The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison - Page 25 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 11:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Yeah, but now imagine this:

You are waiting for years for this new 5 star restaurant to open. You love the menu and the chef is considered to be one of the best. The opening date of the restaurent is pushed back and back. And when it *finally* opens, you go in with (obviously) high expectations. And all you get is an ok reheated meal.

Getting a reheated meal from a low budget average restaurent (movie) around the corner may sometimes be acceptable. But if we're talking about a top of the line big budget major blockbaster 5 star restaurant (movie), a reheated meal just doesn't cut it. Especially if the waitress thinks she should temper with the meal (apply DNR) to hide the fact that it's reheated.

I paid $60 for LOTR. The meal you describe would likely be $200... $300 with wine.
erkq is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Are there any examples of finest quality scenes for the last movie in the trilogy?

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #723 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 106
After watching FOTR on Blu-Ray, I have to say that I found the PQ to be rather inconsistent. There are definitely hints of DNR, but let me be clear, FOTR is not in the same league as "Gladiator" or "Patton" in terms of DNR usage, and no matter what, it is a huge upgrade over the DVD, especially when you also factor in the audio upgrade.

That said, I am still disappointed. I expected better considering the magnitude of this release. I can understand why some folks are a little upset, but this trilogy is not even close to being a train wreck. I just popped in a few minutes of both the Two Towers and ROTK, and they look pretty dang good to me (I am viewing 11.5ft away on a 100" screen via a calibrated 1080p projector). On my 42" plasma, the DNR would be less noticeable. As for the talk about the HDTV broadcast being superior, please let me know when Comcast is broadcasting it, because all the HDTV broadcasts I have seen, looked closer to upconverted DVD than they did Blu-Ray. And don't get me started on AQ....

I personally would recommend that if you are a fan of these movies that you should feel comfortable buying the trilogy on Blu-Ray (assuming you want the theatrical cuts). I am going to will myself on waiting for the extended edition, but if the trilogy pops up on a really good deal, I will probably bite.
ack_bk is offline  
post #724 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

However, if your anticipation of a 5 star meal built up your expectations so that when you get your reheated meal you throw it away in disgust, are you really judging the reheated meal fairly? Maybe the reheated meal is far better than "ok" (as you put it) and is actually quite tasty and delicious. Perhaps it tastes worse to you because you imagined it would be the greatest meal you ever had. Instead of judging it fairly, perhaps you're perspective is colored by your own hopes of what it could taste like.

I might even have accepted a reheated meal, if it wasn't for that stupid waitress who buried some parts of the meal under layers of salt, overpowering some of the original taste. You know, whenever you can get the very same meal from a supermarket (HDTV broadcast), heat it up yourself, and some parts of it taste better than what you would get in the restaurant, something is very wrong. Wouldn't you agree? The meal can still taste ok in the restaurant. And of course the ambiente, service, drinks, etc are better in the restaurent. But at the end of the day, I feel that the restaurant should have done a *much* better job. It would have been easy. If only the waitress would have been kept in check. Then at least no part of the restaurant experience would have been worse than the supermarket experience...
madshi is online now  
post #725 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Member
 
richiek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

^^^LOL somehow you guys remind of The Two Towers

Sam: Po-tay-toes! boil'em, mash'em, stick 'em in a stew... Lovely big golden chips with a nice piece of fried fish. Even you couldn't say no to that!
Gollum: Oh yes we could. Spoilin' nice fish. Give it to us raw and wriggling; you keep nasty chips.
Sam: You're hopeless.


So Sam likes pub food, while Gollum prefers sushi?
richiek is offline  
post #726 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mntneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 2,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

After watching FOTR on Blu-Ray, I have to say that I found the PQ to be rather inconsistent. There are definitely hints of DNR, but let me be clear, FOTR is not in the same league as "Gladiator" or "Patton" in terms of DNR usage, and no matter what, it is a huge upgrade over the DVD, especially when you also factor in the audio upgrade.

