The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
emgesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post

Exactly, FOTR has been soft in every transfer. 10-20 minutes out of 3-hour movie doesn't indicate a "botched job" to me, more likely there was a reason they used some DNR in those scenes.

I'm only viewing on a 19" LCD monitor now, so it may be different once I see them blown up to 51". But I still haven't see anything close to the travesty in caps like those from Star Trek III-IV, for example.

Regardless, no excuse to use such an old master for such a high grossing movie.

This could have looked much better if Warner wasn't so cheap.
emgesp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:08 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

Regardless, no excuse to use such an old master for such a high grossing movie.

This could have looked much better if Warner wasn't so cheap.

Exactly..........this is Lord of the Rings.....the biggest blu ray release in the history of the format If there was one release you would want to get right, it is this one. How that did not happen is just mind blowing all things considered IMO.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #273 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
 
emgesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Exactly..........this is Lord of the Rings.....the biggest blu ray release in the history of the format If there was one release you would want to get right, it is this one. How that did not happen is just mind blowing all things considered IMO.

I guess the 3 billion dollars these movies made wasn't enough reason to do a proper release. Warner really needed that extra billion to be satisfied.
emgesp is offline  
post #274 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

I guess the 3 billion dollars these movies made wasn't enough reason to do a proper release. Warner really needed that extra billion to be satisfied.

I hear you. The whole thing really is VERY surprising IMO all things considered.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #275 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:18 PM
Senior Member
 
emgesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don't be surprised to see a big "Newly Remastered" logo on the eventual EE Blu-ray release.
emgesp is offline  
post #276 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:20 PM
Senior Member
 
fiddlesticks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I'm not going to be some apologist for a studio here, especially when I haven't seen it in proper yet. Like I've said, just not seeing the travesty in caps that some are making it out to be.

Is it a noticable upgrade over DVD?
Is there visible grain?
Is there excessive EE or DNR throughout?
Does it look like film on my TV?

These are my general criteria, and I'll wait and see when I get it to judge that.

But what are people going to do? Wait until the Extended Editions come out in 2 years - what if they look the same? Wait another 3-5 years for another edition? Watch the DVDs until then, yeah right...I have Wizard of Oz, The Seventh Seal, Blade Runner -those are gorgeous. This LOTR set may not be the show-stopper those are, but it'll still fit nicely enough in my HD collection for now, I think.
fiddlesticks is offline  
post #277 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
 
BsRoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post

Is it a noticable upgrade over DVD?
Is there visible grain?
Is there excessive EE or DNR throughout?
Does it look like film on my TV?

Does it look like the original print without unnecessary digital tampering?

The fact that WB/New Line is requesting a website to remove screenshots is all the information you need.
BsRoz is offline  
post #278 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post

Well I'm not going to be some apologist for a studio here, especially when I haven't seen it in proper yet. Like I've said, just not seeing the travesty in caps that some are making it out to be.

Is it a noticable upgrade over DVD?
Is there visible grain?
Is there excessive EE or DNR throughout?
Does it look like film on my TV?

These are my general criteria, and I'll wait and see when I get it to judge that.

But what are people going to do? Wait until the Extended Editions come out in 2 years - what if they look the same? Wait another 3-5 years for another edition? Watch the DVDs until then, yeah right...I have Wizard of Oz, The Seventh Seal, Blade Runner -those are gorgeous. This LOTR set may not be the show-stopper those are, but it'll still fit nicely enough in my HD collection for now, I think.


Everyone has to decide for themselves, but IMO this type of effort should not be rewarded with a sale. I was never planning on buying the TEs since I am holding out for the EEs, but had I been planning to buy these, there is NO WAY I would stick with that plan knowing what we know now. I just cant support this type of effort with a sale for the biggest release in the history of blu ray

The other thing is its not like this set is cheap.......I would not mind paying for one of my favorite film trios of all time, but give me good reason to do so which is sadly not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BsRoz View Post

Does it look like the original print without unnecessary digital tampering?

The fact that WB/New Line is requesting a website to remove screenshots is all the information you need.

Exactly. This move by WB speaks VOLUMES

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #279 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Everyone has to decide for themselves, but IMO this type of effort should not be rewarded with a sale. I was never planning on buying the TEs since I am holding out for the EEs, but had I been planning to buy these, there is NO WAY I would stick with that plan knowing what we know now. I just cant support this type of effort with a sale for the biggest release in the history of blu ray

While I agree that this release shouldnt be rewarded with a sale. The problem for me is that I consider the theatrical editions superior over the extended editions. And I guessing the next time we get a release it is the extended editions. So if im going to wait for a correct version of LOTR TE, im gonna wait a looong time.

So im just going to purchase the first film, since its not Gladiator bad. But they will not get full pay as they would if I was going for the entire trilogy. I just hopping SF has gotten an untouched master, but it does not look that way.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #280 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by BsRoz View Post

Does it look like the original print without unnecessary digital tampering?

