Not as bad as the American naysayers were claiming ; echoes of the Gladiator saga again . But then again if I were viewing on 100 inch screens I might see things differently . Anyway , if you were hovering on the brink of buying this then don't worry - it looks much better than the DVD . Fine detail on clothing make it seem like watching it for the first time . Only the sound disappoints slightly , being a bit too steely bright on the first instalment - the only seen so far .
LOTR first impression
- Thread starter nws56
- Start date
If it is better then the dvd it shouldn't be that bad because the dvd's looked great in my opinion, what sound mix do they get LPCM, DTS, or Dolby HD Formats
Oldboy
Well-known member
All 3 films carry a DTS HD Master Audio 6.1 soundtrack, i can't comment on the quality of sound or picture as i've not got round to leaving 9 hours aside to watch them all yet lol.
You'll never get those DVD's out of the box again after experiencing the blu ; there is simply so much extra detail to gawp at . Should I look at the individual strands of grass in the fields or the textures in clothing fabric ? Should I marvel at the vibrant colours or the patterns revealed in rock formations ? Some might argue that this detracts from the filmic experience - but then why did you buy that ginormous telly in the first place ?
Sound is 6.1 DTS MA by default ; no other options , nothing to fiddle with . Region A got stereo and a Spanish extra I think .
And I haven't mentioned ' extended edition ' , and I don't think I will either .
Sound is 6.1 DTS MA by default ; no other options , nothing to fiddle with . Region A got stereo and a Spanish extra I think .
And I haven't mentioned ' extended edition ' , and I don't think I will either .
Not just the Americans;plenty of people I trust from the UK have said they're not what they should be. Reports indicate that they're not even as detailed as the HDTV broadcasts. I've compared some shots to a 720p rip and there's not much in it TBH. I'll be giving them a miss in any case. Hopefully they'll go back to the source and create new HD masters for the extended editions.
I suspect some people wouldn't be happy unless the characters appeared 'live' in their living room
Clare Newsome:I suspect some people wouldn't be happy unless the characters appeared 'live' in their living room
... and then every time you thought they'd done, kept coming back with 'oh, and another thing...'
... and then every time you thought they'd done, kept coming back with 'oh, and another thing...'
Clare Newsome:
I suspect some people wouldn't be happy unless the characters appeared 'live' in their living room
Lol. "Hello dear, how was your day? I'd like you to meet my new friend Gollum, he's a strange chap and may take a fancy to your rings. Oh and we're having sushi for tea."
I suspect some people wouldn't be happy unless the characters appeared 'live' in their living room
Lol. "Hello dear, how was your day? I'd like you to meet my new friend Gollum, he's a strange chap and may take a fancy to your rings. Oh and we're having sushi for tea."
Scoff all you like, but surely we shouldn't just let studios slap any old rubbish on a disc and be grateful for it? Admittedly the issues mainly affect FOTR, but you'd expect a new VC-1 BD encode to look better than a low bitrate MPEG-2 HDTV encode, which doesn't appear to be the case. DNR, edge enhancement and blocking aren't the sort of thing you'd expect from a long-awaited high-profile release like this either.
If people are happy with it good for them, but don't sneer at those of us who want something more for our £40. Can you honestly say that you'd be happy to pay good money for this:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png
when this:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png
is shown on TV for free?
If you would, then it explains why certain studios keep churning out releases like this (and Gladiator, Dark City, etc) .
If people are happy with it good for them, but don't sneer at those of us who want something more for our £40. Can you honestly say that you'd be happy to pay good money for this:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png
when this:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png
is shown on TV for free?
If you would, then it explains why certain studios keep churning out releases like this (and Gladiator, Dark City, etc) .
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Mentasm:If people are happy with it good for them, but don't sneer at those of us who want something more for our £40. Can you honestly say that you'd be happy to pay good money for this:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png
when this:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png
is shown on TV for free?
Err, am I missing something? The BD image looks to have much more detail?
If you would, then it explains why certain studios keep churning out releases like this (and Gladiator, Dark City, etc) .
Dark City? What was wrong with that? Director's Cut, great picture, excellent soundtrack, it's one of my favourites!
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4505/lotr7bd.png
when this:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3821/lotr7tv.png
is shown on TV for free?
Err, am I missing something? The BD image looks to have much more detail?
If you would, then it explains why certain studios keep churning out releases like this (and Gladiator, Dark City, etc) .
Dark City? What was wrong with that? Director's Cut, great picture, excellent soundtrack, it's one of my favourites!
Mentasm, we're not scoffing/sneering at all - very much committed to great-quality movie (and music) transfers here at WHF.
