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

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by petmic10

Okay guys, here is my take/opinion on FOTR in two words:

"Very Inconsistent"

First of all, it is definately much better than dvd version,
it's soft at times and DNR is definately present in various
scenes throughout the movie. One particular scene when
Frodo and Sam are on the outskirts of the Shire, and are
about to leave, looked as if I was watching an upscaled dvd.
Bilbo's birthday party and subsequent scenes in his home
were soft and facial close ups lacked detail which was obviously
due to the use of DNR. It could and should have been
much better.

All is not lost, to me the PQ in some scenes were quite good
especially in the Mines of Moria, were blacks were inky and
detail was abundant(do I see film grain). Honestly the overall
PQ was better than I expected(I expected the worst). Don't get
me wrong, there are problems with this movie but it's not as bad
as some of the pics I've seen indicated. To me Gladiator was
much worse.

For those that care(I do) the audio is were this movie really
shines. In the scene after Gollum was tortured and the Nazgul
ride out on horseback towards the Shire, the sound of horses
galloping felt so strong and powerful it was as if they were
running wildly through my room. Bass is prevelant throughout
and packs quite a punch. Those who appreciate a good audio
track will be more than pleased.

I see DNR on my 60" screen from my seating distance
and I expect those with larger displays will see it also and
likely be disappointed. Viewing on a smaller screen tends to
hide the flaws in a transfer, so those with smaller screens
may enjoy the PQ.

Video: 3 out of 5
Audio: 4.5 out of 5

Screen size: Pioneer PRO151 60" Elite(calibrated with my I1pro meter)
Seating distance: 8 to 9 feet

excellent review....really pleased with the audio comments....i can't wait to experience it for myself...

[SeattleDucks]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

You're not seeing "film grain" in a still screencap from HDTV. Sorry. Film grain really needs to be in motion or heavily magnified to be clearly identified, especially when dealing with a digital source, where "speckling" could be introduced to the picture from a number of reasons other than native grain. (And anyway, the speckling effect in the HDTV shot looks very "white". Film grain doesn't appear as white speckling, it appears as a pattern of diffusion and diffraction of the base color, which is virtually invisible in a still shot. What you're seeing there is probably digital noise; but again, it's very hard to tell with a still shot). What you can identify from a screenshot is a loss of detail...

... another thing you can identify from a screenshot is OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT DISPLAY SETTINGS, which is exactly why I say that screencap comparisons are complete Voodoo. There is absolutely no level of scientific rigor or integrity to a screencap comparison unless ALL of the controlling and varying factors are documented and verified, and/or kept uniform, which in this case, they visibly are not.

If you take screencap comparisons at face value, then I've got some pictures of Bigfoot and UFO's that I'd like to sell you.

Huh?? Those screencaps were captured directly from the source using a computer and software, they were not captured from a display, thus display settings do not even enter the equation. Unlike some you will see on a screencap thread in this form, Eric's are not taken by simply photographing the screen or monitor.

And you are dead wrong on film grain not being invisible in those HDTV captures - I have been a professional photographer for over 25 years, stare at many thousands of film images per year working in Photoshop preparing files for output to publishers and as prints, and used the same line of emulsions that FOTR was filmed on, and that most certasinly IS film grain - especially the screencaps of Gandalf entering, this is an interior shot that by necessity used a higher ISO film and it would be impossible for there NOT to be visible grain in those 1080P captures from the emulsions available in the early 2000's. This really is not rocket science and should be easily understood by all - there is no grain visible in the Bluray capture because it has been DNR'd out. Now whether that is a problem on FOTR, or Patton, or Gladiator, or any number of other heavily DNR'd films is up to each viewer to decide...

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by SeattleDucks

Huh?? Those screencaps were captured directly from the source using a computer and software, they were not captured from a display, thus display settings do not even enter the equation. Unlike some you will see on a screencap thread in this form, Eric's are not taken by simply photographing the screen or monitor.

Which makes his claims all that much less credible: they're supposedly directly from the source, and yet you can clearly see they are not, otherwise we would not be able to see what are obviously different settings... who knows, maybe those different settings were imposed by photo-editing software, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just an oversight.

Expert or not, white speckling on a screenshot is not film grain, and all professional jargon aside, the conditions under which we are viewing these pictures is not the same as in your professional setting.

