or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison - Page 6

post #151 of 882
what exactly is the HDTV version?
post #152 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Test123455 View Post

what exactly is the HDTV version?

Neither. One is a scene as it appears in the first movie, Fellowship, the other is the exact same scene as it appears in the second movie, Two Towers.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44369

The color timing is off on Fellowship and the fine detail is not as good. Fellowship shots are also slightly more zoomed in with more image is shows in the TTT shots. Why? I've had a few more than a few, so that's a little confusing.
So.. I assume that means they rescanned those parts when they originally made the TTT master???
post #153 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Neither. One is a scene as it appears in the first movie, Fellowship, the other is the exact same scene as it appears in the second movie, Two Towers.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44369

The color and fine detail on Fellowship: ****ed.

Fellowship shots are also slightly more zoomed in. More image is shows in the TTT shots. Why? I
ve had a few more than a few, so that's a little confusing.

oh, i meant like...what is the HDTV version? like, is it just the movie redone and broadcast OTA or something (that i missed, although im a huge fan )?

i definitely think your screenshots are interesting...TTT looks so much better (with the exception of the balrog scene--it doesnt seem better in TTT).

if these movies arent done well i'll be pissed off. personally i am waiting for the EE, but anything less than an awesome transfer would be a shame (and i think the EE and theatrical releases should have the same quality).
post #154 of 882
Yeah, the HD Broadcast version was made for television stations to broadcast it in HD.

I think the screens Eric's came from were when DISH ppv put out a progressive broadcast of that version.
post #155 of 882
Whoa, the colours and brightness are waaaay different between FOTR and TTT... what the?! Was that always the case even with the DVDs?

And that shot of Gandalf hanging on looks far too red on TTT in my opinion....

But yes the detail is obviously better in TTT.
post #156 of 882
Yeah, way different. It's hard to tell what colors are "right," or more fitting, because I think during these Balrog scenes there were flames all over the place, spells being cast and throwing light around, etc.... but they're even framed way differently:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44375

Eric, this was the same shot? It looks like it's gotta be given the position of the moving whip and everything, but wow.

Totally different.

Gandalf looks out of focus in the Fellowship shot too, although that's not a surprise.

Must've just been redone and rescanned entirely when making the TTT master maybe? I know next to nothing about the technical process of how these were made though, so I have no idea. Someone here must.
post #157 of 882
Detail is slightly better in TTT in some instances but it isn't a night and day issue (they are both still not so good) and the better detail is nullified by the worse color. The color is all over the place, in only one of the shots is the TTT better (the second set of images), but in others the FOTR has way better color. It isn't just better balance but there are more colors and more dynamic range. FOTR still has weird color but what is left of it is more natural than the TTT examples.
post #158 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickpicker View Post

Uhm, since we actually finance the whole enterprise via ticket and disc sales, I'm pretty much confident to say that we (a.k.a The Customer) is right about how the movie which they made should look. In every single case.

??? - We consumers certainly have a right to complain about whatever we want... but the owners of the film are the ones who determine what they want to sell, and how they want their movie to look. We just determine what we want to buy, or not buy.

Sure consumer dollars ultimately fund movie projects, but buying tickets & DVDs doesn't give us direct creative control of a studio's productions.

We pay for the ticket / DVD, after that the money belongs to the studio to do with as they see fit. If they spend it making more things we like... we give them more money. If they spend it making things we don't like... they go broke and some other studio takes their place.
post #159 of 882
I'm not talking about the intellectual property. I'm talking about who pays for their enterprise. 100% of it is paid by the consumer. And 100% of the production of LOTR, 100% of mastering LOTR, 100% of packaging the discs is paid by the consumer.

So how exactly are we not entitled to criticize and direct their business? 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.

Of course any enterprise is entitled to conducting their business in a different manner. Those stocks are typically in the junk-bond range.
post #160 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevestevenson View Post

Detail is slightly better in TTT in some instances but it isn't a night and day issue (they are both still not so good).

