Lord of the Rings in Blu-Ray

[El Skutto]

I'll buy 'em regardless. There are enough subtle differences between the theatrical versions and the extended editions that I feel compelled to have both sets. The way Saruman's end is handled, for example.

 

[tomandshell]

The EEs won't be here for another 2 1/2 years. These will keep me occupied until then.

 

[SwedishHeat]

I liked The Digital Bits' review. Seems to put it all in perspective.

https://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews032310.html#lor

 

[Estel]

I liked The Digital Bits' review. Seems to put it all in perspective.

https://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews032310.html#lor

As much as I like The Digital Bits, their perspective on this case is just wrong. LOTR can look better. It has already been proven on several forums that a HDTV-broadcast from 2002 exhibits more detail than the current blu-ray release. The problems lies not with the original mastering done during post-production, but clearly with New Line's consistent business of applying unnecessary digital tampering to their releases. There's little doubt an old master has been used on this released, and cleaned up to horrible results (DNR).

https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison.php?id=43823
https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison.php?id=43820

Or take a look at these beauties:

https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1523/00005m2tssnapshot011118.png
https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6025/00005m2tssnapshot011055.png

I've been able to view these discs myself, and if you are buying these expecting top-notch picture quality, you will be disappointed. What you're seeing on these screencaps isn't just a singled-out case, this kind of artifacting/smearing is persistent and recurring throughout all three films - Fellowship suffering the most.

BTW, WB/New Line actually demanded blu-ray.com to remove their screenshots from their review:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/3082372-post5698.html
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-Blu-ray-Review/5174/

 

[The Ween]

As much as I like The Digital Bits, their perspective on this case is just wrong. LOTR can look better. It has already been proven on several forums that a HDTV-broadcast from 2002 exhibits more detail than the current blu-ray release. The problems lies not with the original mastering done during post-production, but clearly with New Line's consistent business of applying unnecessary digital tampering to their releases. There's little doubt an old master has been used on this released, and cleaned up to horrible results (DNR).

https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison.php?id=43823
https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison.php?id=43820

Or take a look at these beauties:

https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1523/00005m2tssnapshot011118.png
https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6025/00005m2tssnapshot011055.png

I've been able to view these discs myself, and if you are buying these expecting top-notch picture quality, you will be disappointed. What you're seeing on these screencaps isn't just a singled-out case, this kind of artifacting/smearing is persistent and recurring throughout all three films - Fellowship suffering the most.

BTW, WB/New Line actually demanded blu-ray.com to remove their screenshots from their review:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/3082372-post5698.html
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-Blu-ray-Review/5174/

On those first set of pics, it says if you have the mouse OFF the pic, it's blu ray, if your mouse is on the pic, it's hd. Looks better on blu ray to me!

 

[Darth Madden]

On those first set of pics, it says if you have the mouse OFF the pic, it's blu ray, if your mouse is on the pic, it's hd. Looks better on blu ray to me!

Yeah, looks a little more real in blu... not quite as smooth.

 

[The Josh]

On those first set of pics, it says if you have the mouse OFF the pic, it's blu ray, if your mouse is on the pic, it's hd. Looks better on blu ray to me!

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Michael Crawford]

Yes, the issue with DNR and other 'fixes' is that it's an aesthetic issue. The blu shots are softer, less sharp - but they have less noise and grain. Which you prefer is really a personal preference.

Whether this is an issue with their processing of the original or not is a different question, one NOT answered by those screen shots. Why? Because I can tell you that if I got the version without DNR, I wouldn't be happy either. I don't like to see that much noise, and that wouldn't be an acceptable transfer. What that actually implies to me is that the version with the noise is the best they could do from the master, and New Line decided to use DNR (thus softening it) to make it less pixelated. If there's a ton of digital noise or pixaltion in the original recording, then you're pretty screwed. That issue gets worse the bigger the screen gets, and I wish we could get some idea of what equipment the reviewers were using. I can tell you that the noise you see in the HD broadcast version would look atrocious on a screen over 65" or so.

There's more issues I'd like to see info on - is there banding as well? Flat colors? Crushed blacks? If there are multiple issues, then it can get back to the master they were working from. But if you only focus on DNR, you can't tell whether it's an issue with the use of DNR itself or a bigger problem.

 

[Estel]

Whether this is an issue with their processing of the original or not is a different question, one NOT answered by those screen shots. Why? Because I can tell you that if I got the version without DNR, I wouldn't be happy either. I don't like to see that much noise, and that wouldn't be an acceptable transfer. What that actually implies to me is that the version with the noise is the best they could do from the master, and New Line decided to use DNR (thus softening it) to make it less pixelated. If there's a ton of digital noise or pixaltion in the original recording, then you're pretty screwed. That issue gets worse the bigger the screen gets, and I wish we could get some idea of what equipment the reviewers were using. I can tell you that the noise you see in the HD broadcast version would look atrocious on a screen over 65" or so.

You are using the terms digital noise (something else entirely) and pixelation(?), I think what you are really going for is a thing called 'film grain'. Grain is a direct result of the photochemical process of shooting on film, and is in essence what builds up the image. It is what you see on the HDTV-cap in the comparison I posted.

Furthermore the way we look at film, objectively, is in no way a form of personal preference. Grain (not noise or pixelation) is essential to regaining the high-standard quality of the format, and often a thought-through artistic choice. Removing/reducing grain will (this is a fact) result in the loss of detail. Take another look at the comparison and see what I'm talking about. Look at the removal of texture in Gandalf's robes, beard and the background.

Without being insulting, the following notions are preposterous and display a clear lack information regarding the topic.

'Whether this is an issue with their processing of the original or not is a different question, one NOT answered by those screen shots. Why? Because I can tell you that if I got the version without DNR, I wouldn't be happy either. I don't like to see that much noise, and that wouldn't be an acceptable transfer'

and

If there's a ton of digital noise or pixaltion in the original recording, then you're pretty screwed. That issue gets worse the bigger the screen gets, and I wish we could get some idea of what equipment the reviewers were using. I can tell you that the noise you see in the HD broadcast version would look atrocious on a screen over 65" or so

Firstly the answer regarding the source is in fact answered. The HDTV show a factual, undeniable, increase in detail which proves the source has more capabilities than what the blu-ray transfer has to offer. Trying to prove your point by saying that you wouldn't be happy with a non-DNR'ed version, is completely off-kilter. Without DNR and with 'noise' it could in fact be a more than acceptable transfer (fantastic even), as it would correctly display the way the film was shot. None of this has to do with personal preference, as film like any other form of art should be respected in its original form and not be unnecessarily tampered with.

Secondly, I have watched these releases and many other blu-rays on screen-formats over 120 inches, and I can verifiably tell you I'm not screwed. In fact films with a reduced grain pattern look noticeably worse on bigger screens than their untouched counterparts. Transfers like Braveheart, The Bourne Ultimatum and The Godfather display loads of grain and look absolutely gorgeous and razor-sharp on a big screen, as they protect the original aspects of the film-print. There is no issue here whatsoever. The first (a remastered version is upcoming) release of Gladiator however looks disastrous the bigger you go, as detail has been 'robbed' by the use of DNR.

Actually, it saddens me to see that so many people seem to think/prefer that blu-ray/high-definition is defined by 'smooth', clean and contrast-boosted imagery. This is just not the case. What we should be getting are, crisp, detailed and untouched representations of the original films. If the way a film was originally shot does not cater to your personal preference of what you think it should look like, just adjust your TV-set a get rid of that pesky 'noise'.

As a good visual example, take a look at this comparison of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly on blu-ray. The American blu-ray version uses a source that has been grain-reduced and tampered with to further extent - resulting in a 'smooth picture'. The Italian blu-ray was newly sourced from the original film-print, and kept untouched. Notice the difference in detail? The obvious change in accuracy of the colours?

https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/32650/picture:6

 

[theguru1]

As a good visual example, take a look at this comparison of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly on blu-ray. The American blu-ray version uses a source that has been grain-reduced and tampered with to further extent - resulting in a 'smooth picture'. The Italian blu-ray was newly sourced from the original film-print, and kept untouched. Notice the difference in detail? The obvious change in accuracy of the colours?

https://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/32650/picture:6

Man, that makes the US blu-ray look like complete junk....

Just think, they are no all so eager for 3D blu-ray and all that, yet at the moment, they can't even get the standard 2D blu-ray right.

 

[Michael Crawford]

I love people who are snobs over subjects like this

I'm not talking about film grain - that is noise, but it's not 'digital' noise. And because YOU think the image looks better with digital noise than without is your personal preference. To act as though that means anyone else is somehow clueless makes you a snob, not informed.

Here's the best part - you think I prefer the smoothed image. I didn't say a non-dnr'ed version was unacceptable - I said a version with excessive noise was. There's a huge difference. I don't prefer an over processed image. And I'm EXTREMELY picky when it comes to video (and audiio) quality. I've used the same ISF calibrator for over 10 years now, and he's come to expect my picky ways. But I'm not enough of a snob to think that my opinion on how the film should look is the right one for everyone, and I'm not surprised when people prefer the less sharp but less noisy image. I see the same thing with photos all the time.

 

[Estel]

I love people who are snobs over subjects like this

I'm not talking about film grain - that is noise, but it's not 'digital' noise. And because YOU think the image looks better with digital noise than without is your personal preference. To act as though that means anyone else is somehow clueless makes you a snob, not informed.

Here's the best part - you think I prefer the smoothed image. I didn't say a non-dnr'ed version was unacceptable - I said a version with excessive noise was. There's a huge difference. I don't prefer an over processed image. And I'm EXTREMELY picky when it comes to video (and audiio) quality. I've used the same ISF calibrator for over 10 years now, and he's come to expect my picky ways. But I'm not enough of a snob to think that my opinion on how the film should look is the right one for everyone, and I'm not surprised when people prefer the less sharp but less noisy image. I see the same thing with photos all the time.

Well I guess you shouldn't love me then, as I'm not a snob, and I don't regard my opinion on how film should look right for everyone. What I'm simply stating is that film should be preserved and released in its original form. In any case, it wasn't at all clear what you were referring to in regards to digital noise, as none could be spotted in the comparison I posted.

If I misinterpreted your words, I apologize as I wasn't meant to be hostile in any way.
Digital noise on any source would in fact be unacceptable, but I fail to see the connection to this subject.
I never stated that the image would look better with digital noise than without it.
In fact, seeing your latest post, I think you would have at least been able to notice that I was referring to film grain, not aware of the fact you were making a clear distinction between the two.

Furthermore New Line is infamous for its use of grain-reduction, has used it on pretty much every single one of their releases (even newer films) so far, and I'd have a hard time believing their recurrent application of it would be used to suppress digital noise. As far as I'm concerned it's not an aesthetic issue, and their is no relatively plausible connection between an 8-year old HDTV broadcast displaying more detail than a supposedly newly mastered blu-ray, and the reduction of digital noise. Even more humorous is the fact that the flashback scenes from FOTR inserted into TTT and ROTK look noticeably better than the transfer on the actual disc.

 

[Michael Crawford]

Hey, no prob. We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I see digital noise in the non-DNR'ed image. I'll be looking at the release (probably rent it first) to decide for myself whether the issues are big enough to cause a problem for me or not. Different quality issues can create bigger problems for each individual - for me, sharpness isn't as bi of an issue as the smearing of colors that also tends to come from over processing the image. And blacks getting crushed? God, how I hate a lack of shadow detail.

 

[The Ween]

I'm amazed at how my DVDs look on my 720p LCD tv!

 

[Michael Crawford]

It's funny because I think the DNR'ed blu-ray looks an awful lot like the DVD upconverted with a decent player! Scenes like the council discussion in FOTR are really soft there as well, and the CGI'ed Hobbits really stands out. I've always feared that the CGI was not going to fair well in 1080p.

 

[OSCORP]

Pretty mediocre review from IGN

The Bottom Line

The decision to pick this first edition up, rather than waiting for the extended set is one that comes down to personal preference and patience. New Line could have given fans more reason to buy this with some exclusive HD features, but chose not to. Even with the issues we had with the video quality, this is still the best-looking version of the film that's ever been available for the home market, so that's something to consider.

<!-- ign_inc_dvd_rating.jsp --> IGN's Ratings for The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy
<table id="ratingsBoxTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col id="ratingsBoxColA"><col id="ratingsBoxColB"><col id="ratingsBoxColC"> <tbody><tr> <td class="ratingsBoxHeader txtC">Rating</td> <td class="ratingsBoxHeader">Description</td> <td class="ratingsBoxHeader txtR">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxSubHeader txtC">out of 10</td> <td class="ratingsBoxSubHeader" id="ratingsBoxInfo" colspan="2"> click here for ratings guide </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxScore">9</td> <td class="ratingsBoxText" colspan="2">The Movie
One of the most ambitious epics of all time and an instant classic. Though now that we've seen the extended editions, the theatrical versions seem incomplete.</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxScore">7</td> <td class="ratingsBoxText" colspan="2">The Video
Varying picture quality that gets better with each release, but even the last installment shows some signs of age.</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxScore">9</td> <td class="ratingsBoxText" colspan="2">The Audio
The best part of this disc, the sound draws you into the action and underscores the drama in the quieter interludes.</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxScore">5</td> <td class="ratingsBoxText" colspan="2">The Extras
With the exception of some new trailers, nothing here is exclusive or in high-definition. A missed opportunity that will likely be corrected with the inevitable double dip.</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="ratingsBoxScoreOv">7</td> <td class="ratingsBoxTextOv">OVERALL
(out of 10)</td> <td class="ratingsBoxEc">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[The Ringer]

It looks like I will be sticking with my HD recordings for a while.

 

[The Ween]

It looks like I will be sticking with my HD recordings for a while.

If they keep delaying The Hobbit, it might be for a long while.

 

[Maglor]

I'll buy 'em regardless. There are enough subtle differences between the theatrical versions and the extended editions that I feel compelled to have both sets. The way Saruman's end is handled, for example.

That is one of a very few examples. But the EE Saruman end is vastly superior.

 

[LOTRFan]

The EE Gandalf the White is no bueno.