I don't see film grain in any of the three images. I see what looks like digital noise on the HDTV image, and I see loss of detail on the DVD image. I can see film grain just fine on a moving image, and I don't think there's anything wrong with my vision, (my doctor doesn't think there's anything wrong with my vision, either). If your professional expertise enables you to distinguish film grain from the pixel-matrix of a screen capture, then I applaud you on that.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by Matt.English

I just got back from my local Best Buy and they already had LOTR on the shelf. I doubt all chains are doing it but I'd thought I'd mention it here if anyone's interested in picking it up a few days early.

I went to my local Best Buy a few minutes ago, and I was out of luck. Looks like I will have to keep waiting on Amazon.

[dcowboy7]

Saw a LOTR blu commercial on the 7:30 TBS Seinfeld....looked good.

Was a good ep too...lloyd bridges was pops mendlebaum.

mendlebaum mendlebaum.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by radagast

Why don't you consider the possibility of a typo? Maybe when he went back he saw that there was a mistake in the score and changed it. It didn't change that much anyway, so you are REALLY picking at the nits.

A typo all things considered?? Come on

[jwoodwar]

I need to know if I should get this movie on bluray or not. I have a preorder and I love the lord of the rings and I have money to buy it tuesday. So the people who own the movie right now. Should I buy it or dont buy it????

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Saw a LOTR blu commercial on the 7:30 TBS Seinfeld....looked good.

Was a good ep too...lloyd bridges was pops mendlebaum.

mendlebaum mendlebaum.

I saw it too.

"It's go time!"

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Which makes his claims all that much less credible: they're supposedly directly from the source, and yet you can clearly see they are not, otherwise we would not be able to see what are obviously different settings... who knows, maybe those different settings were imposed by photo-editing software, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just an oversight.

Expert or not, white speckling on a screenshot is not film grain, and all professional jargon aside, the conditions under which we are viewing these pictures is not the same as in your professional setting.

What kind of proof do you have that those were not taken directly from the source?

[easyrider]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Thanks


That DVD picture is scary bad

BD screen shot looks by far the best to me

[mredman]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Mredman i watched it on my 108 inch projection screen,via an Infocus IN-82.

That is big screen indeed. I am glad you say FOTR looks good on such a big screen

I am sure TTT and ROTK is gonna look even better. because that is what has been reported everywhere

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

What kind of proof do you have that those were not taken directly from the source?

None, and I never said I had any proof. What I said is that there are different color and contrast settings in the image, which really strains credibility that they would be directly from the source.

The comparison looks "doctored" to me.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

None, and I never said I had any proof. What I said is that there are different color and contrast settings in the image, which really strains credibility that they would be directly from the source.

The comparison looks "doctored" to me.

Could you please explain what you mean by this, and how you know? I'm not following you.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

What he's saying doesn't make any sense.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by mredman

Do you think this is poor

here the blu ray definitely looks better then the HDTV broadcast

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1241/lotr6tv.png
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8311/lotr6bd.png

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1893/lotr5tv.png
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5556/lotr5bd.png

You can cleary see Frodo's foot more clearly on bd screenshot and the title is more clear as well

The only difference between those first two shots is that the Blu-Ray has a slightly higher contrast and a little more of a reddish tint in the picture. As far as clarity, they are exactly the same. But those ones don't suffer from any of the DNR, so they both look fine.

It's this one that bothers me the most:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

None, and I never said I had any proof. What I said is that there are different color and contrast settings in the image, which really strains credibility that they would be directly from the source.

The comparison looks "doctored" to me.

The colors/contrast look different because they are 2 different transfers. Colors almost always get adjusted a little bit when a studio creates a new transfer. Just look at these comparisons of Good Will Hunting: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdre...ll_hunting.htm
The DVD has a much more warm color while the Blu-Ray is more neutral. Does this mean that the shots were not taken from the source?

[dcowboy7]

Its on TBS now....no OAR....what a shock.

[MarkWM]

I hope the BDs look better than this broadcast.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Its on TBS now....no OAR....what a shock.

It's TBS, it's expected

[stevenbrewster]

HEY EVERYONE, I JUST WENT TO BLOCKBUSTER AND THEY HAVE THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY ON BLU RAY FOR $69.99,. I THOUGHT THIS WASN'T GETTING RELEASED UNTIL NEXT TUESDAY. I ASKED THE CLERK HOW THEY GOT IT ALREADY AND THEY SAID IT'S BEEN OUT FOR A WHILE...LlOL