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

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted by BigT

Sir, stop spreading BS on these forums. Not all disks will be from the SAME source. I would especially avoid the batch from Alliance films, which are always sub-par tansfers. They always try to flood the market with their cheap blu-rays. Becarefull folks, a film like LOTR will have lots of fraudsters waiting to pounce on unsuspecting comsumers with crappy disks.

But Gosford Park was definitely sub-par. Sub-par transfer, and none of the excellent special features were included to boot. You have to keep your dvd for that.

Back OT, my set is only 52" so I hope I won't see many of the flaws others are seeing. But I will only rent these, to hold me until the EEs are released.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Viewing angle is absolutely a ciritical bench-mark in interpreting any viewer's impressions. It's not "challenging", it's *clarifying*. Someone sitting 3 screen widths away from an HD image won't see DNR or EE or a host of other problems that someone watching from 1.5 screen widths will. Since the poster said he was watching on a 48" Plamsa, clarifying viewing distance is essential so folks will know how to interpret those impressions.

The comment asking about non-HT viewers should be obvious. Honestly, I wouldn't expect *any* non-HT viewer to find fault with these discs even at 1.5 screen widths. Only someone bothered by DNR would find fault, and most general viewers don't notice or care... just like they often don't notice or care about most of the things enthusiasts care about.

Even with transfers that are horrendous like Gladiator, the problems usually have to be pointed out to the average viewer before he/she realizes what they are. That's not a bad thing, it just means that the problems we're talking about on these discs, by their nature, won't bother the average viewer.

I understand that and appreciate your reasoned answer.

My problem in this thread is that some people insist on telling others that their personal opinions after viewing this release are wrong. Either they have too small a TV, or are sitting too far away, or their viewing habits aren't conducive to noticing big problems, etc.

We don't need to convince people that their impressions are wrong. Some people more easily notice DNR, and some people are very bothered by edge enhancement. Some aren't. And that's okay.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

There's a lot to be said for just tearing letters open. And make sure you don't have it as a carry-on item if you're flying.

ripping open the plastic film on DVDs.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Were you farther away than 2 screen widths from that Plasma? If so, then your impressions wouldn't reflect the detail-related issues being criticized in this release. Where issues like DNR really become problematic is when you're replicating a theatrical experience by using an approximage 1.5 screen-width-distance ratio for viewing (about 30 degree viewing angle). Most of the time the nasties from DNR aren't too visible when you move back byond 1.75 or 2 screen widths which is more common for those watching TVs rather than projection systems (though any viewing angle can be achieved with any set just by moving forward to get the wide-angle).

I'm also curious why you'd consider the impressions/opinions of non-HT viewers to indicate a problem or lack of a problem? If I invited my friends over to watch LOTR and put on the DVDs instead of the blu-rays, chances are they'd all tell me how great the movies looked and not even be aware that I hadn't put on a 1080p source, yet the lack of image detail in comparison to native HD would be obvious to me and my other HT buddies.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Viewing angle is absolutely a ciritical bench-mark in interpreting any viewer's impressions. It's not "challenging", it's *clarifying*. Someone sitting 3 screen widths away from an HD image won't see DNR or EE or a host of other problems that someone watching from 1.5 screen widths will. Since the poster said he was watching on a 48" Plamsa, clarifying viewing distance is essential so folks will know how to interpret those impressions.

The comment asking about non-HT viewers should be obvious. Honestly, I wouldn't expect *any* non-HT viewer to find fault with these discs even at 1.5 screen widths. Only someone bothered by DNR would find fault, and most general viewers don't notice or care... just like they often don't notice or care about most of the things enthusiasts care about.

Even with transfers that are horrendous like Gladiator, the problems usually have to be pointed out to the average viewer before he/she realizes what they are. That's not a bad thing, it just means that the problems we're talking about on these discs, by their nature, won't bother the average viewer.

I could not agree more

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I could not agree more

You're kidding!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

You're kidding!

Hard to believe, huh?

Seriously though, David hit the nail on the head IMO.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I understand that and appreciate your reasoned answer.

My problem in this thread is that some people insist on telling others that their personal opinions after viewing this release are wrong. Either they have too small a TV, or are sitting too far away, or their viewing habits aren't conducive to noticing big problems, etc.

We don't need to convince people that their impressions are wrong. Some people more easily notice DNR, and some people are very bothered by edge enhancement. Some aren't. And that's okay.

Agreed.

My issue is trying to bring clarity so we can have a meaningful discussion. When 20 people all share their random "opinoin" of the picture quality, those opinions have no context on their own and cannot be related to each other. Only when the context of viewing angle (among other things) is factored into the discussion to the various "opinions" become meaningful and able to be interpreted and understood.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

My issue is trying to bring clarity so we can have a meaningful discussion. When 20 people all share their random "opinoin" of the picture quality, those opinions have no context on their own and cannot be related to each other. Only when the context of viewing angle (among other things) is factored into the discussion to the various "opinions" become meaningful and able to be interpreted and understood.

