LOTR POLL II: Is FellowShip of the Rings better than the reviews suggested? - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Fellowship of the Rings: video and audio ratings..
It was excellent. I enjoyed the video, few issues. An excellent Blu Ray close to the source. 0 0%
It was a 'good' Blu Ray. Some minor distractions. Could have had an improved transfer. 0 0%
It was a poor video presentation in the 2.5/5.0 range that many reviewers found. Crappy transfer. 0 0%
The DTS MA track was far better than the originally EE DVD track 0 0%
The DTS MA track was a slight improvement over the EE DVD 0 0%
The DTS MA soundtrack was the equal or worse than the EE DVD 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,565
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Hello again,

3's a charm: This is the new and improved poll!

Now that 100s or 1000s off AVSers own the new LOTR Blu Ray trilogy, it is time to comment on it. More precisely, whether the negative hype was true and the viewing experience poor, or were the reviewers a bit too technical in extrapolating some bad screen grabs to the rest of an otherwise solid film... and missed the big picture?

Now mind you, for accuracies sake, I want only discussion of the
Fellowship
- not the others as reviewers generally acknowledged that the TT and ROTK were very good.

Personally, I found the video quality very similar to the EE DVDs but with more resolution. So, overall better. I found the viewing experience on my front projection system fantastic and without issues that distracted me. Sure some scenes were softer than you'd expect but my recollection from the DVD was similar. Personally, I think the most egregious areas are source related rather than in the transfer.

The audio was first rate and only marginally improved over the original DTS lossy track. I played the film so many times, I know that DTS DVD track almost perfectly. It was strident in parts, a bit forward with very good, not reference, bass. I found the new lossless track improved on all fronts but still some stridency and a couple sibilants (nitpicking). Bass was better controlled, too. Overall a certain improvement but not monumental.
SO, I will poll comments form the audio AND video from the Fellowship of the Rings.

My system: SIM2 Lumis / HOST processor / front projector on 1.3 UltraMatte CIH 14' wide scope / ISCO II lens and Halcro surround processing and full 7.1 DSP / dedicated theater

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:42 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
I've watched Fellowship. I don't have a large screen, but I view a pro calibrated 52" LCD with a 36 degree viewing angle in a controlled light environment. The picture quality of the movie is inconsistent throughout, with a small number of surprisingly soft images to many with incredible detail. It seems to me to reflect an inconsistent source. However, I think what is offered on the Blu-ray consists of much more good than bad, and I would rate it overall as a 3.5/5. I believe that to be a fair and not unworthy score. This release is absolutely not Gangs, Dark City, Trek VI, or Gladiator. I'm looking forward to watching the other 2 films.

The sound is just awesome.

I think this set is a no-brainer purchase for the fans.

Samsung 52B750 52" 1080p LCD, 36 degree viewing angle
Onkyo 605
Yamaha NS-SP1600 5.1 speakers
PS3
video and audio calibrated by Jeff Meier, www.accucal.org

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #3 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
I'm curious Jeff out of 5 what would you rate the Pq?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #4 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
petmic10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Fellowship was too inconsistent and definately suffers from
manipulation caused by the use of DNR. The HDTV broadcast
clearly proves this.

Is it as bad as the screen caps indicate? No, but Fellowship
has problems and it could/should have been better had the
proper care been given that it deserved.

I rate a 3 out of 5 for PQ.

Sound was terrific.

Display: Pioneer PRO-151 60" Elite
Blu-ray player: OPPO BDP-93, Sony BDP-S1000ES
HD DVD player: Toshiba HD-XA2(2)
Processor: Onkyo PR-SC885
Amplifier: Emotiva IPS-1 150Wx7
Game Console: Xbox 360, PS3
Speakers: Mythos ST(Fronts), Mythos Ten(Center), Mythos One(Rears)

petmic10 is offline  
post #5 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 44
adidino is offline  
post #6 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,565
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I'm curious Jeff out of 5 what would you rate the Pq?

You know... It's hard to say. I watched it once but the story is so captivating, I found myself spending less time critiquing it. A second or third viewing would likely allow me to find more aberrations.

Overall PQ, I would rate it a 4/5. I was simply not impressed with the huge amount of DNR issues that were puffed up by many reviewers. Moreover, I felt it mimicked an imperfect source - so it is a pretty true rendition. Yes there are some DNR issues, but not the deal killer as was circulated. The DVD, EE version, was a similar 4/5 in my book.

