Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

LOTR Trilogy EE's Blu-Rays to be split on 2 disc each.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:38:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:39:13 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"Debating" with someone like tarek - who completely ignores the truth and keeps finding more irrelevant ways to make his point - and then STILL fails when doing that - has caused me to dumb down my responses just so he can realize how wrong he is.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:49:17 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:44 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 30, 2011 1:50:26 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Absolutely. And, before you do: You're welcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:52:17 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:53:22 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Whichever you prefer. I don't want it to get to confusing for you. ^_^

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 1:53:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 1:54:41 PM PDT
A/V guru says:
FLAC???

Do you seriously believe FLAC from an Ipod sounds as good as...

Beethoven: Piano Trios, Vol. 1; Itzhak Perlman; Vladimir Ashkenazy; Lynn Harrell through...
Cambridge Audio Topaz Premium CD Player

????

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 2:00:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 5:04:31 PM PDT
tarek, clearly. The second one has mosquito noise all around the trees. What, you can't see a difference?

Posted on Mar 30, 2011 5:16:29 PM PDT
Well, looks like I'll just forget about TLOTR then. Shame, since it's so good, but I switched to BR for a reason, and that reason was LESS F'ING DISCS.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 5:17:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 5:18:02 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Interesting. I switched to Blu-ray because of the better audio/video quality.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 5:18:09 PM PDT
Really? Higher resolution had absolutely nothing to do with it?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 5:18:52 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe, I switched to Blu-ray because I liked the little blue logo.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 5:20:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 5:24:43 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
When I watch YouTube videos, I play them back in 240p. 1080p has too much distracting "detail."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 6:17:34 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 8:39:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 30, 2011 8:43:02 PM PDT
It's time to see an optician if you can't see obvious mosquito noise. I don't know what's worse, that you're in denial, or you're a so-called "graphic design artist" that can't tell the difference between a highly compressed jpeg and one that's better quality.

So if I pay you to design a banner, forget a lossless .TIFF or .BMP, you're going to use .JPEG's as your project save files because you can't tell the difference.

I wonder if you think you have the best upscaler, because you pop in a DVD and all you can see if flawless picture. Your comparison going from 1.4MB to 0.4MB is like going from a 25GB blu-ray to a 9GB DVD -- nope, no difference at all. Honestly, that's sarcasm.

Posted on Mar 31, 2011 5:16:41 AM PDT
OrangeCrush says:
In all honesty DeadMike is right. Splitting the film onto 2 discs will give a better picture with less artifacts. Of course the point that hasn't been brought up is that less than 1% of the population could actually detect such a difference and even less actually care about such a difference. Hell most people are content with SD DVD. Do you honestly think they will care or even notice the difference between a single disc or split disc release of LOTR on Blu Ray?

Ultimately there are many things that effect the overall quality that one is able to see in regards to picture quality. Most importantly is the quality of one's eyesight and how far they sit away from their HDTV's. If you sit too far away from the HDTV you wont be able to tell the difference between SD DVD and BD, let alone the minute differences that people are talking about in encodes. I am an architectural photographer and photograph houses and home theaters all the time and its absolutely mind boggling how many houses I go into that have their HDTV seating too far from the HDTV. In order to see the full detail of a 1080p picture you have to sit at least 8 feet from the HDTV (with a 50"-60" set). Most of the houses I photograph have seating at least 50%-75% too far from the HDTV. Of course the quality of the HDTV or projector also comes into play as well and lets face it, the vast majority of HDTV's sold are not large, top of the line HDTV's. In fact they are 42" or smaller.

So when you break it all down and factor in eyesight, distance one sits from their HDTV, quality and size of the HDTV, how much that person cares about small differences in picture quality, etc..... Well, the percentage of people that actually would care, or could even see, the small difference in picture quality between a 2 disc LOTR release and a 1 disc LOTR is so small that its a waste of time even debating it. Its minuscule to say the least.