That said, I am still disappointed. I expected better considering the magnitude of this release. I can understand why some folks are a little upset, but this trilogy is not even close to being a train wreck. I just popped in a few minutes of both the Two Towers and ROTK, and they look pretty dang good to me (I am viewing 11.5ft away on a 100" screen via a calibrated 1080p projector). On my 42" plasma, the DNR would be less noticeable. As for the talk about the HDTV broadcast being superior, please let me know when Comcast is broadcasting it, because all the HDTV broadcasts I have seen, looked closer to upconverted DVD than they did Blu-Ray. And don't get me started on AQ....

I personally would recommend that if you are a fan of these movies that you should feel comfortable buying the trilogy on Blu-Ray (assuming you want the theatrical cuts). I am going to will myself on waiting for the extended edition, but if the trilogy pops up on a really good deal, I will probably bite.


I watched it last night as well and thought it looked great. And like you, anytime lately I've seen it on Comcast it's looked NOTHING like the screen captures posted here.

Bill Hunt, over at The Digital Bits had this to say about the Blu-ray editions, and may explain some of the problems people have had with FOTR. My apologies if this has already been posted and discussed:

"Well... judging by the reader reaction e-mailed to me overnight, it seems to be much as we predicted: A lot of people out there today are wondering what all the fuss was about with regard to early reviewer complaints about The Lord of the Rings Blu-rays. To the extent that a few people are still disappointed over the discs, it's that they don't also include the Extended Editions of the films. But even those folks seem to be pleased with the video and audio quality, which is seen as a significant improvement over the previous DVDs regardless of display size. Readers are noting, as I did, that Fellowship looks a little softer than the other two, but that all three are as good or better than they expected. I've since learned that Fellowship was about 70% Digital Intermediate (D.I.) in its post-production, while Two Towers and Return of the King were 100% D.I. in post. That means that in preparing the Blu-ray masters, while Warner could go to the original D.I. for Towers and King, they had to run a new print for Fellowship, and that alone could account for the discrepancy in image detail and crispness. In any case, most of you seem quite happy with these Blu-rays, and that's what counts. As I've said before, I'm certainly happy to have them available - something to tide me over until the Extended Editions are released in HD in a couple years. Theatrical Rings on Blu-ray is certainly better than NO Rings on Blu-ray. "
Mntneer is online now  
post #727 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 06:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I have to say I nearly canceled my pre-order based on the early reviews. These are my favorite movies, and I have been waiting for the BD release since the format came out.

There is no doubt there are issues with these. FOTR is indeed the worst. I even noticed some shakiness that resembled film running through a projector....but not film-like in a good way, if that makes sense. Looking at the screen capture comparisons, yeah you do see the differences but remember you are staring at them inches from your computer screen, not at the same size to distance ratio you will likely be viewing them. So while they do indicate the issues with the transfer and there are issues which are visible during normal viewing, the screen captures will be more revealing of the problems. I'm not down playing the importance if the captures....they serve a very important purpose in allowing us to see what was done right or wrong and voice our complaints in hopes of a better future release.

However, when comparing the DVD to this release, there is no comparison. Even at its worst, it bests the DVD by no small measure. I have not been able to watch LOTR on my FP setup because it just looks bad. This was very enjoyable, flaws and all. So for me, there is no doubt it is a must have.

Am I annoyed that they are double dipping for the EE, which i prefer?....definitely, but I fully expected that and made my buying choice knowing that we likely won't see that version for over a year....closer to two when the Hobbit comes out. Could these look better? Definitely! And they should. Hopefully the EE's will. Such an Epic series DESERVES better. My only fear is that if sales are not what Warner expects they may take that as a sign that that there is a lack of interest in these and not do a really great EE release....or any at all. That may not be well founded though.

If you are a fan of these movies, and you have a large screen, you'll enjoy these unless you are not able to stop yourself constantly analyzing the image for flaws. If you find yourself doing that...throw in your DVD copy and watch that for a few minutes...then put the BD in On my 100" screen @10ft and my 61" @11 ft, there is no doubt these look WAY better than the DVD versions.