However, more time actually watching the Blu-rays and less time poring over internet screenshots (which tell you little of the actual experience - do you really watch a film freeze-frame by freeze frame? Also, what TV service? Which BD player?) would give a more balanced view on the subject....
However, more time actually watching the Blu-rays and less time poring over internet screenshots (which tell you little of the actual experience - do you really watch a film freeze-frame by freeze frame? Also, what TV service? Which BD player?) would give a more balanced view on the subject....
I had a quick look at this in HMV today, by the way i am not a fan at all but the picture did not look anything special also quite abit of grain better than dvd though.
I agree with you to some extent Clare, and I freely admit that some people on certain forums can be a little militant. However, the whole point of Blu-ray is to experience films with the highest audio-visual quality. Why else are we paying the premium? If we're unconcerned with such thing we might as well go back to VHS. Screen caps can be very useful for identifying visual flaws and are often indicative of problems, if not entirely representative. These Blu-rays clearly have issues, which are readily apparent from the screen captures (although admittedly I've only linked to two). I spend plenty of time watching BDs and perhaps that's why I'm more susceptible to such things. As for which TV service, it doesn't really matter. The issue is that it looks better than the BD release, which isn't right. As for which BD player, that's not an issue either, because these caps come directly from the disc in an unfiltered form from very reliable sources.
To the_lhc, I guess you are missing something. The BD screencap I posted has far less detail than the MPEG-2 cap (that's the second one). DNR has all-but obliterated fine detail (the absence of grain is obvious when you look at the walls, the wooden arch, Gandalf's face and cloak), and there's a lot of edge enhancement in other caps. This indicates that the BD transfers were taken from old masters or were filtered to within an inch of their lives. Any 'improvements' you might think you see are down to contrast boosting and slight variances between the colours in the two caps.
As for Dark City, it's widely regarded as one of the worst examples of DNR on any BD release. Everyone looks like Odo from Star Trek DS9 and the DVD is similarly afflicted.
It's disheartening when stuff like this passes for acceptable (or even good) when it really isn't. Something like Braveheart is a recent example of a great remastering job, and I can't believe that was in worse shape than the LOTR films.
To the_lhc, I guess you are missing something. The BD screencap I posted has far less detail than the MPEG-2 cap (that's the second one). DNR has all-but obliterated fine detail (the absence of grain is obvious when you look at the walls, the wooden arch, Gandalf's face and cloak), and there's a lot of edge enhancement in other caps. This indicates that the BD transfers were taken from old masters or were filtered to within an inch of their lives. Any 'improvements' you might think you see are down to contrast boosting and slight variances between the colours in the two caps.
As for Dark City, it's widely regarded as one of the worst examples of DNR on any BD release. Everyone looks like Odo from Star Trek DS9 and the DVD is similarly afflicted.
It's disheartening when stuff like this passes for acceptable (or even good) when it really isn't. Something like Braveheart is a recent example of a great remastering job, and I can't believe that was in worse shape than the LOTR films.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
LOTR has never had a good picture in my opinion (even on DVD) although the second two films look good.
The colour is all wrong. It was definitely not that bad in the cinema.
Sound on all three has always been top notch though.
The colour is all wrong. It was definitely not that bad in the cinema.
Sound on all three has always been top notch though.
Mentasm:As for which TV service, it doesn't really matter. The issue is that it looks better than the BD release, which isn't right. As for which BD player, that's not an issue either, because these caps come directly from the disc in an unfiltered form from very reliable sources.
Love to know how these 'very reliable sources' get their screen captures 'directly from the disc' without any form of player...
Love to know how these 'very reliable sources' get their screen captures 'directly from the disc' without any form of player...
Allow me to correct myself - without any form of stand-alone player, which seemed to be what Clare was talking about (as opposed to a software player). Obviously they are using BD-ROM drives to acquire them, usually by ripping every I-Frame off the BDs and sifting through the thousands of resulting images to find the best ones. There are three or four guys who have dedicated websites for just that sort of thing, and their caps are a lot more reliable than the majority of websites (which generally use the wrong colour space and RGB range). The point is that there's less margin for error than taking photos of a screen and there shouldn't be any variances between captures. That's why people trust them as 'reliable sources' when it comes to image quality (that and the fact that a number of them actually encode DVDs/BDs for a living). If something looks bad in their captures or they say it's not what it could be, they're usually pretty close to the mark.
judgding from the screencaps, the bd image has better colurs, definition and less noise, i can't see what is wrong with that, it is not the big difference you see on other transfers, but saying the mpeg-2 version is better then the AVC-1 is not exact in my opinion, maybe it is not what everyone expected from 3 movies that had such success.
