LOTR first impression

[Nyorker]

manicm:
All the nay-sayers, wait for the extended versions (which I can guarantee will have no improved PQ), or zip it.

Really? you really think that:

a: WB couldn't create a better transfer for this edition? (it could, if it wanted to)

b: the Extended Edition won't have better PQ? (it will, at least by some degree)

If they can make the 70-year-old Wizard of Oz look pristine, they can certainly make the LOTR look great!

Gandalf has spoken.

 

[Anonymous]

Well having read all the above posts the conclusion i have come to is this, I will wait a few months till the price comes down a bit more, maybe £19.99 then I will buy it, if its no improvement only lost £20 if its better, BARGAIN!

 

[manicm]

Nyorker:manicm:

All the nay-sayers, wait for the extended versions (which I can guarantee will have no improved PQ), or zip it.

Really? you really think that:

a: WB couldn't create a better transfer for this edition? (it could, if it wanted to)

b: the Extended Edition won't have better PQ? (it will, at least by some degree)

If they can make the 70-year-old Wizard of Oz look pristine, they can certainly make the LOTR look great!

Gandalf has spoken.

Nay, the fake Gandalf has spoken instead.

The raison d'tere for getting BR is PQ - don't you think the studio realises this?

And if everyone here says the studio is just a greedy money-grabber, well then what incentive is there to improve PQ on the extended set?

Give me one shred of evidence the extended set will have improved PQ?

I will happily lay a bet with you it won't - and part of the reason is that you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear - as is the case with FOTR - yes they shot the trilogy in one go but they used better visual equipment for the last 2 episodes.

 

[Nyorker]

Unfortunately I cannot give you any shred of evidence, but considering the fact that Peter Jackson intends to created an "ultimate-mega edition" consisting of the Extended Editions plus material not included in either releases, do you not think they will invest in having the best PQ possible?

They think they can "afford" to play around, so to speak, with the PQ of the TE (which, in the end, isn't that bad), but if WB think they can get away with it with the future EE, then they're playing with serious fire.

(If they would, for example, announce that the EE would arrive, say 5-6
months following the TE, I'd probably say little-to-no chance of
improved PQ. By the delaying it's release to 2011+ they've certainly raised expectations for PQ, and they know it - or at least one person does)

Also bear in mind this: the original DVDs - both TE & EE - were released by New Line Cinema, before it was gobbled up by WB. WB's incentive is to make as much money as possible (see the case where they moved HP & the HBP from winter to summer).

So, yes, I'm ready to take that bet...

 

[northantsbloke34]

LOTR is what???? Know idea what film you're talking about here!

 

[northantsbloke34]

northantsbloke34:LOTR is what???? Know idea what film you're talking about here!

Ok i it Lord of the rings?. Is it so hard to type that????

 

[Andrew Everard]

Let alone the PQ of TE compared to WB's EE. And don't even get me started on the SQ of the DCE or the 3DSE compared to the 4K EE...

 

[northantsbloke34]

Thanks for that!

 

[The_Lhc]

Nyorker:Unfortunately I cannot give you any shred of evidence, but considering the fact that Peter Jackson intends to created an "ultimate-mega edition" consisting of the Extended Editions plus material not included in either releases, do you not think they will invest in having the best PQ possible?

I thought I'd read somewhere that the EE would take a while because Jackson wanted some of the special effects to be re-done. Given that a lot of the complaints regarding the PQ in the blu-ray digest review related to the fact that some of the effects couldn't stand up to the scrutiny of HD (Gollum no longer appears to be part of the landscape apparently), I'd hope this is true, although I can't find the original story about this now. This will be a serious expense though, so they need to make sure it's going to sell.

(If they would, for example, announce that the EE would arrive, say 5-6months following the TE, I'd probably say little-to-no chance ofimproved PQ. By the delaying it's release to 2011+ they've certainly raised expectations for PQ, and they know it - or at least one person does)

2011? Where did you see that?

Also bear in mind this: the original DVDs - both TE & EE - were released by New Line Cinema, before it was gobbled up by WB. WB's incentive is to make as much money as possible (see the case where they moved HP & the HBP from winter to summer).

WB aren't exactly known for their lavish attention to detail though, I remember them regularly being slated for never putting any extras on their DVDs.

 

[Anonymous]

The issue isn't really that the BDs are better than the DVD - that's to be expected, and I've seen very few that aren't - but rather that they are not as good as they could/should have been. While it's true that the post-production stuff on Fellowship was completed earlier than the sequels, thus accounting for some of the 'issues', it does not account for everything that some professional reviewers and A/V enthusiasts are complaining about with this release. Although Warner has now absorbed them, New Line titles have a history of looking blurry on BD due to the excessive DNR that is applied (thankfully A Nightmare on Elm Street seems to have been spared this fate). There's no doubt in my mind that if they had gone back to the source and created new masters the films would have looked better than they do now. Let's hope they do it for the EEs.

The problem is that a lot of people don't see or care about filtering or other anomalies, and take the attitude that no one else should care either. Well there are a lot of us who want to have our cake and eat it, which means the best possible image quality for any given title (accepting that a low-budget 80s film won't look as good as Pixar's latest), not just something that's better than the DVD. As someone said earlier, the when studios have access to suitable elements and take the time to restore films properly, the results can be very pleasing (The Wizard of Oz, The Godfather films, etc). Film is comprised of grain and I want to see it, not have it smoothed over because there seems to be an obsession with everything looking 'shiny'. It would seem that I'm in the minority, but my viewpoint is no less valid than those who are satisfied.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, but you'd be amazed how many threads we've had on here saying that a Blu-ray is rubbish because the image looks grainy...

 

[Clare Newsome]

indeed. Some people seem to want everything to be as bright, sharp and punchy as animation

 

[Anonymous]

Just read a revie of the movies on a dedicated Film Magazine, and they gave it rave reviews for both detail and picture, and commented on the fact that, Gollum which on the dvd's looked like a grey thing, has now even the whip marks and torture marks visible on his body, same is said about the balrog and, abut the armies which are said to be visible idividually.

 

[Anonymous]

if CGI images are made punchy, sharp and vivid as animation, such movies will end up looking like Monster VS aliens.............., In reality images are not that sharp or colourful as some expect LCDs to be, many are impressed with the super vivid colurs seen in shops, and in reality, those colurs are to vivis, over saturated and un-natural, so no one should expect LOTR to look like say Up or Shrek.

 

[Anonymous]

Land Of The Rabbits

 

[Anonymous]

lots of transcoding ramifications..

 

[manicm]

Nyorker:

Unfortunately I cannot give you any shred of evidence, but considering the fact that Peter Jackson intends to created an "ultimate-mega edition" consisting of the Extended Editions plus material not included in either releases, do you not think they will invest in having the best PQ possible?

They think they can "afford" to play around, so to speak, with the PQ of the TE (which, in the end, isn't that bad), but if WB think they can get away with it with the future EE, then they're playing with serious fire.

(If they would, for example, announce that the EE would arrive, say 5-6 months following the TE, I'd probably say little-to-no chance of improved PQ. By the delaying it's release to 2011+ they've certainly raised expectations for PQ, and they know it - or at least one person does)

Also bear in mind this: the original DVDs - both TE & EE - were released by New Line Cinema, before it was gobbled up by WB. WB's incentive is to make as much money as possible (see the case where they moved HP & the HBP from winter to summer).

So, yes, I'm ready to take that bet...

Mr Jackson was apparently not involved in the BR transgers, so what makes you think he'll be involved in some Ultimate Rubbish Extras edtion.

Hang on - you've been pulling my chain all along haven't you?

 

[lee37]

to be honest i cant see how they can improve the image quality without splitting the film over 2 discs like in the extended dvd version.

both the 1st and 2nd film are aroung 38gb which doesnt leave much for the extra 30 mins and all these promised extras.

ive not watched the 3rd one yet

i have compard both and found the br version cleaner sharper and more detailed with a lot better souund track.

at the end of the day the film is a bit grainy on either version, if you want pixel perfect watch toy story

even in the 2 comparison pictures on my pc monitor (24 inch 1080p) the br image looks better

 

[Nyorker]

He said so himself...
I suspect (I may be way off the mark here), that WB maybe using this version as a "trial balloon," to gauge the reactions as far as PQ - they certainly are aware that a lot of people are waiting for the EE - me included.

Believe me, when they do come out with the EE, they're going to milk it (and us) for all its worth, especially if they tie it in with the release of The Hobbit (hopefully this decade...). I can hardly believe they will go on a marketing bonanza with a mediocre transfer.

My 2 cents...

 

[The_Lhc]

lee37:to be honest i cant see how they can improve the image quality without splitting the film over 2 discs like in the extended dvd version.
both the 1st and 2nd film are aroung 38gb which doesnt leave much for the extra 30 mins and all these promised extras.

Well the extras can go on additional disks, so no need to worry about them. If the films are 38Gb then that leaves 12Gb for the additional footage. The first two films are 178 and 179 minutes respectively, the extended editions require 30 minutes for FOTR and 44 minutes for TTT. At a rough bitrate of 218Mb/min that means FOTR needs another 6.4Gb of space (about 45Gb total), TTT needs another 9.4Gb (total 47.4Gb), both comfortably within the space requirements.

The problem is ROTK, the EE is 50 minutes longer, needing about 10.6GB, however the original film is 200 minutes to start with, so is already using about 42.7Gb, so it won't fit on one BD. Bearing that in mind they'll problem split all the films over 2 discs, it'd be a little odd if only one of the was split. Doing that will also allow them to up the bitrate for the PQ if they want to. Doesn't mean they will of course.

 

[lee37]

actually no the usable space on a bd-dl disc is approx 43.7gb

all the films are approx 37.5,36.7, 35.9 for 1,2,3

if your bitrates are correct the first film may just fit but the second and third will have to be split over 2 discs

nothing worse than changing discs halfway through

 

[Anonymous]

I prefer changing discs half way through, then having a lower quality video, you cannot fit 4 hour films and special features on one disc so better them be split like it was done with the special edition dvd's, though i didn't really like the PQ, compared to the standard DVDs.

 

[The_Lhc]

lee37:actually no the usable space on a bd-dl disc is approx 43.7gb
all the films are approx 37.5,36.7, 35.9 for 1,2,3

Err, have you listed those figures the wrong way round? 3 is 22 minutes longer than 1 and 2 in Theatrical format, and supposedly has better picture and sound quality, so I'm not sure how it could ever be using less space than the first two.