LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY 4K UHD BLU-RAY REVIEW - Bad 4K DNR and a 2K UPSCALE? Screencaps Comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2024
- The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is finally here on 4K UHD Blu-ray. There's a lot of good and a lot of bad. In this video, I address some of the issues with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy on 4K Blu-ray that I do not see being talked about elsewhere.
Support the channel - / boutiqueblurays
Buy LOTR 4K in the US - amzn.to/2LjexIp
Buy LOTR 4K in the UK - amzn.to/37OAbvV
Related videos:
My Top 5 4K Blu-rays! - • Top 5 4K UHD Blu-rays ...
Is 4K worth it? - • Is 4K worth it in 2022...
Check caps-a-holic.com/ for more LOTR 4K screencaps
Instagram - @elliotcoenfilms
Business enquiries - elliotcoenfilms@gmail.com
00:00 Intro
00:42 Packaging
01:34 Audio Dolby Atmos Review
03:03 HDR Review
04:03 Colour changes
05:29 4K Restoration
08:34 Screencaps Comparisons
16:55 Conclusion
Any purchases made through Amazon affiliate links help support the channel at no additional cost to you. Thank you.
Tags (ignore these)
lord of the rings 4k
the lord of the rings 4k
lord of the rings
lotr 4k comparison
lotr 4k review
lord of the rings 4k comparison
lord of the rings 4k review
lord of the rings 4k unboxing
4k lord of
4k lord of the rings
4k lord of the rings review
4k lord of the rings extended
is lord of the rings 4k worth it
lord of the rings uhd
lord of the rings uhd 4k
lord of the rings uhd unboxing
uhd lord of the rings
lotr uhd
lotr uhd 4k
lotr uhd 4k review
4k dnr - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Note - some people have picked up on my referring to Super 35 as Super Cine. My apologies if that is incorrect. I've always used the two terms interchangeably. Please do not let this take away from the issues I'm presenting in this video. Thanks!
Super review - great to see that you've taken the time to analyse the frames so carefully. Really appreciated and very interesting. My guess is the picture quality isn't as good as the 4K Star Wars Rise of Skywalker, which was also shot on film... the actual quality of the story, however, is a different issue.
10:20 (ish...)
Would the use of DNR make sense in the context of it being a 4k scan of the original film?
I.e Getting rid of the extra grainyness that's inherent in the process as you said earlier?
Great video by the way 👍
Any clues how long we'll have to wait for the super special box set?
Super35 using 35mm film actually tends to be grainier than anamorphic scope because you are cropping into and blowing up a full frame image to extract a scope ratio.
Can you clarify which film format was used for LOTR?
Would you find it wrong if I disagree with some of your points? As an example, your shot of Helm's Deep look better on the 4K Blu-Ray to my eyes, much better. Same for Legolas.
This is a brilliant review. Don’t apologize for being too detailed or that it may bother people. We come to you because these details ARE important to us and I appreciate all of your research. DNR has been crippling so many tv shows and films.
Thank you so much for the kind words, it means a lot!
He's nitpicking, IMHO. Yes, film grain is nice, but the uptake in detail and depth on the 4K discs of LOTR is more than enough to overshadow it. To me, there's about 1 instance per movie where they fuck up:
1. In the Fellowship of the Ring, stunt/body doubles are far more noticeable than ever before,
2. In the Two Towers, there is a smearing effect on Legolas' face when he's talking to Theoden (pointed out by HDTVtest)
3. The ear and the staff in RotK.
Do a few fuck ups mean we need to stop enjoying those movies?
Is a lack of film grain enough of a reason to bash the super detailed 4K image on these movies?
@@adriannn3720 there is less detail on the 4k disk, bigger numbers don't always mean better.
I feel that Peter Jackson's decision to make the 35mm transfers of TLOTR blend seamlessly with the digitally shot Hobbit have ruined the beauty of celluloid film. DNR has absolutely scrubbed away lovely grain, detail and depth. The benefit of these UHD discs over the Blu-ray's is high bit-rate and HDR - but they could have been so much better if the glorious 35mm had been allowed to breathe.
Film enthusiasts who like film grain are similar to audio enthusiasts who like hearing scratches in audio. So regressive and stuck with the times. It’s long past time to move on.