That's my .02
curlyjive is online now  
post #728 of 882 Old 04-13-2010, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

However, if your anticipation of a 5 star meal built up your expectations so that when you get your reheated meal you throw it away in disgust, are you really judging the reheated meal fairly? Maybe the reheated meal is far better than "ok" (as you put it) and is actually quite tasty and delicious. Perhaps it tastes worse to you because you imagined it would be the greatest meal you ever had. Instead of judging it fairly, perhaps you're perspective is colored by your own hopes of what it could taste like.

By nature, a pq score always depends partly on the potential of the picture quality, and this potential can be however high or low the reviewer thinks it can be based on his knowledge of film. The Sixth Man might not be apples to apples neck-and-neck with the most pristine, grain-free images produced by modern cameras, but if someone rated the Sixth Man Blu-ray a 5/5 it wouldn't be protested much.

Until someone shares uncompressed full-sized PNG's of the actual LOTR film to prove how good the source looks, who's to say someone's expectations are unfairly hurting the score?
cakefoo is offline  
post #729 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 03:28 AM
Member
 
BrianSallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Erie PA
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I myself did find these films enjoyable to watch. Is the picture quality perefect? No. Is it like Gladiator, Star Trek 6(the worst of that bunch) or Patton? No. FOTR has DNR but it is select scenes and not the whole movie like the previous films I listed. It should not have any DNR with that I agree but this is the best I have seen these films since the theatrical release. I unlike some do not have the ability to watch the HD broadcasts so this is the best I have ever seen them. If you love these films I have no problem giving them a recommendation.

I do wish DNR never came about in this industry as now it seems people are not able to enjoy movies anymore they are to busy staring at their screens looking for flaws and they are missing the magic that films give us and that is to get lost in the story.

Later Everyone
BrianSallot is offline  
post #730 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 05:15 AM
Senior Member
 
kingkong650's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Having just received the lotr blu-rays today, I checked out the first 50 minutes of fellowship of the ring on my sharp lcd monitor (the same one I use to compare screencaps) and I was not impressed at all. I usually love watching films in HD on this screen because the extra sharpness, clarity and depth draw you in. A lovely layer of fine grain really helps in that regard as well, at least for me.

In this case, it just looks dull and soft. Boosting contrast and saturation might fool the average joe and make it seem 'sharper' (the extra contrast naturally accentuates the little remaining detail that's left) but its quite obvious to see that a lot of the details has been scrubbed from the film, especially in all the scenes in Bag End. It's like watching a film through slightly misted glasses.

Daylight shots seem to fair better and are fairly decent, though nowhere near what I would define as true HD (examples like The Descent AUS version and Pan's Labyrinth UK version come to mind). The scene is Orthanc in absolutely atrocious, watching it was painful, there was dnr everywhere. Fellowship of the Ring is my favourite of the three films by far, a true masterpiece, and as far as I was concerned deserved the best treatment of the three, not the worst.

I have recently got my hands on an actual mpeg-2 broadcast stream of Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition and I can tell you that from what i've seen so far, it wipes the floor with the blu-ray.

Of course, the majority of people have only seen the dvds so the blu-rays will seem like a massive improvement. That is sadly how most people are judging these releases... (better than dvd = good)
kingkong650 is offline  
post #731 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 05:22 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 18,448
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 817 Post(s)
Liked: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkong650 View Post

It's like watching a film through slightly misted glasses.

I have to disagree there.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is online now  
post #732 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 05:39 AM
Senior Member
 
kingkong650's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I have to disagree there.

Fair enough. Compared to the mpeg-2 broadcast, thats exactly what it seems like to me. At least, that's the only way I can think of describing it. The blu-ray of fotr has that slightly unfocused look that is really frustrating because its just on the verge of being sharp (like when you're focusing the lens manually on an slr camera and you just need to turn the focus just a pinch more to get the image in the viewfinder nice and sharp) so it almost seems like it 'is' sharp and theres something wrong with your eyes or your equipment rather than the blu-ray.

