Who Hasn't seen Lord of the rings yet?

Who Hasn't seen Lord of the rings yet?

  • Me. I'm locked in this dark little cave and never get out to see anyone.

    Votes: 3 100.0%

  • I'm going to lie and say i have because i'm so terribly ashamed of my isolation.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    3
Shadowfax said:
wtf? there shouldn't be a difference in quality between the different regions....

I've got the R2 DVD, and sound AND visuals are really good...
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually I'll take that back. The R2 disk isn't "crap", it just isn't as well mastered as the R1 version. Don't ask me why but there was a little storm on certain A/V forums when it was released over why this should be. Many people have both copies and apparently the difference in both the picture and the sound is quite noticeable. Having watched the R2 version a couple of times now I tend to agree with some of the points that have been made - picture isn't quite as sharp as it could be, centre channel is a badly mixed. Still perefectly watchable though. Good film. :)
 
The battle.

Attachment(s):

1.jpg, 87.08kb

225_1031606174.jpg


2.jpg, 81.69kb

225_1031606245.jpg


3.jpg, 62.91kb

225_1031606403.jpg
 
insert penis here said:
Yeah, actually I'll take that back. The R2 disk isn't "crap", it just isn't as well mastered as the R1 version. Don't ask me why but there was a little storm on certain A/V forums when it was released over why this should be. Many people have both copies and apparently the difference in both the picture and the sound is quite noticeable. Having watched the R2 version a couple of times now I tend to agree with some of the points that have been made - picture isn't quite as sharp as it could be, centre channel is a badly mixed. Still perefectly watchable though. Good film. :)
Click to expand...


Strange....wonder why there should be ANY difference in quality...no matter how small it may be...
I thought it was just a matter of making a copy, and changing the setting to the right region :)
 
Europeans use PAL for most part. PAL sucks imho. I can't even stand 75Hz on my computer, and you use 50 Hz on your TV, at 25 frames per second. We go at 30 frames per second. And I don't give a shit for the extra 80 lines, it is like 5mm on the TV. I own only region 1 DVDs :) Couldn't care for the other regions.
 
LastLegionary said:
go at 30 frames per second.
Click to expand...

Well technically for films you get telecined 24fps FILM with a 3:2 pulldown. This can look like total ASS.
 
...so a lot of the stuff you watch contains 6 redundant frames per second. We only have one. It's the cinematographical equivalent of sticking socks down your pants to make yer dick seem bigger. :D

Plus the 50Hz comment makes no sense because that being the case you guys are "stuck" at only 60Hz - still way below what would be acceptable on a PC. You can't make direct comparisons between TVs and computer monitors. The way in which they display picture information is totally different.

As if it matters anyway, both formats have their merits and are capable of equivalent quality, IMO.
 
nalani said:
kuulani said:
You haven't seen it?!?! We have the DVD if you wanna borrow it.
You can watch it with my sis, she hasn't seen it yet either.
Click to expand...

WOOHOO!!! When did you buy the DVD? The kids were trying to get me to buy it the other day when we were at Safeway ... :D

I should have time on Friday to watch it ... the rest of my week is shot to hell :(
Click to expand...

We've had it for awhile. We're currently developing a policy though that none of the kids can touch our DVDs. They always come back scratched :retard:

:D
 
well, both formats can look nice on TV, but in a puter monitor i rather watch a film encoded in NTSC, once i rented Les Rivieres Pourpres DVD (which is PAL) and panning scenes just sucked.
 
I have to say I didn't think it was the perfect film. But it is a good example of how a book should be transformed into a film.

Visually...I thought it was the best film I've ever seen.
 
Scanty said:
I have to say I didn't think it was the perfect film. But it is a good example of how a book should be transformed into a film.

Visually...I thought it was the best film I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I agree, ports to movies (from books/games or whatever) often feel botched, so it's good to see it that great, to what Tolkien writings are worth IMO. It's the best film I've saw visually, but I thought the audio really standed out; I've seldom heard so much surround kick-assness since the Twister release on DVD (early days of home AC3). For me it was overall the best film I've ever seen...

Hex, cool shots, I tried to take the exact same shot of Arwen in my DivX version, but the overlay wasn't captured at all. She's really a cutie :headbang:
 
Just to get really nerdy...I thought the film had the most awesome sound effects ever. All the roars of the creatures, and the part at the beginning when Sauron orwhatever his name is, puts on the ring and the whole army is blasted outwards - the rumbling sound just fucking shakes your brains, it's cool. :D
 
kuulani said:
We've had it for awhile. We're currently developing a policy though that none of the kids can touch our DVDs. They always come back scratched :retard:

:D
Click to expand...

personally, I like that policy. I lent my Harry Potter to my kids and Kauila to watch at aunty's house and it came back scratchter than scratched. In fact, all the DVDs we own are scratched. I think we need to come up with some kind of anti-borrow device, a siren that goes off if it leaves the premises :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top