@@mosesking2923 I disagree, with motion picture the medium plays an incredibly integral part. Using DNR to remove detail that is actually there and replace it with interpolated data is almost akin to replacing an oil painting with watercolor.
@@mosesking2923 spoken like a true cinematic Philistine!
@@victorgan347 absolutely 100 per cent agree! Well said.
Agree. Should have been the other way around...make the Hobbit look more like the filmic LOTR. Digitally shot stuff is so....stilted.... inorganic.... It can be ok on the right film but not for these. This is epic cinema and should be organic and grainy and personally I think it ages far better. There's a reason Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus look absolutely amazing and flawless on 4K and the reason is certainly not DNR and lack of grain!
I remember owning these movies on vhs...how far we have come.
They certainly look better than the VHS! Technology has come a long way indeed. Thanks for watching!
Vhs? Did you have like 8 tapes?
@@sunstyle52 one for each movie. I distinctly remember borrowing the vhs version of the two towers from a friend and it was just one vhs for the cinematic cut.
(I did just check, the cinematic cut had one vhs, the extended one two)
@@sunstyle52 VHS Tapes could go up to 4 hours.
@@iododendron3416 I had the same set. It was the theatrical versions from memory, don't think the extended versions came out until DVD later.
The grain and warmer color tones is what I actually adored about these movies, it gives them that magical/surreal feeling, with this new 4K treatment they lost that special thing, they look blend for the majority of time, plus all of the effects become more visible, so much they make it hard for me to enjoy the movie, since you can actually see the majority of effects (you can see the difference in color of characters and backgrounds etc). In old version everything was blended so much better. If it is possible they should've just upscale the resolution and leave everything as it is.
@35FootTwinkie From my experience and, in my opinion, the only release that is truly and objectively 'warmer' in color grading are the original Extended DVD Editions. The blu ray versions were mostly blue/neutral depending on which release you're referencing. But the DVDs they released were night and day difference, which I think what was so jarring for reviewer in this video -- because the 4K are night and day difference from both blu rays in terms of color grading.
Just because it's a fantasy movie doesn't mean it need to have a weird tint all over it
Fellowship Of the Ring in both DVD versions as well as cinematic version of Blu-ray give Shire and Rivendell a very warm look. It was completely lost in Blu-ray extended and in 4k. Check out this comparison: th-cam.com/video/iPBP-3-_Beg/w-d-xo.html
Apparently they added this processing to The Hobbit as well. As for "trying to make it look digital", you just can't do that. It's not actually possible. With film, detail is build FROM grain, so you take grain away, you take detail away. With digital, there's not as much grain, but you don't sacrifice detail to get there. It's just because the way they gather light causes less of a loss of accuracy. Although they often actually just shoot at a higher resolution and supersample it down to achieve the lower noise effect. The Hobbit for example shot on 5K and was edited in 2K.
Personally I'm old school and always prefer old fashioned film. Filmic... With grain... Is best! Organic! I'm not overly thrilled by purely digitally shot stuff. I think filmic stuff ages better than digita as well. Same goes for digital vs practical effects IMHO. And I loathe DNR but so should any real cinephile!
Totally agree with both of you. My standard is Criterion Collection. They could have applied that standard to this release, but the foolish desire to have the two series look the same has now ruined LotR as well. I guess I'll be waiting for the Criterion version in about 20+ years!
@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio Grain for want of a better word is good.
@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio unfortunately that's the difference between boutique Blu publishers and the mainstream ones. One appeals to those that appreciate film as an artistic medium and the other is mainly just for bulk consumers of entertainment. Obviously trying to make LOTR look more digital and less filmic is trying to appeal to the latter. That's how it feels anyway.
@@animalanimation5110 I see film grain in the original blu-ray version. It's visible there. I think your perception of lack of grain was due to the ways in which you originally viewed the films. It wouldn't have been visible either in the theater (because projections disguise it) or on DVDs (because it's not particularly visible at that resolution and hidden by compression). You can't avoid film grain in 35 mm film. It's going to be there no matter you do. You can only smear it, which destroys detail.
Lord of the rings are my favourite films of all time, the smoothing and dnr is really disappointing.
Fair play for going out of your way to cover it, in that much detail though.