I used to be an HD junkie. I was obsessed with picture quality and spent gobs of money on the best equipment on the market including a 60" Pioneer Kuro PRO-141FD and a sound system by ADA. I spent more on my home theater than I did on my car. I also spent a lot of time on HD forums reviewing HD releases. Then it hit me, I started to realize that I was so focused on the technical aspects like the picture quality, that it was actually negatively effecting my overall movie watching experience. One cannot be fully engaged in a film while obsessing about the picture quality. One takes away from the other. I have since stopped caring about insignificant increases in bit rate and picture quality. As long as the movie has a quality encode and a lossless soundtrack, I am good. obsessing over such minute differences in quality or over almost invisible artifacts is just a waste of time in my book and again it actually is a distraction and takes away from the movie itself. Watching films without being obsessed over these sorts of details is like taking a big breath of fresh air. I highly recommend other people who have the picture bug

Regardless of how you feel about this topic, Deadmike is still correct. The picture quality for the LOTR's movies will be superior on a 2 disc set. It will have a higher bit rate and will have less compression artifacts. I myself would prefer to have them on 1 disc as I know they could produce superb 1 disc editions. They may not be as good as a 1 disc release but it would certainly be good enough for me, and for the vast majority of people out there.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 6:21:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:46 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 31, 2011 10:06:07 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
So, after all of this time... tarek still doesn't understand analogies, doesn't admit when he's wrong, is still trying to prove a point that he's been proven wrong about, and is getting worked up on irrelevant details (MPEG-2 vs AVC) even though he is wrong about that. How is he wrong about that? Well, let's see.

Are any of you familiar with the new 'Memento' 10th Anniversary Blu-ray edition? The first Blu-ray edition uses an old master, MPEG-2 encoding, and a lower bitrate than the new one (which has a new master, AVC encoding, and a higher bitrate). You would think that the new edition is better in all aspects because of that information, right? Wrong.

While the scenes of the movie that are in color look more impressive on the new edition, the black and white scenes actually look worse (less detailed) - almost like they are from an upscaled DVD. I imagine that the reason for this is because of the source used for the master. Me, and some others, have had long discussions as to why the black and white scenes may look inferior on the new version, but nobody knows for sure. In any event, here are some screenshots (the default screenshot here is for a black and white scene): http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=5&vergleich=memento&action=1&lossless=1#vergleich

When the sceenshot loads, the image you are first looking at is of the 10th Anniversary AVC encode. When you hover over it, you'll see the version from the old MPEG-2 master. Which one looks more detailed? The MPEG-2 one.

Why is this relevant? Because you can absolutely compare MPEG-2 with AVC. I made a point a few pages back that seems to have been glossed over, but the condition of the master is far more important than bitrate and codecs used. Now, tarek, I want you to resist turning this discussion into, "I guess bitrate doesn't matter so we can squeeze all of the movies on one disk...^^" - No. That's because 'Return of the King' is using the *same* master, just different encodes due to the theatrical being on one disc and the extended on two discs. That's why the discussion here is focused on bitrate, because the master is from the same source.

The point, though, is that you can absolutely compare a lower bitrate MPEG-2 encode with a higher bitrate AVC encode. Sometimes (like with 'Memento'), the lower bitrate MPEG-2 encode can win. This all depends on the condition of the master. Now, this whole point really is irrelevant because you are not understanding that Jonathan and I are using what is called "an analogy" when we bring up DVDs. It's just a simple way of getting you to understand the difference between "a lot of GB" and "a smaller amount of GB." But, that goes right over your head and you begin turning it into an AVC vs MPEG-2 debate, making the preposterous claim that a 30mbps AVC encode will look the same as a 15mbps AVC encode, as if somehow AVC is magic and that bitrate is entirely irrelevant just because "AVC" is used. Seriously, and I'm not exaggerating, but you have been wrong on *every* issue in this thread. It's really time for you to give up.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 10:13:30 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:48 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 10:14:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 10:15:32 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
HAHAHAHAHA! I know you didn't talk to me because I have proven you wrong in every conversation. It seems you finally caught on that you are fighting a losing battle. I proved you wrong again just now, with your "MPEG-2 vs. AVC" problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 10:23:41 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:48 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 11:23:25 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:48 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:04:25 PM PDT
tarek,
.TIFF is a lossless codec. So is .BMP. .PSD is the project file for Photoshop.
.JPEG, .PNG, and .GIF are lossy codecs.

But it doesn't surprise me in the least that lossy and lossless flies right over your head.

Sure, you don't use .TIFF on the web, but only because it's too big, and the resolution won't be stretched out in a way that minute distortions are visible.

You know they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You seem to think you know a lot, but you just regurgitate surface knowledge -- things that makes sense to you but you have no idea what the technical background is. You say .TIFF is print works as it applies to your projects, but you don't know that .TIFF preserves detail and .JPEG doesn't.

And you're the "professional". I don't even work on Photoshop that often. That makes your case alarming.

You go on Amazon to show off your non-knowledge. Way to go tarek...

^(=o.0=)^

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:07:45 PM PDT
.FLAC is new, tarek?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  292
Initial post:  Mar 21, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions