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

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Blu-Ray transfer vs original film. Two totally seperate things. There are a million examples of this such as Blade Runner, African Queen, Braveheart, I, Robot. They are all MUCH BETTER transfers and not only better but CONSISTENT transfers compared to the mess that FOTR is...

It's amazing how many people defend the FOTR disc but Ken Brown's review hits the nail on the head. He said casual viewers would be happy and that is great but anyone who appreciates a good Blu-Ray transfer will be dissappointed with the inconsistent transfer. It's not that complex.

Really, a million? Does your obvious flair for the dramatic go beyond exageration of the number of examples you have of older films looking better? Let's see, "mess that is FOTR". I would say yes it does. I guess I just don't "appreciate a good Blu-ray transfer" because I was far from dissappointed. Maybe I should sit a little closer to the screen. And hover my finger over the pause button of my remote in one hand and have a magnifying glass at the ready with the other. Also maybe I should start a journal of all the frames that dissapoint me in all my films on Blu-ray. No, I'll just continue to be "casual" viewer and enjoy myself.

[jonmoz]

dborghill,when you say Dnr is not inherent on filmstock is quite true,however these days the film that is shot on the day will look nothing like that when it hits the cinema,as postproduction will alter the colors and can give a certain feel to the film by using filters etc,also do not forget "Fellowship" was digitaly mastered and Dnr would have been applied at the time.

Dnr is like any other digital tool it can be used for good or bad,and it's just one of the many digital post production tools the producers and editors have,a lot of the Dnr we see on Blu-ray's was there even before the transfer.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Blu-Ray transfer vs original film. Two totally seperate things. There are a million examples of this such as Blade Runner, African Queen, Braveheart, I, Robot. They are all MUCH BETTER transfers and not only better but CONSISTENT transfers compared to the mess that FOTR is....

I'm not sure about I, Robot, but the transfers for the other films were done from film, whereas the LOTR films had DIs, and FOTR's DI was done before they really improved the process. There's a reason FOTR looks the worst, ROTK looks the best, and TTT is somewhere in the middle...the technology and their use of it improved with each film.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Like i said before earlier the EE's will be no different in PQ from the TE. They are probably already finished. Just think about it. Do you think the studio is going back to the lab and redo the whole transfer just because its the EE's now NO. They're just gonna do allot of COPY and PASTING. Video editing nothing more. I can bet they are already ready, just waiting on the TE to slow down in sells. Its about money. ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Actually the EE blu rays is gonna look better because the EE on DVD also look better then the TE DVD's. So the same way goes for the blu ray transfers

[radagast]

Originally Posted by deeman54

I don't know how long you've been purchasing blu rays but it very common when i movie comes out, that the first week is slightly cheaper than its retail value. After the sale week the movie goes to is original price.
Lord of the Rings was 59.99 everywhere when it came out, now its 65 on amazon. 84 at best buy, and 70 at walmart. All of these stores started off at 59.99.

I have been purchasing them since they came out. It's also not uncommon for stores to have Blu-rays for $10 that once cost a lot more.

[dborgill]

Like I said, if you are happy with the FOTR transfer, more power to you. I can't take that away from you.

But me, along with Ken Brown, HighDefDigest, IGN, and countless other reviewers, stick to the opinion that FOTR is a bad transfer. So yes, my "obvious flair for the dramatic" also exists on the review from the very site you post on:

"Alright, bad news first. The Fellowship of the Ring hobbles out of the Black Gate of Mordor with a pudgy 1080p/VC-1 transfer that will please casual viewers but leave the most ardent videophiles shaking their heads. The image is inconsistent from the outset, a persistent (albeit slight) instability affects the credits and other early elements in the film, colors are a tad overcooked at times, and fine detail is occasionally undermined by some rather obvious digital noise reduction. That's not to say all is lost -- entire sequences, primarily those in the Mines of Moria and the landing (and subsequent battle) at Parth Galen, still manage to make a reasonably strong impact, and the whole of the presentation handily bests its DVD counterparts -- but faces are sometimes scrubbed, Ngila Dickson's elaborate costumes don't always pop, and nighttime shots can be particularly murky (poor Bilbo's birthday party and chat with Gandalf are nearly spoiled). Yes, Fellowship has always been a softer film than its sequels, but many key sequences are also afflicted with waxy textures (more so than Jackson intended). Gandalf's visit to the Shire is a rough one, the Council of Elrond is overshadowed by medicore definition and dulled facial features, and Weathertop offers a stormier encounter than it should. Granted, Jackson employs a variety of shooting and post-production techniques throughout Fellowship that are meant to lend scenes a soft, somewhat hazy temperament, but it's easy to spot where Jackson's intentions end and the studio's extra helping of noise reduction begins (especially on larger screens). It doesn't help that the film's faint veneer of grain is occasionally little more than a soupy mess (look to the skies when the fellowship journeys into the snowy mountains), a smidgen of edge enhancement has been applied throughout, and crush, flickering, and wavering are regular (but minor) offenders. Has the studio simply taken an old master, tweaked it for high definition, and tossed it to the wargs, warts and all? Perhaps. Regardless, I imagine those who aren't sensitive to DNR will be satisfied with the results, while those who can't help but obsess over its side effects will be underwhelmed."

[mredman]

Originally Posted by dborgill

This is hilarious. A crappy Blu-Ray transfer on FOTR has nothing do with the original source. DNR isn't inherit on film stock. Inconistent colors are no inherit on film stock. Lack of detail is not inherit on film stock. I am not talking about the intentional "softness" filters for a fantasy type effect (Like Lady Galadriel's scenes).

When Gandalf arrives at the Shire, that was filmed with hardly any digital special effects. On Blu-Ray, it almost looks like an upscaled DVD. Are you telling me that the technology or process was lacking to make that scene look any better!? That is insane. Also, look at TTT vs FOTR. They were ONE year apart yet the Blu-Ray PQ is night and day.

In no scene FOTR looks like an upconverted DVD. This blu ray is the best the TE of FOTR has ever looked

I say you need to do something to your screen because it sounds like something is serious wrong with it

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dborgill

So... you are telling me there is NO possible way to make the "soft" scenes such as when Gandalf is in the shire, more detailed on Blu-Ray? I find this highly unlikely that Fellowship of the Ring is the only movie from just 9 years ago that looks like poor on Blu-Ray. Especially since there are scenes that look amazing (such as parts of the Mines of Moria and when Sauron gets the ring cut of his finger.)

Because if TTT was graded on 2002 era equipment... I really don't think any of this makes sense.

Then go argue with Penton-Man. He explained this more than once already. There were better processes that existed by the time ROTK came out that didn't with FOTR.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Like I said, if you are happy with the FOTR transfer, more power to you. I can't take that away from you.

But me, along with Ken Brown, HighDefDigest, IGN, and countless other reviewers, stick to the opinion that FOTR is a bad transfer. So yes, my "obvious flair for the dramatic" also exists on the review from the very site ."

Actually there is more good reviews on this set then bad. Just saying

[dborgill]

Originally Posted by mredman

Actually there is more good reviews on this set then bad. Just saying

Maybe you should be posting on those sites then

As I mentioned before, I am not here to convince you one way or another but please don't try to excuse the FOTR transfer and convince all those disappointed with it that they are somehow in the wrong and there is no possible way for the film to look better.

Also, about my display, there are parts of FOTR, as Ken and other reviewers have mentioned, that look FANTASTIC on Blu-Ray! The heavily digital part of Sauron getting his fingers cut off and the close up of the ring and Isildur look fantastic and high in detail. The inconsistency is horrendous throughout the rest of the transfer.. THAT is all I am saying.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Like I said, if you are happy with the FOTR transfer, more power to you. I can't take that away from you.

But me, along with Ken Brown, HighDefDigest, IGN, and countless other reviewers, stick to the opinion that FOTR is a bad transfer. So yes, my "obvious flair for the dramatic" also exists on the review from the very site you post on:

And I can quote reviewers too:

However, you will hear no complaints from me about any of the transfers. I leave the complaints to the die-hard videophiles who have nothing better to do than pick apart what they consider inadequacies, real or imagined. The fact is, there are scenes here of ravishing beauty. In fact, I can't imagine most any rational viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people do not feel like they are being shortchanged by this release. But by all means if you get enjoyment by picking apart these films, more power to you. Like you say, I can't take that away from you.

[Suntory_Times]

It is still possible to watch ths films on a 35mm projection and when I have somewhat recently (last year) there was no obvious use of DNR in the shire etc, so I can honestly say unless I have lost my mind (which is entirely possible ) the DNR is not inheret to the film itself, rather has been done in producing the blu rays.


Stop saying it couldn't be better, when it could have been. It is not bad, but it could and given the scale of its release should have been better.

(my comments are with regards to the first two lotr films on blu not the third as I have yet to watch the blu ray of the third film).

[BLURAYSONYES]

Just picked up the set at a local used dvd/book store for $25. Can anyone beat this low price???

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BLURAYSONYES

Just picked up the set at a local used dvd/book store for $25. Can anyone beat this low price???

I stole it for a total cost of $0.

[Show spoiler]Kidding, I payed alot for the German steelbooks.

[dborgill]

Right. If you are happy with a medicore FOTR transfer be you a review or average consumer, great. I am not a 'videophile with nothing better to do' yet just agree that the FOTR is mediocre as several reviewers have mentioned. And as I said in my initial quick review, my wife, who watches Blu-Rays with me all the time made the comment in the Shire portion "Is this even a Blu-Ray?"

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Right. If you are happy with a medicore FOTR transfer be you a review or average consumer, great. I am not a 'videophile with nothing better to do' yet just agree that the FOTR is mediocre as several reviewers have mentioned. And as I said in my initial quick review, my wife, who watches Blu-Rays with me all the time made the comment in the Shire portion "Is this even a Blu-Ray?"

Agreed. Whilst it is an upgrade, but not much of one at times. (On a big screen though it deffinatly is quite a jump [92" screen], but that's only as the dvd's where also mediocre).

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by radagast

I have been purchasing them since they came out. It's also not uncommon for stores to have Blu-rays for $10 that once cost a lot more.

Dude we aren't talking about transporter 1 and 2 nor Predator so what you said was kinda weak. You are talking about LORD OF THE RINGS!!! i very big title. Look at Iron Man, both Transformers they still all cost more than 15 bucks. Or The bourne trilogy still cost more than 60 bucks everywhere and its been out for a while.

Don't make up rubbish to prove yourself right, that last comment should of stayed in your head buddy.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I stole it for a total cost of $0.

[Show spoiler]Kidding, I payed alot for the German steelbooks.

LOL you are stupid, i thought you were serious for a second LOL HAHAHAHAHA

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by BLURAYSONYES

Just picked up the set at a local used dvd/book store for $25. Can anyone beat this low price???

Well, if it's used you can.

[oyboe]

Originally Posted by BLURAYSONYES

Just picked up the set at a local used dvd/book store for $25. Can anyone beat this low price???

Yep $23 on Amazon Mkt Place delivered.