Man they did the same thing on the Hobbit too.I tried the movies on nu oled tv and it looks atrocious on some scenes the image ia washed.
The films aren’t dnrd he’s insane.
@@johnd8744 yes they are, stop being in denial.
There is no grain. How can there not be DNR Lol!
Can we get a petition going for a non-DNR version?
Waste of time, it isn't going to happen. It'd cost way too much money to re-release them and it was approved by Peter Jackson.
@@SagaciousFrank What a fool! First he approved the Extended green and black clipping of The Fellowship and now this abomination!
@@turrican4d599 , is it really that bad? Why have there been positive critical reviews then?
@@SagaciousFrank Not a tech nerd but it blew me away. I think it's amazing looking. Some people are talking about the effect on it. As a huge fantasy buff I think it makes it look more like a fantasy story in a good way.
Some small scenes looks like some color look drained. That's it. To answer your question it's not that bad. Infact I think it's amazing.
@@starcraftCS , thanks for opinion!
Great review. As much as I enjoyed the films in 4k (and it does look much better in motion than in still frames), I also noticed DNR and it bothered me. HOWEVER, my impression is that the quality varies immensely from shot to shot. I suspect that much of the live-action footage was indeed scanned in 4k from the original camera negative with only slight DNR processing applied. However, all shots that include special effects (which might not be noticeable special effects, such as removal of airplane condensation stripes in the sky) were taken from the existing 2k DI and subjected to EE and DNR. Often even within the same scene, some shots look extremely digitally processed, while other shots look much more natural. This is especially noticeable in the aftermath of the Warg battle in TTT (when Legolas and Theoden discuss leaving the dead behind). In contrast to this, look at the detail in Gandalf's face in FOTR when giving encouragement to Frodo in Moria (after Frodo notices Gollum). To me, this does not look like a 2k upsample.
This is incredibly informative, can't thank you enough!!
My pleasure, David. Thanks for watching!
Remember that there are the original theatrical blurays, which have the original colours as per the theatrical DVDs, lovely! Those are my default versions to watch. The extended versions were then giving the revised colour grading 'scheme', on purpose. Green, brown and blue respectively (the box art colours give a big clue). Jackson said it was intentional and I dont know why this has been forgotten.
It drives me nuts that they keep effing around with colour grading on so many remasters.
I hope that someone makes a despecialized version just like it was done with the og star wars films.
I find it remarkable that, directly compared, the 1080p Bluray shows more detail than the 4k one. They didn't just mildly reduce noise. They completely smeared it. And what is all the "making it look digital" talk about? First of all it clearly harms the source material. And secondly why would you make two trilogies look more alike by using the inferior one as the reference?
This is flat out wrong I have Collectors Edition both normal BD and UHD versions and UHD version just kills the BD version. On OLED there is no competition.UHD is by far the winner.
@@cenktheangel I agree. On my OLED it was unbelievable. Yes, we can definitely point out DNR, but in aggregate the UHD discs are stunning.
Youd be suprised that some blu rays destroy a lot of 4k movies released. My ps3 was the best purchase ever for blue rays. With new 4k oled blu rays still stand out and upscaled vs 4k movies. 4k movies only a few are really perfection. Plus most 4k players have serious issues. Wish the PS5 would improve im future for a true 4k player. Anything streamed 4k is really downsized in qualith. I literally tested same movies on 3 tvs side by side.
100% agree with everything said, I will be sticking with my extended edition blu-rays as the more natural, closest to film experience. I don’t mind the black crush here and there cuz it looks like the actual photography. Let me ask you this guys, if viewing art in a museum would you prefer to view the art in it’s original (or closest to) form, or through some instagram filter that plays to a modern audience? HDR, 4K, and the process of remastering should be used as a tool to restore not change, not add or take away. As good as the audio might be watching the video this way with DNR and unnatural HDR effect is took distracting. It’s too shiny and slick, and the Lord of the Rings never looks like that. I should know, I projected them on film myself when they came out.
I would rather it look how the artist wanted which would be restored.
Depends. I saw a video explaining why seeing the Mona Lisa in person often disappoints and it turns out the painting when new was much more vibrant.
Then again, this has nothing to do with a digital image that can't "fade" with time.