The only difference i see in those 2 pictures is that one of them has more shadow. Other than that i cant see any difference at all! But i guess it could depend on the laptop/computer screen. But if that is the difference in quality, no way would i pay for that!
manicm
Well-known member
I've read the Amazon US and UK reviews - and must say 99.99 of the 1 * reviews are categorically rubbish - all of them don't have the discs. And they complain of not getting the extended version ad nauseum.
And I must agree with JohnNewman here - LOTR dvd's upscaled look awful. On my system - Samsung LA37B530, Sony BDP-S360 - it is frankly unwatchable.
Now, I've read proper reviews of the BR set on the net - and they all seem accurate and agree on the transfer of FOTR not being that great - PQ is 3.5 - 4 *, but the last 2 they also agree PQ is a marked improvement.
Apparently the mediocre source of Fellowship is due to the fact that Jackson worked to a much tighter budget than the next two - the film house wanted to gauge the bottom line first.
So the BR discs, which cannot possibly be worse, gets my vote and wallet.
All the nay-sayers, wait for the extended versions (which I can guarantee will have no improved PQ), or zip it.
And I must agree with JohnNewman here - LOTR dvd's upscaled look awful. On my system - Samsung LA37B530, Sony BDP-S360 - it is frankly unwatchable.
Now, I've read proper reviews of the BR set on the net - and they all seem accurate and agree on the transfer of FOTR not being that great - PQ is 3.5 - 4 *, but the last 2 they also agree PQ is a marked improvement.
Apparently the mediocre source of Fellowship is due to the fact that Jackson worked to a much tighter budget than the next two - the film house wanted to gauge the bottom line first.
So the BR discs, which cannot possibly be worse, gets my vote and wallet.
All the nay-sayers, wait for the extended versions (which I can guarantee will have no improved PQ), or zip it.
The Movies had a combined budget of around 290 Us dollars and where filmed all together as I know it, so it is not a matter of budget, and on my system they are no rubbish (The DVD's) Upscaled they look really great, i do not have the extended cuts so I cannot comment, all i was of them was 15minutes of the thirs and was not impressed, I have the Two disc versions, with each film on a dedicated Disc and 5.1 Dolby digital, and both sound and image are very good, from the 15mins I saw i would say that the standard versions look better.
I was put-off buying this by the negative reviews on certain forums. I've generally agreed with the technical appraisals of BDs I've purchased and see no reason to distrust the largely negative reviews of the LOTR Blu Ray boxset . As I've argued on this forum previously, we seem to be getting to a point where obsesssing over sound and picture quality has become more important than the artistic quality of a film itself. I'm not suggesting I'm immune to these prejudices, as my refusal to buy LOTR on Blu Ray demonstrates, but it is concerning that we might snub older (classic) films, or films with low production values, because they don't conform to our technological standards. As Einstein once said: "our technology has surpassed our humanity"!
I have just looked at the BD version and the DVD version side by side as I have separate players and I can definitely say that the BD version is a lot sharper than an up-scaled DVD even on my cheap system (Have only looked at the shire scene on the first disc) . There is a slight amount of film grain which is understandable as it is film but nothing to complain about ( not like the film grain you get in Black Hawk Down). All I can say it is well worth the extra detail and depth and also the DTS sound which is a lot richer than Dolby. Not only that they are brilliant films so well worth it. As a post note all of the BD discs I have brought I have been very satisfied with.
Congrats to someone who's actually seen the discs and done a real-world comparison
As we always say - you'll only know what you're happy with after you've seen/heard for yourself.
As we always say - you'll only know what you're happy with after you've seen/heard for yourself.
manicm
Well-known member
strapped for cash:I was put-off buying this by the negative reviews on certain forums. I've generally agreed with the technical appraisals of BDs I've purchased and see no reason to distrust the largely negative reviews of the LOTR Blu Ray boxset . As I've argued on this forum previously, we seem to be getting to a point where obsesssing over sound and picture quality has become more important than the artistic quality of a film itself. I'm not suggesting I'm immune to these prejudices, as my refusal to buy LOTR on Blu Ray demonstrates, but it is concerning that we might snub older (classic) films, or films with low production values, because they don't conform to our technological standards. As Einstein once said: "our technology has surpassed our humanity"!
'Largely negative reviews' - whose? On this forum and/or Amazon where 99% (no exaggeration) are not based on any evidence or purchase. Read the proper reviews on the net and they all agree on the following:
FOTR: PQ = Ok
TTT: PQ = Very good to Great
ROTK: PQ = Great.
For all three films SQ = Great.
'Largely negative reviews' - whose? On this forum and/or Amazon where 99% (no exaggeration) are not based on any evidence or purchase. Read the proper reviews on the net and they all agree on the following:
FOTR: PQ = Ok
TTT: PQ = Very good to Great
ROTK: PQ = Great.
For all three films SQ = Great.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram