Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (1 Viewer)

[Sumnernor]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben




No need to speculate. If you read the linked article, it addresses this point directly:

1) Where is the link that you mentioned?

2) From what Flemming.K stated - it sounds like the TV version was better than the Hi-def DVDs which is the opposite of the quote given.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Sumnernor

1) Where is the link that you mentioned?

Post #56, Sumner.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Sumnernor



1) Where is the link that you mentioned?

2) From what Flemming.K stated - it sounds like the TV version was better than the Hi-def DVDs which is the opposite of the quote given.

I haven't seen the HDTV broadcast, but I have seen two identical screen capture frames from the blu-ray and the broadcast. I didn't see any more actual detail in the HDTV images, but there is what appears to be more grain. However not knowing how the HDTV broadcast was captured, and then delivered, I don't know what to make of that. It could very well be MPEG2 artifacts, but with out seeing it in motion its hard to tell.

Doug

 

[Flemming.K]

:

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

No need to speculate. If you read the linked article, it addresses this point directly:

I read it. Which is why I speculate why and how to make newer masters inferior to an earlier HDTV broadcast in video quality. I'm not sure how succesful MPG2 artifacts can be portraying film grain and even have the positive characteristic of retaining detail, but that sure looks to be the case and if it is, I would hope for studios to manually add artifacts and not DNR for future remastering.

If the new master is truly the best for the FOTR to look, then one can only note, that the first chapter of LOTR just not have the inherent qualities to look good.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K


Which is why I speculate why and how to make newer masters inferior to an earlier HDTV broadcast in video quality.

It hasn't been demonstrated that they're "inferior". The screencaps certainly don't show that.

 

[Ricardo C]

Having now spent over a week with the films, I will concede that I have issues with the Hobbitton segment of FOTR: Chapter 2 is definitely a victim of artificial grain reduction, and Gandalf and Bilbo's faces evidence it quite clearly.

...However, I do not see any other issues in the film, other than one that has nothing to do with the HD mastering process: I've never enjoyed the color 're-correction' applied to the home video releases. In theaters, faces during the Hobbitton sequences were delicately shaded and full of subtle skin-tone variations. In the DVD and BD releases, they're an almost uniform ochre. Those who got ahold of the Academy screener all those years ago should go back and see what FOTR was originally colored to look like.

TTT and ROTK looks stunning all the way through, and are essentially a match for the film experience. My only regret is not having a permanent projector setup to be able to enjoy them at the size they deserve.

 

I was more distracted by the vertical lines than any dnr. The left side of the frame has a purple line on the edge that pops up from time to time and the right side has a white line (at 1:11 during the Arwen in the river scene.) that pops up in the first half of the film from time to time. Others have seen it too. These artifacts were apparent on some dvds but never blu-rays. I've tried everything to get rid of them on my display, but can't. What causes this? It is definitely electronic.

 

[Roy Batty]

I consider myself something of an "archivist" when it comes to my compulsive collector habits, be it music, comic books or movies, meaning that, no matter if there's a new, improved version (let's say, a better printed, hardcover collection of some old monthly comic books), I always like to have the originals, I always strive to be able to enjoy them the way they were released, warts and all, because I value that historical factor.


What I am trying to explain is that, while I love the extended edition of the LOTR Trilogy, and I bask in their trove of additional features, for me, skipping the original theatrical cut was never an option. I want BOTH, the theatrical and the extended, for different reasons.


My point here is that I was not one of those on the fence about this release, wondering whether to get this to satisfy my LOTR immediate cravings, or to avoid it and wait for the foreseeable boxset, the one that Michael Pellerin and even Peter Jackson have mentioned some times.


So I was more than willing to buy this set now, and then, whatever pumped-up mega boxset they throw us later in the future.


But then, I started reading about the PQ issues... And while I am as demanding as the next guy, I am also quite aware that there's always a lot of noise in the Net, and a lot of people who just want to show you that they are more discerning than the rest of us. So I tried to be sensible about it, and just wait and see, and try to form my own judgement.


And then, the first screen captures started to show up, and… well, it was certainly discouraging, but I told myself to remember that still images NEVER tell the whole story about quality transfer, at least, not the way that the image in motion do. Many apparent artifacts will be not so apparent when you actually get to watch the movie on your display of choice. And, of course, there's also the matter of how those still images were captured and compressed, and how much that can be a factor in their quality, too.


So, I tried to remain positive.


And then… Then I happened upon these:


http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/43821

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/43820

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/43823

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/43824


Well, if any of you can not clearly see the difference there, if you can not appreciate the healthy, detailed grain of the HD broadcasting, versus the blurry, waxed look that is typical of poorly aplied, unprofessional noise reduction…


Just let's say that, sorry, but your eyes are clearly not trained enough.


The image quality of LOTR: THE FELLOWSHIP… is simply UNACCEPTABLE for blu-ray release, at least, if we want to strive for the high standard we all know the blu-ray format can offer us, instead of letting it slide backwards to the washed out compression that the studios are trying to force on us.