Hey dude great analysis. I appreciate you showing screen shots to illustrate your point. This was the best breakdown of these transfers I have seen yet
Thanks so much, Troy. That means a lot to me!
Nice in depth review! Not sure how I feel about the colour timing change. I've seen these each countless times and I feel the change in colour will be destracting. The audio you described sounds epic! Cheers
So glad to see this video doing well, keep up the good work, man!
Thanks so much!
"Perhaps this is the best these movies will ever look"
- Elliot Coen
Yes, ultimately we may never see another restoration of these movies come 8K or another format, so this could be the best we ever have :)
...barring all the other "improved" or "enhanced" versions that have been released
@@ElliotCoen so you don't think i made the wrong decision by spending 50 euros on the set?
@@ElliotCoen I think the DVD was better.
It's great to find a UK based 4k collector. Great in depth review. Thank you.
Hey, thanks so much!
Great review. I feel that far too few have reviewed this release with an actual eye for detail. The more people who talk about destructive film “remastering,” the better. It’s absurd that companies try and pass off poor releases to the public, knowing most people won’t be able to see what they’re doing wrong.
After watching the movies myself i completley agree with you.
Even my friends who never watched a 4k-bluray before noticed the lack of filmgrain and how all the CGI-effects (like Gollum) look much worse than on the bluray.
Sadly we have a massive problems with LotR:
Bluray (Standard Version) from 2011: heavy use of DNR, low contrast, but the color grading was fine
Bluray (Extended Version) from 2012: no heavy use of DNR, some edge enhancement but not offensive, great contrast, green tint in the first movie, other two look fine
4k Bluray: heavy use of DNR, loss of detail, edge enhancement, great color grading and impressive HDR-implementation
So each version has its own strength and weaknesses. I prefer the Extended Bluray. I can live with the green tint in the first movie. Got used to it :P
There's actually a remastered Blu-ray set that was quietly released in 2021, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of Fellowship. I absolutely love it. Same as with the older Blu-ray set, the Appendices and Behind the Scenes documentaries are on DVD. I strongly recommend checking that one out. 4K just isn't too appealing to me.
My contraversial opinion is that I actually quite like the greener colour grading in Fellowship
@@loganidol did that remastered blu-ray fix the green tint on fellowship?
@@ed00001 seems like it, yeah
Is the 2021 remastered bluray theatrical or extended? I see two versions on Amazon. Do they have DNR?
I keep reading reviews online: some love it, some hate it. But I really appreciate your review here. You go into great detail about how everything works and the costs of getting it "right". As well as providing screencaps to help show your point. Not to mention you have a soothing voice lol.
I'm torn between the film grain of the blu-rays, and the HDR and Dolby Atmos of the 4Ks.
Loved the review. Honestly, you have one of the best thorough reviews and I appreciate it. Wish it was a little longer. Hope to see your review of the Hobbit trilogy.
The Hobbit has probably one of the worse use of edge enhancement I have seen on UHD so far... The 1080p blu-ray discs look better. LOTR UHD has a better treatment with a very good HDR grading, but a radical change from the original photography. Again, definition wise it's sometimes slighty better as the 1080p discs, but for most of the time it has no improvement whatsoever due to a massive use of DNR.
5/5 on blu-ray dot con... They clearly are blind or have been paid by Warner to give these discs such good ratings.
That shot of pippin in the distance having less detail kind of defeats the purpose of higher resolution doesn’t it?
But imagine if they did a 4k scan of the original negatives. Then you would be able to tell that it was the stand-in actor because the detail would be so great.
That was probably why they did it. You could even more clearly see a person wearing a mask. They would have to remake many scenes with CGI-faces.
@@gandalfthegay. Or just accept that it is a stand in, laugh it off, and go about watching a movie.
@@jollygoodfellow3957 oh no then you would realize it's a movie! Can't enjoy it if it doesn't hold up to real life!
It's a bad upscaled movie, That's it.
Really appreciate the attention to detain in this review Elliot, I have been tempted by the 4K release for a while, but I'll stick to the Blu-ray versions which I love!
My pleasure Sam. Cheers!
@@ElliotCoen Will you be bringing some attention to the Hobbits 4K treatment as well?