Funnily enough, i found that during certain scenes, like when Gandalf is explaining about Sauron and the Ring to Frodo in Bag End, I tried going through the frames one at a time as an experiment and they're mostly waxy and DNRed until the final frame before a cut to another shot, which would be fairly sharp and detailed with no visible DNR, like what I would expect HD to look like and what I had hoped this film would look like the whole way through. Anybody else noticed this?

Edit: Interesting, it also seems to occur during the first frame of the next shot as well, then you do a step forward to see the second frame of the new shot and its all blurred and DNRed again. In case anybody is interested in checking it out, the scene i'm talking about is at 00:30:03 until Gandalf leaves Bag End with Frodo and Sam. The increase in sharpness and detail is particularly noticable in the closeups of Frodo and Gandalf's faces, like when Frodo discovers the markings on the ring that only fire can reveal.

I wish I had a blu-ray drive so I could post screencaps and show you what I mean. Perhaps that is what it could have looked like the whole way through without the thick layer of DNR...
kingkong650 is offline  
post #733 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 06:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 18,425
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Again, members do not have to agree with other sites and their reviews....you are more than welcome to debate their reviews etc.....

BUT, do not attack, name call, trash, accuse etc etc etc other sites, their owners, reviewers and members. It's a classless act and AVS should be above the fray. Plus, it's against forum rules and has been for a number of years. If you do, you'll be banned from partcipating in this thread.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is online now  
post #734 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robertc88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I can understand some folks wanting this set since back when and jumping on it. I sent my discs back to Netflix so someone will get an opportunity shorthly in my area.

The quality SHOULD be better (not could have), the price isn't the greatest for a purchase (I'm sure some are holding out though) and the version perhaps isn't the preferred.

Congrats to the studio, they did it again with plenty of sales regardless!
robertc88 is offline  
post #735 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 07:53 AM
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
I'm very pleased. The last two films look excellent, and FOTR looks very good ~90% of the time. The other ~10% looks worse, but I'd say this is inherent to the source. I don't see any DNR that's been added to this release. Looks as good and even better sometimes than the theatrical release, imo.

Over 9 hours of movies and only a fraction of that is questionable? The criticisms are way overblown, I'm so happy I ignored them.
fiddlesticks is offline  
post #736 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
ktoolsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The Two Towers and ROTK were reference quality to my eyes, for non-animated source material. Certain scenes in both movies had a real 3-Dimensionality to them. The FOTR does not ever reach those heights and that is reason enough for some disappointment, but even so it is a decent release overall.

I can understand not buying these if you want the EE. But to hold off because the PQ is not good enough? PAH!

My PQ ratings:

FOTR 3.5/5
TT 4.5/5
ROTK 5/5.
ktoolsie is offline  
post #737 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkong650 View Post

Fair enough. Compared to the mpeg-2 broadcast, thats exactly what it seems like to me. At least, that's the only way I can think of describing it. The blu-ray of fotr has that slightly unfocused look that is really frustrating because its just on the verge of being sharp (like when you're focusing the lens manually on an slr camera and you just need to turn the focus just a pinch more to get the image in the viewfinder nice and sharp) so it almost seems like it 'is' sharp and theres something wrong with your eyes or your equipment rather than the blu-ray.

Funnily enough, i found that during certain scenes, like when Gandalf is explaining about Sauron and the Ring to Frodo in Bag End, I tried going through the frames one at a time as an experiment and they're mostly waxy and DNRed until the final frame before a cut to another shot, which would be fairly sharp and detailed with no visible DNR, like what I would expect HD to look like and what I had hoped this film would look like the whole way through. Anybody else noticed this?

Edit: Interesting, it also seems to occur during the first frame of the next shot as well, then you do a step forward to see the second frame of the new shot and its all blurred and DNRed again. In case anybody is interested in checking it out, the scene i'm talking about is at 00:30:03 until Gandalf leaves Bag End with Frodo and Sam. The increase in sharpness and detail is particularly noticable in the closeups of Frodo and Gandalf's faces, like when Frodo discovers the markings on the ring that only fire can reveal.

I wish I had a blu-ray drive so I could post screencaps and show you what I mean. Perhaps that is what it could have looked like the whole way through without the thick layer of DNR...

I am not convinced that this softness you are referring to is DNR. Especially after reading that quote by Bill Hunt several posts above yours:

Quote:


Readers are noting, as I did, that Fellowship looks a little softer than the other two, but that all three are as good or better than they expected. I've since learned that Fellowship was about 70% Digital Intermediate (D.I.) in its post-production, while Two Towers and Return of the King were 100% D.I. in post. That means that in preparing the Blu-ray masters, while Warner could go to the original D.I. for Towers and King, they had to run a new print for Fellowship, and that alone could account for the discrepancy in image detail and crispness.

ack_bk is offline  
post #738 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

I am not convinced that this softness you are referring to is DNR. Especially after reading that quote by Bill Hunt several posts above yours:

If that is the case, the same softness would be seen in the HDTV cap.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #739 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkong650 View Post

That is sadly how most people are judging these releases... (better than dvd = good)

I know what you are saying. But I am judging these releases by: "Watchable on my system? Yes!" That is, these releases come up to the bar of enjoyment. The DVD did not. I do hope for better EE's though.
erkq is offline  
post #740 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If that is the case, the same softness would be seen in the HDTV cap.

Stop being so logical. How are people supposed to argue with you if you take all (sane) arguments out of their hands?

Seriously, I wonder if all the people posting in this thread have really checked the screenshots in the first post. Doesn't seem like that to me. I mean it is perfectly legit to discuss (and disagree) about how much harm DNR has done and whether it's really so bad. I have no problem at all with people saying that it doesn't bother them. And I fully agree that the Blu-Rays are significantly better than the DVDs. I do not understand, however, how some people can be ignorant about the obvious existence of DNR. Either they must think that the screenshots in the first post are fake, or they don't have the capability to recognize DNR when it stares them in the face. But even in the latter case there has been enough guide in this thread to pinpoint what DNR looks like and which negative side effects it has...
madshi is online now  
post #741 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:50 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 MovieSwede View Post

If that is the case, the same softness would be seen in the HDTV cap.

It is.

Folks who have watched the actual HDTV image in moton side-by-side with teh blu-ray report softness in those same scenes in the HDTV image as well. Just like in the 35mm theater prints.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
post #742 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 08:53 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 madshi View Post

Stop being so logical. How are people supposed to argue with you if you take all (sane) arguments out of their hands?

Seriously, I wonder if all the people posting in this thread have really checked the screenshots in the first post. Doesn't seem like that to me. I mean it is perfectly legit to discuss (and disagree) about how much harm DNR has done and whether it's really so bad. I have no problem at all with people saying that it doesn't bother them. And I fully agree that the Blu-Rays are significantly better than the DVDs. I do not understand, however, how some people can be ignorant about the obvious existence of DNR. Either they must think that the screenshots in the first post are fake, or they don't have the capability to recognize DNR when it stares them in the face. But even in the latter case there has been enough guide in this thread to pinpoint what DNR looks like and which negative side effects it has...

My logical take is that *most* of the image softness and "issues" people see are evidenced in the source iteself... even the HDTV image shows softness in the Shire and Rivendale scenes. In other words, there's DNR in the source.

I do agree that a *slight* additional bit of DNR has been applied to the master used for the blu-ray, however, it's not the source of the dramatic softness... those scenes are *already* soft, it just removes a very fine additional layer of detail that I agree SHOULD have been left alone, but nevertheless is minimal and all-things-considered, doesn't mean that the BDs aren't reasonably faithful to the source and, by most accounts, still preferred over the HDTV encode considering the full gammet of image criteria.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
post #743 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 09:08 AM
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
FOTR release prints: soft and grainy

Transfer shown on various HD channels over the years: soft with grain intact

Blu-ray Disc: soft but with less detail and smoothed over grain because of DNR filtering
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #744 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

My logical take is that *most* of the image softness and "issues" people see are evidenced in the source iteself...

How do you define "source"?

Evidently the small FOTR recap at the beginning of TTT is much less soft than FOTR itself. So it seems that not all hope is lost for a potential future remaster.

When people asked for a less soft House of Flying Daggers Blu-Ray, we were told that the film was shot that way and that that's just the way it is. It seems that with FOTR there's hope for a less soft remaster, cause (as said above) the FOTR recap in TTT is less soft. So the original FOTR film material doesn't seem to be the problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

even the HDTV image shows softness in the Shire and Rivendale scenes. In other words, there's DNR in the source.

Softness does not always have to be the result of DNR. E.g. if you scan a film at a low resolution, the result is also soft. Or if you scan a film, then print it, then scan the print, you also get a softer than necessary result. Or if you actually scan the copy of a copy of the original, things can get very soft very fast, without any DNR being used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

I do agree that a *slight* additional bit of DNR has been applied to the master used for the blu-ray

I seem to have a different definition of "slight" than you. In the affected scenes the grain seems to have gone completely, beards are getting mushy etc. DNR can't be much worse than that. The one big saving grace is that it only affects a few scenes and not the whole movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

however, it's not the source of the dramatic softness... those scenes are *already* soft, it just removes a very fine additional layer of detail that I agree SHOULD have been left alone

I'm not even sure if I would say "DNR -> soft". I prefer to say that DNR removes fine detail/texture/grain. The result doesn't have to be softer (as in "less sharp"). For me, personally, the DNRed look stinks. I want to see that additional layer of fine detail/texture, I *need* it, or else the movie doesn't really look like HD to me. I can live with soft edges, but I can't live with that smoothed over, waxy look. That fine detail/texture/grain makes all the difference in the world for my eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

all-things-considered, doesn't mean that the BDs aren't reasonably faithful to the source and, by most accounts, still preferred over the HDTV encode considering the full gammet of image criteria.

If I *had* to choose, I'm not sure which one I'd prefer. In some scenes the broadcast is better, in other scenes the Blu-Ray. I might actually prefer the Blu-Ray overall, thanks to the better audio. But this is exactly what I do NOT like to do. Why do I have to make compromises? Why do I have to even consider keeping a nearly decade old broadcast instead of the Blu-Rays? That's just not the way it should be.
madshi is online now  
post #745 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 09:34 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:


How do you define "source"?

"Source" IMO = the earliest-generation *complete* copy of the film representing the director-approved final copy that can be used for duplication.

Normally with modern films that means the DI/digital intermediate. With older films that may mean the photochemical interpositive or approved release-print.

In the case of Fellowship, the earliest-generation "copy" of the completed film was the photochemical print-master which was what was used as the source for the theatrical release and was the final "master" incorporating the intentions of all artistic parties: director/cinematographer etc.

Quote:


Evidently the small FOTR recap at the beginning of TTT is much less soft than FOTR itself. So it seems that not all hope is lost for a potential future remaster.

This has been covered again and again.

The original camera negatives are sharp, and these were re-scanned for the later two films with all post-production work being done with better software and utilizing a final DI master. That's why those same scenes look sharp in those films.

For Fellowship the post-production software was in its infancy, so all effects processing really took a toll on image clarity which is one reason why it looks so "flat" most of the time. But the "source" for the movie is the *master*... not the camera negatives, and the final master for the finished LOTR film already had the softness locked-in to these scenes because of the post-production.

In order to fix that, you'd have to literally re-create the film from the ground up... or at least roll back a stage or two (or more) prior to the existing source master.

Think of it like an music album... the "source" isn't the live session takes/recording... it's the *master* made by the audio engineer where everything is mixed and modified according to his artistic taste. Even if the source session recordings would sound "better" to your or me personally, it doesn't change the fact that the *art* being presented to the listener is the final mastered mix. If they wanted reverb, or they wanted to play with effects, or they wanted to lower the volume of one singer in comparison to the guitar, that's their choice. That's the final art.

Movies are the same way. the camera negative is not the "source" to use as the reference, it's the final master that incorporates the final vision of the director and cinematographer.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
post #746 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

It is.

Folks who have watched the actual HDTV image in moton side-by-side with teh blu-ray report softness in those same scenes in the HDTV image as well. Just like in the 35mm theater prints.

