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

[Flemming.K]

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

I'm willing to believe The Bits' theory that the softness of Fellowship has a lot to do with the fact that there is no complete digital intermediate film unlike the other two and that we're basically stuck with a double dupe. Its a problem that I'm fairly sure only effects this film and from the looks of the SD-DVD, O Brother, Where Art Thou.

How do one explain then, the HDTV version did not retain that same softness, when comparing detail and filmgrain between blu-ray images

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6995/lotr8bd.png

and images from the HDTV edition?

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1067/lotr8tv.png

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K




How do one explain then, the HDTV version did not retain that same softness, when comparing detail and filmgrain between blu-ray images

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6995/lotr8bd.png

and images from the HDTV edition?

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1067/lotr8tv.png

To be perfectly honest I'm not really seeing much difference between those two, other than the HDTV shot has a bit more contrast. Looks like much ado about nothing to me. I'm not sure if thats film grain or MPG2 artifacts. Can't really tell when its not moving.

Doug

 

[Flemming.K]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

To be perfectly honest I'm not really seeing much difference between those two, other than the HDTV shot has a bit more contrast. Looks like much ado about nothing to me. I'm not sure if thats film grain or MPG2 artifacts. Can't really tell when its not moving.

If it is not film grain, then I am a firm believer in adding MPG2 artifacts instead of DNR to movies. I haven't watched movie artifacts that looked so good in moving frames. The difference is there and I see it most as enhanced detail in organic material that gets smothered in several instances in the blu-ray movie.

 

[hampsteadbandit]

I was very lucky to pick up a brand new, sealed boxset a week before the UK release (from an exchange shop), and for 1/2 the retail price

I watched the 3 films over 3 nights, and have *really* enjoyed the sheer spectacle that is 'Lord of the Rings'

PQ was simply stunning, and on many occasions, found myself going "wow" especially on the landscape shots


I also prefer the Theatrical Releases to the Extended (having owned both on DVD) and probably won't bother with the Extended HD set when its released at the end of this year

if you love L.O.R. then the Blu-Ray is highly recommended!

 

[Michael Cucka]

I've only been thru FOTR and find the video serviceable, but not in the class of the best. This is on a 110" DLP front PJ. Mostly noticeable in high content scenes, like battle sequences, where the definition of separate elements is lacking.

I'm not a technical guy, but I don't understand how the DI could be a factor in the quality of the BRD release. Certainly there are some truly outstanding BRD's that have existed solely on film where DI is not a factor.

Better than DVD is sure nice, but I guess we expect much more several generations down the hi-def path.

The audio, on the other hand, is exemplary! Worth the price of the set itself

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Michael Cucka /forum/thread/299501/htf-blu-ray-re...gs-the-motion-picture-trilogy/30#post_3680013

These films were among the earliest to use the DI process. At the time grain reduction was often used particularly on super 35 films. Sometimes that grain reduction was used with a sledge hammer. I don't know if that was specifically done with these films, but it wouldn't surprise me. Also Fellowship was only done as a partial DI, so the blu-ray of that film would had to have come from a film scan out rather than directly from DI digital files. It could explain why the film is inconsistent, some shots being quiet spectacular, and others looking somewhat muddy.

I must say that even at the time I didn't much care for the way the digital coloring tools were used in this film. Many sections just don't look natural, and often times it looks a though they are trying to re-light the film digitally rather than the choices that were made on the set. I never thought that these were particularly pretty looking films (other than the early Hobbiton scenes in Fellowship, which I suspect were the scenes that were color corrected on film) in spite of the epic nature of the story.


Doug

 

[Ron-P]

I spent about a half hour with Fellowship last night, skipping chapters and watched certain scenes. This is the one that seems to be getting most of the negativity. So here goes...

My Rig
PS3
Epson 1080UB (1080p front projector)
96" DIY white screen
HDMI connections
Seating is 7' from the screen

Image: Colors are fantastic, spot on flesh tones, bright and vibrant with deep dark blacks, night scenes look great. The majority of the image is sharp and detailed, but some scenes are soft. They were this way in the theater, on the dvd and now there taking heat because it's the same way on the Blu-ray. These scenes (I'm guessing) are this way because it was intentional. Overall, I am very pleased and impressed with the image. What does show age is the CGI, if there's any fault with the image this is it.

Audio: Amazing about sums it up. Clean, tight, deep bass with excellent use of the surrounds and great balance between all channels. It's a very enveloping audio track as well. The cave troll sequence was stunning.

If Fellowship is the worst of the 3 then the others should be beyond stunning because I was impressed with Fellowship and I am so glad I didn't let all the negative nit-picking take hold and keep me from picking this up.

 

[Carlo_M]

Just finished TTT and I will say, despite not having too much of a negative experience with FOTR, TTT is clearly superior in video detail than FOTR. I think part of the reason FOTR takes it on the chin is that once you fire up TTT (as most people will do once they finish FOTR) the video quality difference is noticeable.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Well, so much for my plan of renting these. The local Blockbuster did not get any in for rental, and do not know if they will. I do not rent enough to justify a subscription-based rental program at BB or Netflix.

I am still going to hold off on a purchase, though. I cannot justify spending $60 for something I will probably only watch once (I prefer the extended editions).

 

[nolesrule]

Scott, just invite a couple people to watch it with you. Then it'll be cheaper than going to a movie theater once.

 

[hampsteadbandit]

perhaps my positive viewing experience with the Blu-Ray boxset comes from watching it on *only* a 32" 1080P LCD screen, rather than blowing it up huge with a projector or massive plasma display?

looked great to me...

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by hampsteadbandit /forum/thread/299501/htf-blu-ray-re...gs-the-motion-picture-trilogy/30#post_3680218

 

[hampsteadbandit]

Hey Mike

thanks for the reply

space is limited when living in an inner city apartment

(I'm in London, England, where *space* is more expensive than even the highest-end AV setup!)


in terms of audio, I am not at the high end!!

I run the native speakers of my LG 1080P flat panel, backed up with a great value Sharp "soundbar" which adds some sonic expansion and proper bass depth

I seriously looked into investing in an AMP and full speaker package, but could not justify either the cost, annoying my neighbours, or drilling holes in walls to mount speaker brackets onto, compared to the quick fix of the soundbar

I am actually *very* satisfied with the audio performance of my LG display and Soundbar, works out just great....

perhaps one day, when I win the lottery or a relative leaves me a small fortune, and we move to a detached dwelling, I can invest in the full-scale audio-setup and huge display, but I'm until then with my setup

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by hampsteadbandit /forum/thread/299501/htf-blu-ray-re...gs-the-motion-picture-trilogy/30#post_3680700

 

[Cory S.]

Found this over at blu-ray.com if anyone's interested...http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04/09/exclusive-%E2%80%98lord-of-the-rings%E2%80%99-consultant-discusses-current-future-blu-ray-releases/

 

[Mike Frezon]

Thanks, Cory.

I found that VERY interesting (especially the part about the audio)!

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Cory S.

Found this over at blu-ray.com if anyone's interested...http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04/09/exclusive-%E2%80%98lord-of-the-rings%E2%80%99-consultant-discusses-current-future-blu-ray-releases/

Of course that won't change the opinions of those who already made their minds up that Warner botched this release.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Ya' know ... I *always* thought that there was something very odd about the "Fellowship" DVD audio. For one thing, it was extremely bass-heavy (to the point that I had to always adjust my LFE level down just for this one film); and for another, the sound canvas, while expansive, was never particularly smooth. So now we know why.

I'm *still* not purchasing this release, though, since I'm just too familiar with the EE iterations at this point. It wasn't directly addressed in that interview, but there's not much doubt that the EE's -- with or without all the new supplements -- will get a BD release within the next 18-24 months.

(I *say* I'm not purchasing it, but the second I see the set at a sale price under fifty dollars, I'll probably cave ...)

 

[Flemming.K]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

Of course that won't change the opinions of those who already made their minds up that Warner botched this release.

Nope! Why should one start to believe to see something else, that ones eyes tell you? I haven't tried to fool myself before (well maybe, but that's another subject), so no point in starting now, when middle age is setting in. Are the reviewers at Hometheaterforum, blu-ray.com Highdefdigest or DVDFile making a conspiracy theory up about the average video ratings or just portraying what they believe to see?

They could've used Star Trek technology for my sake to restore FOTR. The transfer is what it is and what I and many others obviously are seeing, is that Fellowship of the Rings looks quite mediocre, at times just an inch better than DVD, sometimes good. Perhaps that is just how good it will look with the "new master" and if that is the case, so be it. At the end of the day it is, at most, a disappointment. I just find it incredible that the biggest blockbuster of the last decade, in a glorious restored HD master, looks a lot less impressive, than many of the restored golden age movies, we've watched the last year.

There are different methodologies for reviewers and review sites, how one rates video quality. And if people rate, comparing video to HD quality on the market, then FOTR is average. Just as The Good The Bad and The Ugly is average. "It doesn't get any better", doesn't help either. That's no excuse, it is just a fact at the end of the day.

Personally I would recommend for Warner to talk to the channel that did broadcast the LOTR in HD, get a copy and release that for the EE release, because how they managed for that to look better than the new BD master ...well, I will leave that up for even more speculation.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K Personally I would recommend for Warner to talk to the channel that did broadcast the LOTR in HD, get a copy and release that for the EE release, because how they managed for that to look better than the new BD master ...well, I will leave that up for even more speculation.

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

. . . and Peter said yeah, we definitely want to redo it. In fact, there were some color-timing issues that he wanted to deal with in HD and so on and so forth, so he brought in Andrew Lesnie, the [director of photography] for the film, and they actually went in and created entirely new HD masters of these three films. So all three of them are new masters; even if you’ve seen them broadcast, the Blu-rays are actually newer masters that were approved by Peter and his director of photography.