Peter Jackson wants Lord of the Rings to fit in with the Hobbit, not the Hobbit to fit with Lord of the Rings. Sad to say I am getting George Lucas vibes from him.
MAJOR George Lucas vibes.
Great review. It's refreshing to hear an honest, and rare, review of this box set and it's many flaws. I'd lost faith in almost all film reviewers, as I'm sure you're aware, many reviews have claimed this to be one of the best 4k transfers ever!
I'd love to know what you think about the Akira 4k uhd release, I've returned my copy after having learnt that HDR has been omitted.
Great review, bud. what are you rocking for audio currently? I don't have a setup at all and am looking for any recommends on Atmos or even just a surround set up. Cheers!
Funny I've watched a bunch of reputable youtubers review this and none of them said anything like this. Interesting. But to be fair I've watched all of these 4k releases on my properly calibrated tv and my tv shows better imaging than these screenshots (side by side on the tv) great video
This is the reason why I returned my 4K trilogy and kept the bluray. So much better.
Which bluray is it, extended or theatrical? Year?
Great review and thank you. Can you offer an overall opinion of audio/video quality (your preference) between 4K Hobbit or 4K LOTR ?
Just wanted to say you are completely right in your assessment. I am all for re-scanning and increase detail and some noise reduction can be fine but this is far too much. I see it like this: Noise reduction is okay, as long as you can't make out the noise reduction. If I had to choose between visible noise reduction and visible noise I would choose noise every time. It's actually less distracting too, because it's uniform and randomly distributed.
Finally someone who point out that this was not just a sunshine story as it seems all other reviews are saying. Thank you sir! I just saw the 4k extended version yesterday, did a whole marathon and I saw alot of the things your telling in the still pictures even without seeing this video first. The staff was one of them 😦
Subscribed. Glad I discovered this channel :)
Great video. :)
Thank you!
Thanks, very constructive review. Noise reduction is a tool that should be handled with caution, happens to me when treating photos I took in RAW format. I just hope that the box set they announced for next summer will tackle these issues
Great video. Thanks for doing the hard work on this.
No problem, Thom. I thought it worth sharing so I put in a little extra time on this video.
I got the 2010 Blu-ray versions of these. The picture on them is outstanding
No, only the 2011 extended edition on blu ray looks outstanding.
The audio upgrades on this Dolby Atmos mix are INSANE though if any of you do upgrade. The sound designers literally separated the “objects” into what feels like over a dozen different pieces, at different heights and is probably the most immersive audio I’ve yet heard along with Bladerunner 2049. Ceiling effects just blow you away hour after hour.
same, but this is way better on a 4K tv
@@FrictionalGamer I believe the 2011 extended edition has the altered color timing I believe. 2010 has the original color timing
@@dogpd3 no, the 2011 is the original color timing and it looks great!
I've watched so many reviews of the 4k release and they were all super positive. I'm thankful for this video for being the only one that's actually noticed these problems. That Shadowfax one was particularly egregious
If he's the only one making this kind of claims, maybe he's lying. The 4K transfer looks magnificent, far better than the old Blu ray.
@@chronodr The video speaks for itself dude. Plus, having come back to this comment after a year I know that these kinds of issues are common in 4k upscaling
@@TheHauntedAngel this is not upscaling. It's a new scan. I did a comparison last week. The 4K version looks much crisper and more detailed
Thanks for your very informative thoughts!! I’ll be definitely sticking with my old blu-ray set!!👍
Highly thorough review, and not what I was expecting. I can only recommend one thing when watching these in 4K, considering the things you have now highlighted... drink more beer and the enjoyment will be there.
Thanks for the information, Elliot. Glad I am waiting on these. Such a shame they didn't make them better.
My pleasure, Doug! Thanks for watching.
This is how a review should be. Talk about the fast stuff first and digg into details further into the vid(if your interested, you will follow) and yes this was so interesting and well put toghether as a reiview.
Great vid and great job!
I am an audio engineer and cant wait to hear the new atmos track for this 4k version. But im so dissapontied about the DNR and scrubbing of details u mentioned theyv done in this tho:( But a will have to watch it to conclude anything. Maybe this version actually suits a 4k HDR Tv over a bluray verision on a Full HD tv.