The fact that WB/New Line is requesting a website to remove screenshots is all the information you need.

The good thing is that they know that we know. And we know that they know.

Thats always a start.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #281 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Senior Member
 
emgesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The good thing is that they know that we know. And we know that they know.

Thats always a start.

"For reasons we can't further go into detail about, we ask that you delete all screenshots you have uploaded on your site and replace them with screenshots we have approved for you. We would really appreciate that, mmmkay?"

"Nothing to see here folks move along."

emgesp is offline  
post #282 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:09 PM
Senior Member
 
WebEffect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

Don't be surprised to see a big "Newly Remastered" logo on the eventual EE Blu-ray release.

Why? Because 10 cynical old men on an internet forum told them to?
WebEffect is offline  
post #283 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:25 PM
Senior Member
 
WebEffect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post

The difference between the DVD and Blu-ray is magnitudes. I really don't see how the picture has been trashed at all.

Even the difference over the HDTV version is there, which is only dealing with a compression and encoding issue. The Blu-ray hasn't lost any detail, it's only lost noise. The color reproduction is much better, and there's still more sharpness and detail - just look at the highlights on his hair and beard. I'm still encouraged this is going to look much better on my tv than the DVDs did.

It may not be perfect, but what better is there to judge against on this particular title? I have a small collection because I'm discerning...I've rented then refused to buy Patton, Dark City, or Gattaca because of sub-par to crap picture, I've bought and sold Twister because of horrible DNR, I lament some of the 35mm scenes of Dark Knight...to me personally, this looks pretty good. And Fellowship is the softest of the three, this was apparent the two times I saw it in the theater, even.

There's little use reasoning with people who have already made up their minds. The egos are not going to admit they were wrong.

I once held such respect for this community. But now a bunch of screenshots of an HDTV broadcast, overly sharp, overly contrasted, with horrendous colour, are put up on a pedestal, while the Peter Jackson-approved transfer is not? So long, AVS, it was nice knowing you.
WebEffect is offline  
post #284 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Exactly..........this is Lord of the Rings.....the biggest blu ray release in the history of the format If there was one release you would want to get right, it is this one. How that did not happen is just mind blowing all things considered IMO.

In your opinion right? It is a catalog title. The last one came out in 2003. I know they were really successful and popular movies, but I don't think a catalog title trumps a new release day and date title in terms of "biggest release".
bt12483 is offline  
post #285 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

There's little use reasoning with people who have already made up their minds. The egos are not going to admit they were wrong.

I once held such respect for this community. But now a bunch of screenshots of an HDTV broadcast, overly sharp, overly contrasted, with horrendous colour, are put up on a pedestal, while the Peter Jackson-approved transfer is not? So long, AVS, it was nice knowing you.

Good riddance. Glad you hold faith on a pedestal above science.
ChuckZ is offline  
post #286 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:50 PM
Senior Member
 
fiddlesticks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

But now a bunch of screenshots of an HDTV broadcast, overly sharp, overly contrasted, with horrendous colour, are put up on a pedestal, while the Peter Jackson-approved transfer is not?

That's what I see, too. And I just got new glasses, even.

But we're wrong. Who cares, like I'm going to watch the movies with anyone here LOL
fiddlesticks is offline  
post #287 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 06:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Verge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: arkansas
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by eday_2010 View Post

I never understood why movies on DVD in widescreen format fill a 16x9 screen, but the same movie on Blu-ray does not. They could give viewers the option of having the open matte version so the screen is filled. I know the films are "shot" in 2.31:1, but I have yet to see a movie screen that is that aspect ratio. By default is should fill the screen, with the option to apply the black bars to get the "original" aspect ratio for the purists.

I think the DVDs are in 2.35:1 like the bluray. This was an open matte version that aired on satellite. I guess the movie was shot in 16:9 and then blanked out for some reason. I wonder if the mics show up anywhere.
Verge2 is offline  
post #288 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
 
hamish b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the problem with people saying you need to see the blurays to really judge the quality of the transfers have access to renting the titles
here in ausralia these blurays wont go rental, (most stores here only rent out the new titles)
i have to rely on screenshots or reviews on sites like these to prevent me from being burned. i use a crt projector with a 10 ft wide screen so poor transfers are really noticable.
i bought last strafighter on bluray and its unwatchable because of the dnr. there is no detail at all. its just wax. same for pans labrynth.
hamish b is offline  
post #289 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 08:26 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bt12483 View Post

In your opinion right? It is a catalog title. The last one came out in 2003. I know they were really successful and popular movies, but I don't think a catalog title trumps a new release day and date title in terms of "biggest release".

This is arguably the biggest release on the format period. IMO of course These 3 films seem to me to be the most anticipated as far as a blu ray release since the format was born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post


I once held such respect for this community. But now a bunch of screenshots of an HDTV broadcast, overly sharp, overly contrasted, with horrendous colour, are put up on a pedestal, while the Peter Jackson-approved transfer is not? So long, AVS, it was nice knowing you.