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #7 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 10:11 AM
Member
 
Liquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, B.C. Canada
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
106" 720P projector. Some parts looked very soft, while others looked great. 3/5 for being inconsistent. Sound is excellent though. I got the trilogy for free through Futureshop in Canada. You could trade in 2 video games and walk out with the movies, so the price was right.
Liquid is offline  
post #8 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 11:32 AM
Senior Member
 
jesyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While I would never accuse it of looking great, for a person who has scene the film so many times to be able to notice things he's never been able to before, it's a worthwhile upgrade for me.
jesyjames is offline  
post #9 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rr6966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I bought this set expecting Gladiator pt 2, for the Fellowship, I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw. My screen is a calibated 56" dlp, so not huge but plenty large to see issues. I would give this film a respectable 3.5 stars. I think most of the issues relate to the original source. I would recommend this title for anybody who is interested in buying it.
rr6966 is offline  
post #10 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,565
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr6966 View Post

I bought this set expecting Gladiator pt 2, for the Fellowship, I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw. My screen is a calibated 56" dlp, so not huge but plenty large to see issues. I would give this film a respectable 3.5 stars. I think most of the issues relate to the original source. I would recommend this title for anybody who is interested in buying it.


+1

This was certainly no Gladiator... Not by a long shot. Gladiator was watchable but somewhat a mess. I only bought it as it is one of my top 5 films of all time (along with the LOTR trilogy).

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #11 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I watched Fellowship last night to me it was not nearly as bad as the reviews made it out to be. It is a very average looking BLU-RAY which because it is LOTR may disappoint people but taken on it's own it's not great but not bad either. It was enjoyable to watch
swanlee is offline  
post #12 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KramerTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Huntersville, NC, US
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Fellowship's image is wildly inconsistent to the point of being distracting. Some shots, like the Shire and Rivendale, are very soft; almost DVD like while many others are up to Blu-ray quality. The soundtrack is excellent.

I got it and in the end I just enjoyed watching Lord of the Rings on Blu-ray. But you don't need to be an expert (I sure am not one) to be left with the impression that they could have done a better job with Fellowship.
KramerTC is offline  
post #13 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 02:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DaGamePimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: WA State
Posts: 15,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 153
It might be true to the source and not much they can do but it's pretty poor quality over-all in my opinion.

Jason
DaGamePimp is online now  
post #14 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
The perspective of the bitching is being overlooked by many people. No one (well, at least no one I've noticed) is saying Fellowship is amongst the worst looking blu-rays. It's just too average for the movie it contains, it's basically a standard-issue catalog title, it squeaks by on the merits of the movie's visuals rather than the technical merits of the transfer. I think a lot of people, including me, expected WB to do what Spielberg and Paramount did for Minority Report.
42041 is offline  
post #15 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 05:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rosano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
These films have not lost any of their magic.....PERIOD. All the tech stuff just goes out the window and one gets totally immersed in the movie.
Rosano is offline  
post #16 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 06:35 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: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Apologists unite thread?

No one is saying FOTR is among the worst transfers on BD. They're saying it's substandard and that is far from excellent or "close to the source". The only people that would vote for that option are either sitting too far away from their screen or are in denial.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #17 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 63
We'll never know the actual potential this film has until a real restoration\ ransfer is done.
That said, I think there's a sizable portion of members who think the PQ of FOTR should equate with how much they love it.
That likely won't be true no matter what work is done.
I was a bit disappointed with the soundtrack as well.
It is much better than the original but still pretty harsh and distorted when things get intense.
I also had a slight but noticeable lip-sync issue.
If the "lossless is transparent to the master" theory is true, the sound master of this film isn't all that great.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #18 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Apologists unite thread?

No one is saying FOTR is among the worst transfers on BD. They're saying it's substandard and that is far from excellent or "close to the source". The only people that would vote for that option are either sitting too far away from their screen or are in denial.

I can only speak for myself but I'm not making any apologies.
I'm enjoying the films.
So where are you sitting when you watch the BD of FOTR?
The peanut gallery as usual?

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #19 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 08:21 PM
Senior Member
 
aj slick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Apologists unite thread?

No one is saying FOTR is among the worst transfers on BD. They're saying it's substandard and that is far from excellent or "close to the source". The only people that would vote for that option are either sitting too far away from their screen or are in denial.

Maybe they accidentally put in the dvd copy instead of the actual blu ray.
aj slick is offline  
post #20 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 08:27 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
No apologies here

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #21 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 10:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

We'll never know the actual potential this film has until a real restoration\ ransfer is done.

Come on, it's not a mystery how it was shot. Modern remasters of some other 35mm movies of similar vintage demonstrate that the limiting factor is the blu-ray medium, not the film medium. The digital FX may have some kind of inherent quality limit due to the technology of the time, and I'm not sure how easy that'd be to re-do, but unlike the Star Wars prequels, that's far from the entire movie (if memory serves).
42041 is offline  
post #22 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 10:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Whoo hoo it finally arrived

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #23 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 10:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Stinky-Dinkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Not arrived yet.

Friggin' slow.
Stinky-Dinkins is offline  
post #24 of 118 Old 04-08-2010, 11:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 377
I watched Fellowship tonight (ISF'd 60" SXRD A3000, sitting 9 feet or so back, dark room, Oppo BDP-80 at 1080p/24). All in all, it was "okay" and was pretty much what I was expecting. It's much better than Gladiator or the original Trek films - no comparison - but it does contain some visible EE and DNR in some scenes. I found the DNR and EE more of an issue in the first 25 minutes of the film really as the image does improve for the most part after that. A good deal of the movie does look fairly film-like, but there are some scenes especially in the beginning which look quite digital and seem to lack film grain.

What's quite interesting is just how much more detail the opening sequence of Two Towers (with Gandolph falling) has compared to that exact same scene in Fellowship which only supports some of the concerns. I personally think Fellowship has the potential to look better on BD and I think we'll see this with the eventual Extended Editions.

One last note - I really like the color timing of the BD. In my opinion, there is a real notable improvement over the DVD which I had watched so many times and was used to for so long. The audio, of course, was quite good too. I noticed a very slight lip sync issue bitstreaming, however, it disappeared using PCM.

DavidHir is offline  
post #25 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 04:09 AM
Member
 
b-mill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester NH
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

One last note - I really like the color timing of the BD. In my opinion, there is a real notable improvement over the DVD which I had watched so many times and was used to for so long.


Agreed. This was one of the first things that jumped out when I watched FOTR and TTT yesterday.

I can certainly see where the issues are with FOTR, but it didn't for a moment detract from my viewing experience. I found it very difficult to care that a scene was soft, DNR'd, or EE'd because I was too busy enjoying the movie. There's no way a few misteps in a few scenes would ruin the experience for me, ever.

b-mill is offline  
post #26 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 04:28 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post

It might be true to the source and not much they can do but it's pretty poor quality over-all in my opinion.

Jason

It makes me laugh how many people say it is true to the source just after somebody posts that the HD TV version was much more detailed, and the trailers are too. It's like you have to post the information 1000 times over.

Genius is an insult to my intelligence!

Pincho is offline  
post #27 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 05:18 AM
Senior Member
 
tjgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"Fellowship was too inconsistent and definately suffers from
manipulation caused by the use of DNR. The HDTV broadcast
clearly proves this.
"
"Is it as bad as the screen caps indicate? No, but Fellowship
has problems and it could/should have been better had the
proper care been given that it deserved."

I am not saying that it was bad, It had some great parts, but that only makes the weak ones look worse! I thought the color was much better than the HDTV broadcast but everything else was close in quality.
Sound was also better the the HDTV broadcast.

I rate a 3 out of 5 for PQ also . Rent it first, then wait for the EE.

JVC HD1 136" 2.35x1 screen sitting 15 ft
tjgar is offline  
post #28 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The PQ for FOTR was better than I expected but far from great. I guess the best thing I can say is it's not Gladiator bad. However, I was more surprised that the AQ was only slightly better than the EE dvd. The extended edition dvds had the best DTS track I have ever heard on a dvd. The new DTS HD MA is great but not the improvement I was expecting.
Rach is offline  
post #29 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jayray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 4,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

+1

This was certainly no Gladiator... Not by a long shot. Gladiator was watchable but somewhat a mess. I only bought it as it is one of my top 5 films of all time (along with the LOTR trilogy).

I could not agree more. Gladiator was awful, but FOTR was much better than I thought it would be base on the reviews. I watched it on a 106" screen using my BenQ W5000 and I was thrilled with how it looked. The sound was stunning and LFE was tight with better low end extension than the dvd. Dynamic range was superior.
John

Jayray
Read the FAQs
jayray is offline  
post #30 of 118 Old 04-09-2010, 02:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DaGamePimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: WA State
Posts: 15,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pincho View Post

It makes me laugh how many people say it is true to the source just after somebody posts that the HD TV version was much more detailed, and the trailers are too. It's like you have to post the information 1000 times over.

Um, if you read what I typed it says "It might...", I never said it was and the main point is that we do not know what source was used vs the hdtv cap . There is no need to be rude! The bottom line is that this release is sub par and we all know it, some accept it and others do not.

Jason
DaGamePimp 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