The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 12:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by singhcr View Post

Warner's laziness goes to no end.

I simply do not understand their thinking process.

Whenever they have a movie that uses a DI (TTT, ROTK, Star Trek Nemesis) they do not seem to apply any DNR, and the result is very, very good.

When there is no DI and a telecine job must be done, it is all over the place. Heat, Blade Runner, LA Confidential, and most of the Harry Potter films look quite good- with lots of detail and a nice film-like appearance.

The rest of the Star Trek films aside from Kahn have obvious DNR, even the newer TNG films. Why? There is obviously a good master behind all of the wax.

Why is this so inconsistent? Either you go for the "HD pop" DNR waxy look or let the films look as they should- film!

FOTR is obviously processed, clearly from an old master. One of the most profitable trilogies of all time gets a lazy, DNR'd, old HDTV broadcast?

Warner clearly cares about older titles like Wizard of Oz, North By Northwest, Gone With The Wind, etc.... but why keep ruining other films? Aren't they all important? They slap an old HD DVD master of Batman Begins onto a BD-50, and use the DMR'd 35mm portions of TDK for the BD, when Paramount bothered to use the 35mm portions of Transformers for the BD instead of using the IMAX print for the entire movie.

I really hope the EE's have a new telecine for FOTR. I haven't seen a lot of TTT or ROTK shots but I hope those look good too. The thing is- for those who want the TE's, they shouldn't have to put up with crap like this.

Ummm, the Star Trek films are produced by that other lazy studio, Paramount.

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 01:15 AM
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: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All I know is that if Sony had the catalog rights to this movie, it would look far better. They go the extra mile for MANY old films.
ChuckZ is offline  
post #183 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 02:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pincho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't see why LOTR is suddenly an old movie.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #184 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 04:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

The HDTV version is the unfaithful one. I don't know what they did to it. All I know is that the HDTV version doesn't reflect the many times I've seen FOTR in the theatres, and that's not a good thing. It's clear that they did something to make it look more like other HDTV broadcasts and less like the theatrical presentations.

The HDTV version is certainly not a lossless presentation so Im sure we can find many artifacts etc that isnt on the orginal element of the film. But the artifacts also show us that there were either grain or noise in the source. But on the BD the grain/noise has vanished. But because it comes from the same master, they must have removed it in a digital way. This produces new artifacts on the BD and take it further away from the orginal element.

So the BD can and should look much better.

Imagine if the same team that worked on Wizard of Oz and How the west was won had done this master instead.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #185 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 06:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fpconvert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: w. mass
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If I spend $10 for a release, like I did w/ Gladiator, I don't feel bad if it's not perfect.

Spending $65...for this...is way out of my comfort zone.
I'll rent first or wait for single releases.
fpconvert is offline  
post #186 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 08:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GizmoDVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
GizmoDVD is offline  
post #187 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 08:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

All I know is that if Sony had the catalog rights to this movie, it would look far better. They go the extra mile for MANY old films.

They've had some recent catalog stinkers, such as The Messenger.

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #188 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PENDRAG0ON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 557
This is the first blu-ray release that I am going to pass on for a pirated version, after all, the pirate versions use the broadcast transfers.

PSN - Pendragoongp
NNID - Pendragoon
Include your AVS username in the friend request.
PENDRAG0ON is offline  
post #189 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 08:43 AM
Member
 
eday_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickpicker View Post

The point I'm trying to make is that from a business perspective, the moment a film-maker, a producer, a pre-post technician starts working, he has to think of the product not as his product, but as something that already belongs to the consumer, otherwise they'll fail.

You might want to tell that to George Lucas. He doesn't subscribe to that line of thinking, and he seems to be doing pretty well for himself.
eday_2010 is offline  
post #190 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 08:48 AM
Senior Member
 
lee7n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So you guys are saying the crappy ass TNT wrong aspect ratio looks better than the blu-ray? I find that extremely hard to believe. It looks absolutely awful on TNT.
lee7n is offline  
post #191 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:04 AM
Newbie
 
alek200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I will buy it s soon is possible 10x for the info
alek200 is offline  
post #192 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
iansilv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just more ******** form the movie industry. I can't believe I will be passing on LOTR blu-ray.
iansilv is offline  
post #193 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
jayrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD View Post

We hit Gizmodo!

http://gizmodo.com/5502679/when-blu+...r-lotr-edition

Awesome. We need to bring all attention to this we can. They need to answer for this crap.
jayrader is offline  
post #194 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Test123455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"So it's possible that—maybe—we're all taking all this entertainment a bit too seriously." -Gizmodo

sounds like they don't know AVS too well haha.
Test123455 is offline  
post #195 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Verge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: arkansas
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujay View Post

Contact info:
customerservice@wb.com
and/or http://www.warnerbros.com/main/help/...r_service.html for a contact form.

I've sent my own little letter explaining my disappointment. If we don't take these studios to task, they'll just keep doing it.


Dear warner brothers,


A bunch of people on AVS forums pirated this movie off the INTERNET, and posted comparison shots with another pirated version they got off the INTERNET. Let me just say, the Bluray is very poor quality, and i want my money back!!!


Thanks,
Verge2
Verge2 is offline  
post #196 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 09:39 AM
Member
 
plonk420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i dunno, i prefer my screenshots to sharkcohen (well, it IS just a few parts of the actual pic that look more detailed. some look EE'd, tho. not sure if the 2 disc i have is any better, though). it IS an avisynth filter i haven't tried realtime IRL (i prefer lanczos for ffdshow, but this was spline36, a neutral scaler), but i'm not sure i see a selling point, at least for me and my 720p projector...

http://forgottenwebsites.com/lotrtest1.png
http://forgottenwebsites.com/lotrtest2.png
plonk420 is offline  
post #197 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'd just like to say a couple things.

First, I find it funny how they could've put all the content from the extras discs on the bd's themselves since there's so much leftover space. It seems like they're keeping them on their own dvd's just to inflate the price.

Secondly, I'd like to know WHEN exactly the HD masters used in this release were made. Are they actually from wayyyyy back in '01-'03 or are they more recent than that? They obviously use the same source as that hdtv broadcast in eric's comparison since the image doesn't shift at all if you flip back and forth.
Fang Zei is offline  
post #198 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Verge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: arkansas
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 20
anybody ever see the open matte version of FOTR?
Verge2 is offline  
post #199 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 11:14 AM
Member
 
eday_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verge2 View Post

I want this version... !!!!






Regular 2.31:1


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.
eday_2010 is offline  
post #200 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 11:47 AM
Newbie
 
notdagreatbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Eric. This is Norman Chan of the tech site Tested.com. Would you be interested in an interview about this LOTR blu-ray release? Please contact me at norman [at] tested.com

Thanks so much!
notdagreatbrain is offline  
post #201 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
He Save Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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 completely agree!
He Save Dave is offline  
post #202 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PENDRAG0ON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 557
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've yet to own a movie that gave me the option to choose between 16:9 and scope aspect ratios, what movies offer that option?

And which movies had different aspect ratios on DVD vs blu-ray?

PSN - Pendragoongp
NNID - Pendragoon
Include your AVS username in the friend request.
PENDRAG0ON is offline  
post #203 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 12:43 PM
Member
 
singhcr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

Ummm, the Star Trek films are produced by that other lazy studio, Paramount.

Yes, I am sorry. I completely forgot about that.
singhcr is offline  
post #204 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

I'd just like to say a couple things.

First, I find it funny how they could've put all the content from the extras discs on the bd's themselves since there's so much leftover space. It seems like they're keeping them on their own dvd's just to inflate the price.

Because a 2 disc edition sounds better then a 1 disc edition from a marketing standpoint. Its not as classy to market Lord of the rings - the 44 GB edition.


Quote:
Secondly, I'd like to know WHEN exactly the HD masters used in this release were made. Are they actually from wayyyyy back in '01-'03 or are they more recent than that? They obviously use the same source as that hdtv broadcast in eric's comparison since the image doesn't shift at all if you flip back and forth.

Apperently some time ago, because I dont think there exist another HD version out there.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #205 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 02:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Hrm, can't seem to edit the first post to fix some of the dead pics. The little circle just sits there endlessly spinning after I click save. The popularity broke something?
eric.exe is offline  
post #206 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by plonk420 View Post

i dunno, i prefer my screenshots to sharkcohen (well, it IS just a few parts of the actual pic that look more detailed. some look EE'd, tho. not sure if the 2 disc i have is any better, though). it IS an avisynth filter i haven't tried realtime IRL (i prefer lanczos for ffdshow, but this was spline36, a neutral scaler), but i'm not sure i see a selling point, at least for me and my 720p projector...

http://forgottenwebsites.com/lotrtest1.png
http://forgottenwebsites.com/lotrtest2.png

When you say that it's a 2 disc, are you saying it's the Extended Edition DVD?

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #207 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Eday, Is that upper screenshot from a 16:9 hdtv broadcast or is it from the 4:3 full screen dvd? I can't tell from the photo's. Either way, the reason you're seeing more on the top and bottom in that screenshot is because LOTR was shot in Super 35. That extra picture wasn't meant to be seen, it's just that it comes in handy when you want to do a 16:9 hdtv broadcast transfer or a 4:3 transfer because you're not losing as much picture off the sides as movies that were shot in actual cinemascope. Star Trek was shot that way, so there's nothing above or below the 2.35:1 image and more picture information has to be sacrificed off the sides for 4:3 and 16:9 transfers.
Fang Zei is offline  
post #208 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 03:15 PM
Member
 
nickpicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

Many shots looked soft and not detailed in the theater, some more than others. I noticed it before I ever even got into this stuff in-depth. The Bluray reflects that. And even the detailed shots will never be all that detailed because the style of the film is one where you're supposed to be looking at a historical, almost faded account of long ago. The music score was recorded in the same way, you can never hear individual instruments clearly in the mix compared to some other soundtracks.

The HDTV version is the unfaithful one. I don't know what they did to it. All I know is that the HDTV version doesn't reflect the many times I've seen FOTR in the theatres, and that's not a good thing. It's clear that they did something to make it look more like other HDTV broadcasts and less like the theatrical presentations.

That's completely untrue. It's not that the HDTV version is different, it actually has more detail. So what you are saying amounts to: the HDTV version somehow has more detail, but it shouldn't have because you recall the PQ in theater also sucked as much as the Blu-ray now does.
nickpicker is offline  
post #209 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:


The HDTV version is the unfaithful one. I don't know what they did to it. All I know is that the HDTV version doesn't reflect the many times I've seen FOTR in the theatres, and that's not a good thing. It's clear that they did something to make it look more like other HDTV broadcasts and less like the theatrical presentations.


That's because the HDTV version is more faithful to the D1 whereas the theatrical print is a generation removed as it's a release 35mm copy which adds another generation of loss.

BD shouldn't strive to only replicate poor quality release prints, it should strive to replicate the best available source material. If all that exists is a 35mm print, then so be it. But if any earlier generation elements exist, such as a 35mm interpositive, D1, or even earlier generation in some cases, as long as the director's intentions are being faithfully served, the best-quality elements should be the reference.

LOTR, all three, were some of the worst looking release prints I've ever seen in the theater. It was a shame. Even the SD DVDs look better than most of the theatrical projections I saw!

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #210 of 882 Old 03-26-2010, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gertjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.

Roughly half the movies out there are in that ratio, and most theaters have that ratio screen. Pay attention at the beginning of movies in a theater, and you'll often see them moving the curtains to create a wider or narrower screen to accommodate 1.85 vs 2.35 movies.

Quote:


By default is should fill the screen, with the option to apply the black bars to get the "original" aspect ratio for the purists.

You may want to read up on anamorphic and widescreen and such.

"He who asks feels dumb for a few minutes, but he who does not ask remains dumb forever."

Gertjan is offline  
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