens come from that exact same broadcast he's referring to, and if you think hometheaterhifi didn't know what defined high definition back in 2002 you're crazy - they are the reference when it comes to benchmarking HD-capable DVD and BD players (and devices.) He wasn't talking in "generalities about widescreen broadcasts," that doesn't even make sense. The DVD was widescreen, he was comparing the two versions of one film on one PJ. He wouldn't of compared the DVD version to a broadcast version that was virtually identical (that's why he specifically refers to the DVD version as noticeably soft.) He's comparing the DVD version to the HDTV version on that specific PJ.

There was an HD broadcast back then, and it was on Dish PPV, and those are the caps from it.

It is absolutely true, sorry - you're wrong.

When I said it was a "PJ review" I was saying it was a projector review, not a Peter Jackson review, hahaha.

I don't know who said "10 year old MPEG 2 encode," if anyone said it at all, but I didn't.

[dcowboy7]

4/6 will sure be a fun day in this thread.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

4/6 will sure be a fun day in this thread.

That's the day I will leave the thread forever..... I'll be too busy picking up my copy at Best Buy and watching the films.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Maximum Movie Mode

What is that?

[billzfan]

I'm interested in buying this set but I'm waiting till it's around the $50 mark. Anyone seen any deals?

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

*COUGH*plant*COUGH*

What the hell is your problem man. i am just posting 2 positive reviews about the set!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Here are the edits by Bill Hunt.....


[Editor's Note: Much is made online of the evils of DNR on Blu-ray and other HD presentations. Sometimes that's absolutely justified (Patton, Pan's Labyrinth) and sometimes it's less so. It's important to note that with the Digital Interpositive (D.I.) process used in the post production of so many films these days, DNR is just one more tool in the post production toolbox, not unlike color timing. Just because there's DNR visible on a Blu-ray, that doesn't automatically mean it was done specifically in the BD mastering process. It's often applied by the filmmakers in post production as well, prior to the film's appearance in theatres. DNR is a tool, and like any tool it can be used to both positive and negative effect. So the issue of DNR is far more complicated - particularly with regard to new and recent films - than you'd think based on some of the online discussions of the subject.]


and one more...


[One Final Comment: Early reviews of this set - by those who have actually seen the discs - have ranged from wildly positive to wildly negative and almost everything in between, and the set is currently the topic of sometimes heated debate in many A/V enthusiast forums. The controversy notwithstanding, I stand 100% by this review. To put things in perspective (an all too rare thing online these days), it's only fair to point out that much of the negativity about this set appeared LONG before anyone had actually seen the discs, and was based on the fact that Warner announced the theatrical cuts instead of the preferred extended editions, leading to claims in many quarters that fans were being ripped off. (One needs only to read the Amazon.com reviews - all written prior to street date - to see this phenomenon.) This fan anger has been perpetuated by select early negative reviews of the video quality - particularly with regards to the Fellowship transfer. A few of these are reasonable and rationally argued, but many are overblown. Many people simply expect absolute "perfection" every time they spin a Blu-ray, and individual notions of what constitutes "perfect" seem to vary. What's more, occasionally even very rational and experienced reviewers and enthusiasts can lose sight of the fact that certain films can only EVER look so good. This is compounded by the fact that, when the film in question is a personal favorite, our own expectations can at times be unreasonably high. The bottom line is this: If you're a fan of these films (or of ANY film being released on Blu-ray), we STRONGLY encourage you to look at the discs for yourself and make up your own minds, rather than simply relying on the secondhand opinions of others, no matter how trustworthy - even ours here at The Bits. Rent them first if you feel more comfortable doing that prior to buying them, or check out a friend's copy. But use your OWN eyes, and make up your OWN minds. That's good advice in a LOT of things these days, not just when judging Blu-ray quality. Personally, I suspect that when most of you get these discs home and watch them yourselves, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.]

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

What is that?

Basically the director periodically steps into view between two big monitors, so it's like a mashup of a director's commentary and a PIP track, where the director has the movie playing on one monitor to the left, and the behind the scenes footage, storyboards, etc on the right monitor, where the director stands between the two images and talks about the scene or some aspect of the scene. It's a really fantastic and immersive feature. Check it out on the Watchmen: The Director's Cut blu-ray and the Sherlock Holmes blu-ray.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

That's already been posted, and talked about, a few pages back.

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That first comment is fine and all and not incorrect, but it's just a vague explanation of how DNR is sometimes utilized. There is definitely DNR present on the BD presentation that is clearly not in the 8 year old HDTV presentation. Look at that Gandalph shot, or the close up of Bilbo, it's as clear as day. You can actually see the separation of hairs in his beard in the HDTV presentation and those portions are blended together into mush on the BD presentation. Bilbo has pores and fine facial details in the HDTV version, in the BD version his face is completely texturally uniform and waxy.

As for his second comment, I was always extremely positive about the set prior to its release (as my posts prove).... also if he did change the score from 17.5 to 17 as the person above me claimed how is that standing "100% behind" his review? I don't put much stock into numerical ratings (they're usually pretty arbitrary) but it just seems like an odd move given the second paragraph. The Amazon.com complaints (and they are ridiculous) have nothing to do with my PQ complaints of this release.

Again, I don't expect "perfection." I also don't expect this release to be so poorly compared to an 8 year old HDTV presentation (concerning image quality.) Sorry, for a new BD release of one of the biggest films of all time this is just clearly lackluster - that's all there is to it. Other than that it's good advice, I'll be renting it too.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

4/6 will sure be a fun day in this thread.

Yeah, the "you haven't seen them" apologists no longer have that crutch to lean on.