I disagree. We can simply have a discussion about whether people like it or not. If we're talking about comparisons for the sake of recommendations, then perhaps viewing sizes, angles, and amounts of popcorn come into it.

Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with whether you like it or not. We're not going to convince each other to change our opinions.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Agreed.

My issue is trying to bring clarity so we can have a meaningful discussion. When 20 people all share their random "opinoin" of the picture quality, those opinions have no context on their own and cannot be related to each other. Only when the context of viewing angle (among other things) is factored into the discussion to the various "opinions" become meaningful and able to be interpreted and understood.

I agree, and this would certainly make the "quality" of the discussion much better IMO. This is why people are required to list these variables in the AVS PQ thread..........it makes some opinions much easier to understand, and differences in opinions commonly make more sense once you factor in all these variables.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Since we're reading the books, did the story changes stick out to you a lot?

Oh yeah, but I try to look at the books and the movies as two different (but related) things. If I tried to judge them comparatively, the book would win out every time.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I agree, and this would certainly make the "quality" of the discussion much better IMO. This is why people are required to list these variables in the AVS PQ thread..........it makes some opinions much easier to understand.

From the looks of this thread, it simply makes some opinions much easier for others to criticize.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

From the looks of this thread, it simply makes some opinions much easier for others to criticize.

I dont perceive it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion. I see it as good discussion and a lot of learning can come from it, but only if you are open to it

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Oh yeah, but I try to look at the books and the movies as two different (but related) things. If I tried to judge them comparatively, the book would win out every time.

I agree, I just finished reading FOTR yesterday, and some of the scenes missing from the movie jumped out at me for sure. I assume the length of the movie and the "flow" is the reason some of these scenes were omitted. I would have loved to see Lithlorien as it was portrayed in the book.

[jonmoz]

Mr T, if you read my posts on this matter,i said that in part you were correct,as Alliance have releasesd a few Blu-ray's in Canada that had not yet been released in the U.s these discs had no extras and people should avoid them.

But you can't tar all the Alliance releases with the same brush,as releases like the lord of the rings are distributed by Alliance in Canada,as they are released at the same time.

Warner/New line make the transfer,then depending on the country it is being released in to who distributes it,in the u.k for instance we have both "New line" and "Entertainment in video" on the box,in Canada it's "Alliance".

By your reasoning Mr T,Canada is getting a worse deal than the U.s,check the Canadian listing on Blu-ray.com and you will see there is no "New line" release for Canada,as it's all the same master.I mean can you honestly see warner making an individual master for every other country apart from the U.s,it would cost them a fortune.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I agree, I just finished reading FOTR yesterday, and some of the scenes missing from the movie jumped out at me for sure. I assume the length of the movie and the "flow" is the reason some of these scenes were omitted. I would have loved to see Lithlorien as it was portrayed in the book.

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I dont perceive it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion. I see it as good discussion and a lot of learning can come from it, but only if you are open to it

I would LOVE that to be the case. I think the naysayers have already made up their minds, though, based upon "professional reviewers" and screencaps. Frankly, I think those are the people stalling any advancing of the discussion.

I'm open to deciding for myself, which I'll do tomorrow. If it looks awful to me I have no problem coming in here and saying so.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

I remember seeing FOTR in theaters and being so bummed that wasn't in the movie.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I would LOVE that to be the case. I think the naysayers have already made up their minds, though, based upon "professional reviewers" and screencaps. Frankly, I think those are the people stalling any advancing of the discussion.

That is unfair O V N, come on


SOME people on both sides of the debate have already made up their minds, dont fool yourself. The ones that are stalling the advancing of the discussion are the defensive ones such as yourself who are not open to things such as listing the variables in your viewing situation and trying to learn more about these issues and why they are such a negative for MANY of us. That is what is stalling the discussion IMO........

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I remember seeing FOTR in theaters and being so bummed that wasn't in the movie.

I hear you I think they could have incorporated this into the film, and even though it might have been a challenge, it would have been worth it. This is such a great part in the book.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

We watched the first film last night, on our 48 inch Plasma and PS3. I specifically went into the screening without mentioning any of the alleged problems to the three other people watching the film with us (my missus, brother and his girlf), in an attempt to gauge the reaction of someone unfamiliar with the idea that this was a faulty release in some way.

Not one person mentioned anything. Not one person picked up any issues whatsoever with the image quality. Not one. In any instance. In fact, my brother actually raved about the general quality, and joked about how he would be going out and buying it this afternoon.

So yes, after conducting this highly scientific experiment I can confirm that normal people love this release.

Complete fail! You were supposed to follow avs "scientist/engineer" guidelines. For reminder, here are the first two guidelines:

First: make sure you sit very close (you will know when you are close enough as you will have to take turns watching as to not obscure the view of othe viewers)

Second: Do not watch at normal speed, make sure you pause it then advance 1 frame at a time, spending at least 2-3 minutes per frame or longer if needed to find inpurities in the picture.