It very clear that the BD isnt the same quality as the HDTV version. That quality difference must come from somewere.

And if you watch the movie in motion, you see very well that a DNR filter is working on these scenes.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #747 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

The original camera negatives are sharp, and these were re-scanned for the later two films with all post-production work being done with better software and utilizing a final DI master. That's why those same scenes look sharp in those films.

Yeah, and they could do the same for whole FOTR. That's the whole point I was trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

In order to fix that, you'd have to literally re-create the film from the ground up... or at least roll back a stage or two (or more) prior to the existing source master.

"re-create the film from the ground up" is quite an exaggeration. Obviously they wouldn't have to redo any actual shooting with the actors. They'd "only" have to rescan the original camera negatives and rerender the effects. I'm not sure if they'd even have to manually start over with the effects. Maybe they could just rerender the old effect files with today's hardware/software.

If you look at how much work some movie studios have put into restoring old classics (Star Trek TOS, Wizard of Oz, Sleeping Beauty etc etc), I don't think FOTR would cost much more work than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Think of it like an music album... the "source" isn't the live session takes/recording... it's the *master* made by the audio engineer where everything is mixed and modified according to his artistic taste. Even if the source session recordings would sound "better" to your or me personally, it doesn't change the fact that the *art* being presented to the listener is the final mastered mix. If they wanted reverb, or they wanted to play with effects, or they wanted to lower the volume of one singer in comparison to the guitar, that's their choice. That's the final art.

And if at the time the mixing hardware only supported 8bit 12kHz mastering, that would also be their choice and final art? I think you're kidding yourself if you actually believe that the LOTR people *wanted* FOTR to look softer than TTT and ROTK.
madshi is online now  
post #748 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Stop being so logical. How are people supposed to argue with you if you take all (sane) arguments out of their hands?

Seriously, I wonder if all the people posting in this thread have really checked the screenshots in the first post. Doesn't seem like that to me. I mean it is perfectly legit to discuss (and disagree) about how much harm DNR has done and whether it's really so bad. I have no problem at all with people saying that it doesn't bother them. And I fully agree that the Blu-Rays are significantly better than the DVDs. I do not understand, however, how some people can be ignorant about the obvious existence of DNR. Either they must think that the screenshots in the first post are fake, or they don't have the capability to recognize DNR when it stares them in the face. But even in the latter case there has been enough guide in this thread to pinpoint what DNR looks like and which negative side effects it has...

I did better than just compare screenshots. I actually watched FOTR on Blu-Ray movie on my setup in my home (11.5ft away from a 100" screen using a calibrated 1080p projector). I am not an advocate of DNR at all. I refused to buy Gladiator after I watched it. I stand by my statement that I found FOTR inconsistent, but it is not nearly as bad as Gladiator, Patton, or some of the other heavy DNR'd transfers. I do believe it could have been better, but some of you guys are blowing things out of proportion. Have you actually watched the movie on Blu-Ray? Screenshots are a nice reference but it is not the equivalent to actually watching the movie in motion on your own equipment in your home. People that only go off screenshots are simply uninformed.

And I will say it again. The only HDTV presentation I have seen of this movie has been on TBS and it is a trainwreck. It is riddled with compression artifacts and is not even presented in OAR. I have Comcast, please tell me what channel I can watch this superior presentation of FOTR (what time and channel). I would love to see it...
ack_bk is offline  
post #749 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

I stand by my statement that I found FOTR inconsistent, but it is not nearly as bad as Gladiator, Patton, or some of the other heavy DNR'd transfers. I do believe it could have been better,

I think most people can agree with this description. But it doesnt take away the fact that they didnt give the films the proper treatment.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #750 of 882 Old 04-14-2010, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
colombianlove41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gotham, DE
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Call me crazy but I feel like TT looks better than FOTR but I agree that the treatment of this set shouldve been better....


After editing 2 times I think I'll just shut up. Because certain parts are looking like ****...

"How long were you in Mexico?"
" uh...a week, no, no, a day..."
"Well, which is it a week or a day?
"uh...a weekday?"
colombianlove41 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Blu-ray Software

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