I disagree. The Two Towers looks like actual HD. There's detail in Gandolf's beard, you can tell what's in focus, etc. FOTR looks like an upscaled dvd in comparison..
post #161 of 882
I prefer the colours, and details in the TTT. I don't think that anyone would have complained if we got that.
post #162 of 882
After looking at the screen caps all I can say is, here we go again (refering to Gladiator).
I'm going to wait for the EE's anyway but this doesn't give much hope that the EE movies will have a spectacular transfer.
What is up with all this DNR-crap ?
post #163 of 882
I'm still picking this up, prolly wait for a friendly price now though, the less than expected PQ reduced it from its day one buy, regardless of price slot, lol.

I feel it's quite a bit better than the DVD, not 'just a little' like some are suggesting. If some think it looks like merely upconverted dvd at best, more power to ya. I'm looking at the grabs and trusting them for myself, not anyones comments here. The comparison grabs (BD vs DVD) have sold me, that opening shot of Frodo in the meadow for starters is enough proof, I mean Christ, I can see his individual toenails on the BD (and HDTV) and with the dvd, I can barely discern the seperation of his toes, lol, a fuzzy mess. And thats just FOTR - it only gets better from there (we're being told). The color and gamma look far better as well on the BD's. Also, I'll take eric.exe' earlier breakdown, mentioning that FOTR was roughly 15% DNR'd, TTT 20%, ROTK 10% (or whatever). So its not that bad. They're not ref, never were gonna be, but they ARE the best retail version avail, period, and from what I've seen (the grabs), mop the floor with the DVD for the most part IMO. Then there is the audio, again, superior on the BD. Not defending the sub standard effort from Warner, I wanted as close to perfection as the source would allow (on THIS release), just stating the positives for why I will buy it.

I know the "why settle for just better than dvd" talking point (lol) is coming (AGAIN). Somebody is gonna come along and play the guilt game and try to make me actually feel wrong or guilty for picking it up (they'll reveal themselves when they quote me). Well, sue me, I gave away the dvd's years ago, don't have a copy of the HD broadcast so this is it. I'm not a "renter" either and, there is no evidence Warner will dump a superior version later down the line, in fact, their track record should concern those who are holding out (k, the EE version is probably an even bigger reason many are waiting and hoping - valid reason, I'm in whenever that happens too).
post #164 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schils View Post

I'm still picking this up, prolly wait for a friendly price now though, the less than expected PQ reduced it from its day one buy, regardless of price slot, lol.

I feel it's quite a bit better than the DVD, not 'just a little' like some are suggesting. If some think it looks like merely upconverted dvd at best, more power to ya. I'm looking at the grabs and trusting them for myself, not anyones comments here. The comparison grabs (BD vs DVD) have sold me, that opening shot of Frodo in the meadow for starters is enough proof, I mean Christ, I can see his individual toenails on the BD (and HDTV) and with the dvd, I can barely discern the seperation of his toes, lol, a fuzzy mess. And thats just FOTR - it only gets better from there (we're being told). The color and gamma look far better as well on the BD's. Also, I'll take eric.exe' earlier breakdown, mentioning that FOTR was roughly 15% DNR'd, TTT 20%, ROTK 10% (or whatever). So its not that bad. They're not ref, never were gonna be, but they ARE the best retail version avail, period, and from what I've seen (the grabs), mop the floor with the DVD for the most part IMO. Then there is the audio, again, superior on the BD. Not defending the sub standard effort from Warner, I wanted as close to perfection as the source would allow (on THIS release), just stating the positives for why I will buy it.

I know the "why settle for just better than dvd" talking point (lol) is coming (AGAIN). Somebody is gonna come along and play the guilt game and try to make me actually feel wrong or guilty for picking it up (they'll reveal themselves when they quote me). Well, sue me, I gave away the dvd's years ago, don't have a copy of the HD broadcast so this is it. I'm not a "renter" either and, there is no evidence Warner will dump a superior version later down the line, in fact, their track record should concern those who are holding out (k, the EE version is probably an even bigger reason many are waiting and hoping - valid reason, I'm in whenever that happens too).

When to buy it doesn't really change for me. If it is a great deal on day one, I'll buy it. I don't necessarily open those purchases though and rent first especially catalogs, then decide.

BTW folks, high many high profile catalogs could have been gotten better treatment? I guess I'm a bit mad at myself for being over optimistic with this release.
post #165 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Whoa, the colours and brightness are waaaay different between FOTR and TTT... what the?! Was that always the case even with the DVDs?