Sounds good........see ya

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #290 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 08:32 PM
Newbie
 
299792458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

I once held such respect for this community. But now a bunch of screenshots of an HDTV broadcast, overly sharp, overly contrasted, with horrendous colour, are put up on a pedestal, while the Peter Jackson-approved transfer is not? So long, AVS, it was nice knowing you.

I think you've missed the reason why everyone is complaining. No-one thinks the HDTV broadcast looks great. It doesn't. What you say is correct; it does have bad contrast, color, is overly sharp, and looks quite bad overall. It was therefore reasonable to expect the blu-ray to look significantly better.

That an 8 year-old low bitrate MPEG-2 HDTV broadcast full of compression artifacts with poor color, contrast, detail and excessive sharpening looks better than a modern blu-ray released nearly a decade later is a travesty and is exactly the reason why everyone is so angry.
299792458 is offline  
post #291 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixfootse7en View Post

Blu-Ray.com was ordered by Warner to take down their screencaps, and told to use WB's pre-approved images instead.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/3082372-post5698.html



"The exhibit is closed!"
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #292 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 09:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Blasst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: So.California
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Kram,

That is funny!!

The Mod Squad: New vs. Classic TV Series Opening https://vimeo.com/63119329
Blasst is offline  
post #293 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Based on all these screenshots, it appears to me that the transfers are FAR from perfect. Anyone who says they ARE perfect is doing a great disservice to people who are considering buying this release.
Kilgore is online now  
post #294 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Based on all these screenshots, it appears to me that the transfers are FAR from garbage. Anyone who says they ARE garbage is doing a great disservice to people who are considering buying this release.
Kilgore is online now  
post #295 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 10:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

This is arguably the biggest release on the format period. IMO of course These 3 films seem to me to be the most anticipated as far as a blu ray release since the format was born.

A catalog title cannot be the biggest release. IMO of course.

Catalogs sell no where near new releases - even high profile catalogs. Why? Because people already have them or have seen them enough to not buy them.

This isn't on par with Dark Knight. Nor Transformers 2. Or any other recent blockbuster that isn't a catalog title.

People want Aliens, Star Wars and Back to the Future too. But when they come out, they will still merely be catalog titles.
bt12483 is offline  
post #296 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 10:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,427
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Everyone has to decide for themselves, but IMO this type of effort should not be rewarded with a sale. I was never planning on buying the TEs since I am holding out for the EEs, but had I been planning to buy these, there is NO WAY I would stick with that plan knowing what we know now. I just cant support this type of effort with a sale for the biggest release in the history of blu ray

The other thing is its not like this set is cheap.......I would not mind paying for one of my favorite film trios of all time, but give me good reason to do so which is sadly not the case.

I largely agree. If all three movies would have been stellar transfers and sold for about $40, I would have bought them. However, given the obvious, I will wait for the EEs and hope they are better transfers (which I think they will be).

DavidHir is offline  
post #297 of 882 Old 03-27-2010, 10:42 PM
Member
 
pohsib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Really torn here. I have the EEs on DVD and actually want the TEs also. I've purposely waited on the BR to watch these again for over a year.
While I'm very disappointed in what I'm reading so far, I'll probably just go ahead and buy the crap Warner is shoveling.

If I thought for a second that me not buying it would make a difference, I'd be the first to say keep it. But I know in reality it won't. I'd love to be wrong, but facts are facts. This is what's available, and all that will be for a while.
Inexcusable for these movies, but one of those instances where any upgrade is better than none I guess. Has to at least be better than my DVDs.

(flame me, I can take it. )
pohsib is offline  
post #298 of 882 Old 03-28-2010, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by 299792458 View Post

I think you've missed the reason why everyone is complaining. No-one thinks the HDTV broadcast looks great. It doesn't. What you say is correct; it does have bad contrast, color, is overly sharp, and looks quite bad overall. It was therefore reasonable to expect the blu-ray to look significantly better.

That an 8 year-old low bitrate MPEG-2 HDTV broadcast full of compression artifacts with poor color, contrast, detail and excessive sharpening looks better than a modern blu-ray released nearly a decade later is a travesty and is exactly the reason why everyone is so angry.

Exactly.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #299 of 882 Old 03-28-2010, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 58
I'm the only one who doesn't think they look all that bad?
RWetmore is offline  
post #300 of 882 Old 03-28-2010, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post

I'm the only one who doesn't think they look all that bad?

If the blu-ray Disc encodes show *any* detail loss compared to the HDTV encode, *any* loss at all, that's bad-enough.

This should NEVER be the case: that an outdated low bit-rate MPEG2 video encode show more actual picture detail than a modern VC1 high-bit-rate encode of the same title. And when the title in question is Lord Of The Rings?!?

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off