 

[Brian Borst]

I honestly don't see healthy grain in those broadcast shots you posted. And considering the fact that there's no additional detail in the broadcast version, it's probably just noise.

 

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

I honestly don't see healthy grain in those broadcast shots you posted. And considering the fact that there's no additional detail in the broadcast version, it's probably just noise.

Errr... Did you notice that the image switches back and forth if you scrool your pointer over it, alternating between the blu-ray and the HD broacdcast capture? Because the difference is quite substantial.


Maybe you did not realize that, and just saw the first image you are shown (if you don't switch it), which happens to be the blu-ray one? Because, if so, then of course it doesn't show the grain and the finer detail.


I am not saying I necessarily preffer the HD broadcast over the blu-ray, for it shows its share of issues (mostly, compression artifacts), but, by comparison, it serves to prove that the blu-ray is HIGHLY DNRed and waxed-up.

 

Maybe some things are too sharp. I could crank my sharpness on my tv all the way up and it would reveal more detail, but is it good in all cases?

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty




Errr... Did you notice that the image switches back and forth if you scrool your pointer over it, alternating between the blu-ray and the HD broacdcast capture? Because the difference is quite substantial.


Maybe you did not realize that, and just saw the first image you are shown (if you don't switch it), which happens to be the blu-ray one? Because, if so, then of course it doesn't show the grain and the finer detail.


I am not saying I necessarily preffer the HD broadcast over the blu-ray, for it shows its share of issues (mostly, compression artifacts), but, by comparison, it serves to prove that the blu-ray is HIGHLY DNRed and waxed-up.

Yes, I was aware of how it works. It was already confirmed that there's DNR, and it's also been mentioned that that's the fault of how it was used back in 2001. So, unless Warner is re-doing the entire thing (which is costly) this is probably the best they'll look.

 

[Robert Crawford]

By the way, this boxset is on sale at Amazon for 49.99






Crawdaddy

 

[David_B_K]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty



And then, the first screen captures started to show up, and… well, it was certainly discouraging, but I told myself to remember that still images NEVER tell the whole story about quality transfer, at least, not the way that the image in motion do. Many apparent artifacts will be not so apparent when you actually get to watch the movie on your display of choice. And, of course, there's also the matter of how those still images were captured and compressed, and how much that can be a factor in their quality, too.

Yes, I find that screen captures actually fail to show how egregiously bad some transfers are. Excessive sharpening is sometimes not apparent until you see it in motion and get a sort of strobing effect.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Thanks Crawdaddy. $50 was my buy point for this.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

By the way, this boxset is on sale at Amazon for 49.99






Crawdaddy

Thanks!


"Under $50" was also my breaking point for holding out on this set ...

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty




Errr... Did you notice that the image switches back and forth if you scrool your pointer over it, alternating between the blu-ray and the HD broacdcast capture? Because the difference is quite substantial.


Maybe you did not realize that, and just saw the first image you are shown (if you don't switch it), which happens to be the blu-ray one? Because, if so, then of course it doesn't show the grain and the finer detail.


I am not saying I necessarily preffer the HD broadcast over the blu-ray, for it shows its share of issues (mostly, compression artifacts), but, by comparison, it serves to prove that the blu-ray is HIGHLY DNRed and waxed-up.

I've seen these images before. Honestly I see no additional detail in the HD broadcast images. What some people are calling grain, is more likely MPG2 artifacts. The HD broadcast would be a fairly low bitrate, likely below 8mbps, and using the MPG2 codec. Frankly it doesn't look like film grain to me. The argument that there is more detail in the HD broadcast in my opinion is a lot of baloney.


Doug

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yeah, $50 looks like a very attractive price

on this set even though I was going to forgo

it in favor of the expected extended editions.


I am somewhat concerned about even buying

this set with all the controversy regarding the

transfer quality.


I suppose asking this question I will get several

different answers but here it goes...


Bottom line, is it worth buying this set at $50 or

do you feel the transfer could be a lot better?

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Ron,


According to most of the reviewers, FOTR is the only movie of the three that doesn't seem to have a video transfer worthy of the Blu-ray format. And even it has what everybody considers to be a stellar new DTS-HD MA audio encode. So at a little more than $16/movie, it's probably worth it.


My problems with the set were":

* Iffy video quality on FOTR.

* Theatrical editions only. (I haven't viewed my Theatrical DVDs of the movies since the EE's were released.)

* Same supplements which were included with the original DVD Theatrical editions.


So this was a big fat "NO SALE" for me at the $99 price point. And even the $65 "street price" was, IMO, marginal for what we were getting. But at $50 I have no qualms whatsoever with the set.

 

[PatW]

I think it's more than worth purchasing them now. The video quality does improve with each movie with Return of the King being the best. Fellowship does have problems especially some of the night scenes in the Shire and alot of the movie does look soft but despite that I still felt it looked better than my dvd. I'm sure the transfer could have been better and mind you I'm no expert in judging all the nuances of the transfer but it was acceptable enough for me to purchase the set.