And that shot of Gandalf hanging on looks far too red on TTT in my opinion....

But yes the detail is obviously better in TTT.

Since they used a DI for TTT and ROTK. They could very well have tweaked colors etc in the DI. But then its exactly like it was in theaters.

But FOTR seems to be an older scan, so the colors can be of because of that.
post #166 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post

What is up with all this DNR-crap ?

I think this is because they using a couple of year old transfer, and a couple of year ago New Line was responsible for these titles. And you just have to check their earlier releases like Pans Labyrinth to see what happend to this title.
post #167 of 882
MovieSwede,

Quite possible, it's just that it seems a poor way of doing it.
Same thing with Gladiator, a high profile movie that will bring in the money and they come up with this.
I just don't understand why a version for TV, at least in the DNR department, looks better than a BD-release.
post #168 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post

MovieSwede,

Quite possible, it's just that it seems a poor way of doing it.
Same thing with Gladiator, a high profile movie that will bring in the money and they come up with this.
I just don't understand why a version for TV, at least in the DNR department, looks better than a BD-release.

Many problems with AV Quality stem from "this dial goes to eleven" syndrome. Another way to think of it is that many engineers feel that they need to do *something* to picture and sound in preparation for home-video to "do a good job". Just leaving a transfer as-is seems like cheating, or being lazy or not caring. So they opt to "improve" things by a little digital processing. Most of these guys were not trained in an environment that emphasized fidelity-to-the-source, rather they were trained in the art of fixing things via manipulation. That's the basic problem with most of the discs we see with compromised AV quality IMO.

If you look at some discs from independent houses, it's sometimes shocking how *true to film" and incredible crisp, detailed, and natural those BDs look. That's because most of those facilities just scan and compress (oversimplifying) without as much energy going to "fixing things".

Think of how many soundtracks have been mucked up in the name of "fixing". Mary Poppins and Hello Dollo both had fantasic sounding multichannel PCM masters already on the shelf... yet in both cases for the most recent DVD editions the studios (FOX and Disney) thought that they could improve things by filtering out "tape hiss" which was barely audible to begin with. The result? the soundtrack lost every trace of high-frequency naturalness and openness and now sound like a towel was wrapped over the speakers. The degredation to the sound was dramatic, and comparing to the previous Dolby Digital mixes available on home-video revealed just how tragically ruined the sound had become on the new "improved" DVDs.

Similar things happen with video... some techs just can't leave well enough alone. Of course, review sites that give low ratings to discs bcs of film-originated artifacts like grain and occasional scratches don't help things, because it just gives the studios more reason to try to "fix" things via digital tools that, when used improperly, can do more harm than good.

Honestly, I'd rather have my Blu-ray look like a sparkling 35mm print with an occasional scratch mark than have the whole thing be scratch-free but look like an airbrushed, digitally processed video. Yet of those two examples, the former would elicit hordes of negative BD/DVD reviews, and the later would only garner criticism from the handful of HT-worthy review sites we know and trust. When all is said and done, the balance of review praise/criticism tips much farther in favor of the studios applying processing tools, and when that happens, there's always a risk.
post #169 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I disagree. The Two Towers looks like actual HD. There's detail in Gandolf's beard, you can tell what's in focus, etc. FOTR looks like an upscaled dvd in comparison..

Some of it does, some of it still looks bad. I think there are more processing problems with the TTT segments while the FOTR has the problem of DNR and just an old transfer.

I like giving credit where credit is due, but if you compare the two the added detail is offset by the lack of colors and gradient resolution.
post #170 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Many problems with AV Quality stem from "this dial goes to eleven" syndrome. Another way to think of it is that many engineers feel that they need to do *something* to picture and sound in preparation for home-video to "do a good job". Just leaving a transfer as-is seems like cheating, or being lazy or not caring. So they opt to "improve" things by a little digital processing. Most of these guys were not trained in an environment that emphasized fidelity-to-the-source, rather they were trained in the art of fixing things via manipulation. That's the basic problem with most of the discs we see with compromised AV quality IMO.

If you look at some discs from independent houses, it's sometimes shocking how *true to film" and incredible crisp, detailed, and natural those BDs look. That's because most of those facilities just scan and compress (oversimplifying) without as much energy going to "fixing things".

Think of how many soundtracks have been mucked up in the name of "fixing". Mary Poppins and Hello Dollo both had fantasic sounding multichannel PCM masters already on the shelf... yet in both cases for the most recent DVD editions the studios (FOX and Disney) thought that they could improve things by filtering out "tape hiss" which was barely audible to begin with. The result? the soundtrack lost every trace of high-frequency naturalness and openness and now sound like a towel was wrapped over the speakers. The degredation to the sound was dramatic, and comparing to the previous Dolby Digital mixes available on home-video revealed just how tragically ruined the sound had become on the new "improved" DVDs.

Similar things happen with video... some techs just can't leave well enough alone. Of course, review sites that give low ratings to discs bcs of film-originated artifacts like grain and occasional scratches don't help things, because it just gives the studios more reason to try to "fix" things via digital tools that, when used improperly, can do more harm than good.

Honestly, I'd rather have my Blu-ray look like a sparkling 35mm print with an occasional scratch mark than have the whole thing be scratch-free but look like an airbrushed, digitally processed video. Yet of those two examples, the former would elicit hordes of negative BD/DVD reviews, and the later would only garner criticism from the handful of HT-worthy review sites we know and trust. When all is said and done, the balance of review praise/criticism tips much farther in favor of the studios applying processing tools, and when that happens, there's always a risk.

I guess it's poor education/training or just a different philosophy on the part of techs. It seems it varies with studios too. I remember many Blu-ray ray insiders promised us two years ago that it was ONLY existing movies that were stuck in the queue readying for production that were the issue - and that moving forward DNR and EE would never be a problem again. Let's see, that was two years ago now?
post #171 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Many problems with AV Quality stem from "this dial goes to eleven" syndrome. Another way to think of it is that many engineers feel that they need to do *something* to picture and sound in preparation for home-video to "do a good job". Just leaving a transfer as-is seems like cheating, or being lazy or not caring. So they opt to "improve" things by a little digital processing. Most of these guys were not trained in an environment that emphasized fidelity-to-the-source, rather they were trained in the art of fixing things via manipulation. That's the basic problem with most of the discs we see with compromised AV quality IMO.

If you look at some discs from independent houses, it's sometimes shocking how *true to film" and incredible crisp, detailed, and natural those BDs look. That's because most of those facilities just scan and compress (oversimplifying) without as much energy going to "fixing things".

Think of how many soundtracks have been mucked up in the name of "fixing". Mary Poppins and Hello Dollo both had fantasic sounding multichannel PCM masters already on the shelf... yet in both cases for the most recent DVD editions the studios (FOX and Disney) thought that they could improve things by filtering out "tape hiss" which was barely audible to begin with. The result? the soundtrack lost every trace of high-frequency naturalness and openness and now sound like a towel was wrapped over the speakers. The degredation to the sound was dramatic, and comparing to the previous Dolby Digital mixes available on home-video revealed just how tragically ruined the sound had become on the new "improved" DVDs.

Similar things happen with video... some techs just can't leave well enough alone. Of course, review sites that give low ratings to discs bcs of film-originated artifacts like grain and occasional scratches don't help things, because it just gives the studios more reason to try to "fix" things via digital tools that, when used improperly, can do more harm than good.

Honestly, I'd rather have my Blu-ray look like a sparkling 35mm print with an occasional scratch mark than have the whole thing be scratch-free but look like an airbrushed, digitally processed video. Yet of those two examples, the former would elicit hordes of negative BD/DVD reviews, and the later would only garner criticism from the handful of HT-worthy review sites we know and trust. When all is said and done, the balance of review praise/criticism tips much farther in favor of the studios applying processing tools, and when that happens, there's always a risk.

A very astute comment, very well stated.

As a long time audiophile, I've learned that simpler is usually better. Multi track, multi mike, processing, it seems like technological advances only lead to heavy handed use of all the new toys. Tape hiss and film grain are in the same boat, you can't remove them without removing at least some of the art. In the hands of someone trying to balance the two you end up with their impression of the best compromise. Done with erroring on the side of artistic intent, the result can be pretty good. Done by a heavy handed gorilla, you end up the the BD of The Longest Day or John Carpenter's The Thing. If you think the screen shots of LOTR's look waxy, take a look at those two.

The studio's are likely to follow the money. That means making films look "good" from the standpoint of the average consumer. If it ruins it for us, well I fear we're economically insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I watched the Third Man on BD the other night and it was extemely grainy. While I loved it, I suspect even Criterian has received many complaints about it.

Not from AVS members of course!
post #172 of 882
I wonder when they release the EE editions in 3D if they'll be able to DNR the extra dimension?

This hobby is starting to really suck.
post #173 of 882
im out.

I wouldnt even buy the EE if they looked like this.
post #174 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Many problems with AV Quality stem from "this dial goes to eleven" syndrome.

That seems likely, good point.
It's really sad though.
post #175 of 882
lol what a disaster! Just redo the damn things and release the EE versions. Do it right. This is crap.
post #176 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Many problems with AV Quality stem from "this dial goes to eleven" syndrome. Another way to think of it is that many engineers feel that they need to do *something* to picture and sound in preparation for home-video to "do a good job". Just leaving a transfer as-is seems like cheating, or being lazy or not caring. So they opt to "improve" things by a little digital processing. Most of these guys were not trained in an environment that emphasized fidelity-to-the-source, rather they were trained in the art of fixing things via manipulation. That's the basic problem with most of the discs we see with compromised AV quality IMO.

If you look at some discs from independent houses, it's sometimes shocking how *true to film" and incredible crisp, detailed, and natural those BDs look. That's because most of those facilities just scan and compress (oversimplifying) without as much energy going to "fixing things".

Think of how many soundtracks have been mucked up in the name of "fixing". Mary Poppins and Hello Dollo both had fantasic sounding multichannel PCM masters already on the shelf... yet in both cases for the most recent DVD editions the studios (FOX and Disney) thought that they could improve things by filtering out "tape hiss" which was barely audible to begin with. The result? the soundtrack lost every trace of high-frequency naturalness and openness and now sound like a towel was wrapped over the speakers. The degredation to the sound was dramatic, and comparing to the previous Dolby Digital mixes available on home-video revealed just how tragically ruined the sound had become on the new "improved" DVDs.

Similar things happen with video... some techs just can't leave well enough alone. Of course, review sites that give low ratings to discs bcs of film-originated artifacts like grain and occasional scratches don't help things, because it just gives the studios more reason to try to "fix" things via digital tools that, when used improperly, can do more harm than good.

Honestly, I'd rather have my Blu-ray look like a sparkling 35mm print with an occasional scratch mark than have the whole thing be scratch-free but look like an airbrushed, digitally processed video. Yet of those two examples, the former would elicit hordes of negative BD/DVD reviews, and the later would only garner criticism from the handful of HT-worthy review sites we know and trust. When all is said and done, the balance of review praise/criticism tips much farther in favor of the studios applying processing tools, and when that happens, there's always a risk.

Yep. Well said!
post #177 of 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

So wait... it looked detailed in theaters, it looked detailed on HDTV, but now it has to look mushy and smeared for BD?

I'm all fine and dandy with directors intent, but obviously there's no intent here.

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.
post #178 of 882
I was into that stuff back then, so were many others here, and it did not look all that bad in theaters - certainly not anywhere near as lackluster as the BD would lead one to believe.

The HDTV looks idetical to the BluRay with the exception of the HDTV version has no excessive DNR applied. That is the visual difference between the two. It's obvious what they did to it, they added DNR until it smeared fine detail. They did nothing to the HDTV, that's why it looks unmolested.

He:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post18376905

Hit it right on the head.
post #179 of 882
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.
post #180 of 882
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.

Sorry sir, but now I understand the gripes of people who still vividly remember seeing a film that's 30 years old in theaters. This movie was FAR from soft in theaters, and what we're seeing in these stills is (if it is truly representative of what the disc looks like in motion) an abortion of a release.

They didn't even try, and it seems to me, from their view, that this is like PRINTING MONEY (and given the low costs involved in this production, that's likely the case). We deserve better, and I sincerely wish more people would get that rather than coming up with hair brained excuses for why "it is what it is"...

It's stunning that this is the same studio that put out a very good looking title like The Matrix (which was even constrained by the limitations imposed by HD DVD).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison