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

[RSuarez]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I believe I am correct here, so someone feel free to correct me if I am not....but even Saruman's voice had the ability to cast a spell on the common man if they were not of strong will....in the books, when Saruman first talked to Theoden from the balcony of the Orthanc at Isengard, his voice bellowed out and it seemed to almost "entrance" Theoden with his words...but Theoden proved to be of too strong will and rebutted.

That is correct, that is why when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli think are in the forest and meet Gandalf the white, before they actually see him and they assume it is Saruman instead, Aragorn warns them to "not let him speak"

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by RSuarez

That is correct, that is why when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli think are in the forest and meet Gandalf the white, before they actually see him and they assume it is Saruman instead, Aragorn warns them to "not let him speak"

Thanks....I have been reading the trilogy before I watch the blu's.....I just read that chapter but a few days ago....

[drichter33]

Ok, I popped in FOTR last night and made it to the council or elrond
here is my basic impression:
(i apologize to all the effort in the other posts but I cant read through all that over-technical stuff)

IMAGE:
It is UNIMPRESSIVE and INCONSISTENT. Definitely disappointing.
One moment there is a very bland color palette, then some fuzz (grain) in the picture, then very blurry backgrounds (like Bilbos birthday speech), some with flickering in the image. I mean there were a couple of moments where the image was in my mind worse then the original DVD,

then all of a sudden, really smooth film like great images:
isengard and all the sauruman scenes with gandalf and creating the Urukai- the palantir when sauron tells him to build the army looked so rich.
Gollums cave scene in the prologue
Weathertop

Maybe it's all dark stuff that looks good.

Anyway, I am annoyed at this release, even if the other 2 movies are great in PQ.

Is there a petition up about it, or have people been hitting WB's site with complaints to drive a replacement disc

SOUND:
I had to keep it fairly reasonable since it was 9pm and my 2yr old had gone to bed, but I did think it was better in some regards. But, I never complained about the original sound on the EE or theatrical DVD's. Definitely not enough to outweigh the image issues.

Question: I am asusming it only has one audio format cause my menu had the choice of English or another language and didnt specically mention the DTS master audio track or give other choices.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I'm still unsure as to what the naysayers are complaining about. If studio "balldropping" was involved during the transfer, then why does TTT and ROTK look so good.

When these movies were made, TTT and ROTK were already in better shape because of the DI. What they are saying is that Warner didn't bring FOTR up to that level before releasing LoTR.

And apparently, some also feel that even TTT and ROTK could have been 5/5 in PQ if some work had been done on them.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by mredman

How should we even know that FOTR can look better it was always the soft one even on the DVD's and i am NOT talking about the EE DVD. And it was the cheap one they didn't do so much on in post production because they didn't know how huge these was gonna be

I say the naysayers are fishing. And FOTR is definitely not the worst blu ray out there it is far from it. And the other are right up there with 4/5 PQ blu rays. So what the hell is there to complain about

read this:
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/moviereviews/040510lotrbd/

FOTR could have looked better if they had gone back to the originals and put them through the same level of DI that TTT and ROTK enjoyed. The problem is that it sounds like it would have taken a lot of time and money. And the movie industry is hurting now because of the recession, so they chose not to spend any more time and money on it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The EE will probably use close to the full 50GB.

They wouldn't try and squeeze 4h 10m into 40GB would they?

A dual-layer BR has 50GB, not 40. And according to the FAQ section on this site, that is enough for 9 hours of HD content.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Saruman was actually more dangerous than I remember him being -
He turned evil
He tried to kill Gandalf
He created huge armies of Uruk-Hai
He even possessed Theoden King and tried to rule Edoras.

How could you forget that? And why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

They certainly have the luxury of time! That one better be A-1, top notch. And they won't have to wonder if people care whether or not they do a good job!

I wish Warner would use something other than VC-1 for the really big titles.

[gtmorgan23]

So I work my part time shift at BB tomorrow and I dont think I will be able to not buy the trilogy with it being so close to me all day long. To top that off, the movie section is right by the IPAD. I sure bet the trilogy would look nice on the ipad using my digital copies. Damn you best buy.......... Making all the things that I love in one building

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Fellowship = 41.010 GBytes
Two Towers = 40.671 GBytes
Return of the King = 39.948 GBytes

Originally Posted by Diesel

Someone posted them but I don't remember what page.

They were all about 39GB-41GB...

Return of the King was actually the smallest file...



Edit: Grand Bob got me by a few seconds


Edit 2:

Here's more in depth:

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1883042-post13.html

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1883045-post14.html

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1883046-post15.html

Thanks guys. I wonder then if an extra 50 minutes would fit for the ROTK? But then again, I'd hope they will use a higher bitrate and a better picture would be worth having two discs.

[woodley56]

Originally Posted by radagast

I wish Warner would use something other than VC-1 for the really big titles.

Not sure what that's going to accomplish?

[DaViD Boulet]

it's fairly standard these days to re-master for HD release. ideally you go back to the original film...scan it at resolution you couldn't do 5 year ago, maximize quality right through the pipeline (which may not have been necessary for SD release)

That works well for films that actually were photo-chemically "mastered" on a reference interpositive or print. Yes... in that case you go get that and do a high-res scan and then get your digital master you can use for BD/DVD etc.

However, the issue becomes more complex for films that, even if their source live-action footage was 35mm, were edited and mastered digitally. For instance, the latter two LOTR films were edited entirely in the digital domain to fuse the CGI with the 2K scans of the live-action footage, then "mastered" if you will to a 2K digital intermediate. That's the final copy of the film... to go back to an earlier stage where you'd be re-scanning actual film would mean literally re-composing the entire film from scratch all over again.

The traditional notions of a new "telecine" or "transfer" really fall apart when we talk about films that are digitally edited and mastered to DI.

A few posters in-the-know have shared that Fellowship was a combination of techniques which is why it's so inconsistent: about 78% of the movie was mastered to a digital intermediate in the way described above, but then some scenes were entirely 35mm photochemical and so in order to assemble the final film a master print was made. But this photo-chemical "master copy" if you will locked in all of the limitations and inconsistencies of the production of the various scenes. So even a fresh scan of this film master would look just as inconsistent.

What we can hope is that one day the studio spends the millions of dollars it would take to re-compose the entire trilogy from the ground up all over again... rescanning the 35mm negative live-action at 4K and then working at 4K workstations to integrate newly-rendered CGI effects to produce 4K DI masters for all 3 films. That would look fantastic. It would also take years and millions of dollars to accomplish, and require the cooperation of the origianl artistic talent, just like you can't just hand over the session tracks of a Beetles album to a new guy to remix on his own to create a new digital master... you might end up with something that doesn't reflect the intentions of the craftsmen who carefully assembled the historic analog matertape... for all we know, the artifacts we think we perceive in the historic master could very well be there by intentional/artistic design.

-dave

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by Rob71

How could you forget that? And why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person?

[Fighter]

I love the audio....rattled some windows last night watching Fellowship

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I remember reading a few posts where someone said the BD didn't look much better than the DVD. I was thinking, "that person has some GOOD DVD's!

Considering that most people have a 42" or less TV, the difference between blu-ray and an upconverted DVD is not that much substancial.
Especially on newer DVD releases. On catalog releases, the slight increase in PQ can be seen.

Then factor in most people sit 8 feet or further away from the TV and use their TV speakers for audio, a $60 purchase for a catalog movie doesn't look appealing.
Don't forget that 720p Plasma are being pushed by stores still for those who want a big screen at a low price and most 32" or less TV's are 720p.

I watched FOTR on my 120" projector and 52" TV and on the 52", I can tolerate the PQ issues since I sit 7 feet away. On my projector, I sit 11 feet away and the PQ issues become distracting.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I agree that some on this forum seem determined not to like the picture on these releases.

And I am sure there are some who are determined to like it as well jonmoz.........it always goes both ways in a situation like this, so lets be fair That is why it is hard to take some of the good and bad comments seriously since you dont always know the motive. There seems to be both blind fanboy type love if you like the PQ, and bitter fanboy hate if you dont in some of the posts I have read around the net, but for the most part the opinions seem genuine IMO. People like Ken and David have such well thought out detailed opinions, I dont see how you can interpret them as anything but genuine no matter if you agree or not. Wish we had more opinions like this, and yours as well which was obviously genuine. The posts such as "this transfer is the bomb! anyone who thinks differently is smoking crack!" or "you would have to be blind not to see this as a completely horrible transfer" are completely useless IMO.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

The difference is day and night, Bath; even if this forum does have its share of trash-talking AVS-forum-types who can't resist the urge to boast up themselves and their gear, or act like tiny ogres with Napoleon-complexes.

There are individuals like that in EVERY forum, not just AVS, atleast from my experience. Personally, I have learned more at AVS than any forum by far and there are a number of VERY nice people over there that balance out the ones you are describing.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

Considering that most people have a 42" or less TV, the difference between blu-ray and an upconverted DVD is not that much substancial.

No way....with the 240hz motionflow on i can get the blus to almost have a smooth videotape look to them.
I could never get that look with a dvd as they just keep a flat film look to them.

[Chordata]

Few LOTR-related questions that I don't know or recall the answers to:

1) Why are the elves going to wherever they are going?

2) Where are they going?

3) Why don't they stay to fight?

4) Did they ALL die at Helm's Deep?

[SoCalTiger]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

No way....with the 240hz motionflow on i can get the blus to almost have a smooth videotape look to them.
I could never get that look with a dvd as they just keep a flat film look to them.

I hope this is sarcasm because I don't consider throwing on motionflow an improvement to anything except a soap opera.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

In the book no Elves fought at Helm's Deep, that's a Jackson invention for the movie, so there's really no way to know if that small group all died there.