Can confirm the HDR is pretty great, but the DNR is very apparent sadly
He talk trash, editors completely strip this movie and rebuild back again in 4k technology.
The atmos is incredible, one of the best mixes I've heard
Thank you for taking the time and explaining everything so eloquently.
Thanks for this in-depth review. It counter-balance the other four in-depth reviews I have watched the last week here on You Tube. Well, I have already bought the 4K set, and still looking forward to seeing this!
Dang. Honestly I haven't picked up the set yet. This was a very interesting video and thank you for being honest as well. I am still planning to pick the set up and wait for the big boxset that will come out in 2021. Also I will keep the blu-ray extended edition boxset just because it is very nostalgic for me and it was my first box set I ever own in my collection. take care and have a good one.
-Bernardo Cisneros
Man, your voice is so soothing. Like there's not much emotion but maybe that's what makes it so calming. Great review! Now I'm gonna check out some of your other videos
Thank you so much!
Very ilustrative! I believe I can live with those little details. Thanks!
Absolutely brilliant and intelligently and patiently explained. Very helfpul. Yes, it's a lot of technical detail but I felt he brings a great deal of authenticity. I used to read a lot of audio/videophile journalism, and this is amongst the most expert insight I could expect to read or hear. Great work.
I still miss the color timing of the original DVD I wish they would do the color temperatures of that release but with more subtlety and in 4k uhd
DVD is really bad when it comes to the color palette as the gamut of SD video is very limited in range. Blu-ray is archaic as it is with Rec 709 color. At least 4k HDR can do Cinema P3 and Rec 2020.
@@dan_hitchman007 Bigger number more better!!!
Will never sell my extended blurays :D
Enjoy that green tinted Fellowship.
I will probably buy this collection too, just so i can watch a color corrected version of fellowship with horrible dnr every once in a while
I'm keeping my extended Blu Ray set for the special features, because they are very extensive and fascinating! Overall, despite some of the issues mentioned, I still think the 4K looks better overall. The new color grading and HDR looks SO much better than on the Blu Rays IMO! (though the black-and-white change in the "vision" scene is a bit strange)
@@SamLovesMovies25 cool, glad you like it :)
honestly if you make screens hots it is apparent. But while watching the movie it is no so much. I didn't notice any at all on my 70 inch screen. Of course it could have been better. But super happy for this release. Compared to hobbit there is definitely less detail on faces and hair. But still much better then bluray in my opinion.
Sorry I’m late to the show : love the review Elliot. What would say is the best edition of the theatrical and extended cuts of Lots of the Rings Trilogy to purchase ? Is blu ray better in this case ?? I have dvd copies from the original home. Video release period, and had been interested in upgrading to 4K or a newer / better blu ray remaster ?? Thanks
Excellent review. New subscriber for sure. Thank you!
Thanks so much, Al!
Weird how at first glance the 4K discs look grainy to me in my Samsung Q80T (HDR10)
Awesome review. First I've seen that was honest
Thanks so much for watching :)
FANTASTIC review! I applaud your review, attention to detail, and excellent examples. Elliot, your dedication for this comparison is greatly appreciated.
So which version is worth buying now? I bought the extended blu rays for christmas, is it better to buy the 4k or can i stick to my purchase?
According to The Digital Bits, they did go back to the original negatives to generate true 4K scans, but where there were VFX included those composites had been finished digitally in 2K, so they had to upscale those shots to 4K.
People keep saying 4K rescan, but that appears to be wrong or a lie. There is no source for that. They seem to be 2K upscales with wider color and new audio formats.
@@BobbyD262 how can anyone say it's not a rescan? This is not an upscale! The video quality and detail improved so much
@@chronodrThe evidence is from Peter himself as he are not saying it. If this was a pure 4k disc from the original negative then schould he say it. Becouse he loves to talk about this things.
You saved me money with this review. I’ll wait till they address these issues, if they ever do. I don’t know why they’d want to remove the grain anyways, it makes it timeless.
Jackson likes the smooth look of digital, so these will never look like film as long as he is alive.
Film grain is awful
@@gomezwardulus4192 You're right, so why not ruin the movie's look so no one can appreciate it?
Well, I subscribed. I've never heard of you before, but this review alone shows I need to be listening to what you have to say. Great review!
Thanks so much, Mark!
Thank you so much for watching! Have you bought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy on 4K already? If so, have you found any issues with it at all? Are you pleased with the HDR Dolby Vision on these discs?
Reviewers generally like the HDR grading and the audio, it’s the DNR and video softness they seem to disagree on.
I was going to, but then I heard it didn't have the old dvd extras, which I always loved. So I'll wait for an edition that has those.
It has been annoying watching these since I don't see the 4K details other shot-on-film discs have had. These are like softer looking 1080p but with HDR.
Never bought LotR. I was really excited for the 4K, but because of this review and another one, I have decided to buy the blurays. DNR is just unacceptable. Cheers for your detailed research.
I hope somehow they get another treatment
Great review, thanks!
My pleasure!
Excellent review and loving your channel, as a film lover and film collector, it's a treat!
When you say the atmos tracks are cut off at 30 Hz and lower, Do you mean just the two height channels, or the entire remastered Atmos surround stream?
Fantastic review of the 4K Blu-Ray. Unfortunately I'll have to sit this one out, and enjoy my 1080 version. Shame I won't have the Atmos track, but the visual differences are a deal breaker for me.
there are auditory differences too, some lines have been redubbed/different takes used. no thank you from me, sticking with the oldies but goodies
My word you're good at this. Never seen someone be so thorough! Things like pointing out Shadowfax and his wandering ear is amazing. I'll stick with my blu rays (tbh I bought those for like £5 each as well, not £75!).
You're like the Digital Foundry of movies lol.
Top stuff.
Hey, thank you! I'm glad I could be of some help.
@TheThingHidingUnderYourBed are you asking me? I managed to find those 2 disk (so just the film) versions that were released on ebay. Literally nowhere seems to sell them new now and according to HMV staff I chatted with they've stopped manufacturing them. They look amazing but Fellowship is Matrix green in places lol.
Apparently there's a blu ray version of this new colour grade coming out later this year..so I might get that if the errors mentioned here are fixed.
So you are going to base your purchase decision on a single youtuber's opinion, without even seeing it yourself?
I don't see how a stupid artifact that's visible for less that 3 seconds is more condemnable than the awful tint present on the Blu-Rays? Or is that enough to make the HDR and a new soundtrack pointless?
@@adriannn3720 why so angry? I don't know anyone who's bought the disks to allow me to 'check them out' except via TH-cam lol
No one I know is willing to spend that much on something with (your words) a 'stupid artifact' left in by mistake or whatever.
The green tint there's a setting on my tv that instantly removes it, and apart from that I regard the blu rays as about as 'perfect' as they need to be. No dust, decent natural look.. I don't want the films to look like The Hobbit or a Marvel movie.
There are other flaws which I didn't feel the need to go into detail with, but since you commented I will - the cgi was not really sufficiently upscaled (or whatever you call it) and it really, really does look like many scenes don't gel properly any more in the 4K. It was old green screen anyways, let alone being seen at 4K. The grain reduction doesn't help either.
The soundtrack is great on the blu rays, I have the cd's of everything Howard Shore wrote so I don't feel I'm 'missing out' there.
If they're reasonably priced (ie not absolutely atrociously overpriced for elitist snobs to gush over) I _may_ buy the new colour treated blu rays if/when they come out and the cgi is ok.
What I have an issue with mainly is the tinkering of the films are getting to Star Wars levels of silliness if they release products with 'this fixed but that buggered up'...this better but that worse. So I'm happily sticking with a very decent blu ray trilogy and will gladly see if anything changes my mind.
Great review and analysis Elliot!
Thanks so much!
I just finished the Fellowship.
I loved it in so many ways but I did notice the inconsistency in the faces. There were times that there was a lot of detail in the face and other times I noticed the smoothing. The screen captures you used yes look bad but then at other times the detail is incredible. You can see individual blood vessels, spots and count the various beard hairs. Inconsistent.
The sound really is the standout improvement. I marveled at the Rivendale sequences and how much detail there is and I am still on THX.
Your suggestion that visual effects would have to be reapplied following a 4K rescan is incorrect. The visual effects shots were originally rendered out at 2k and then printed to film as individual shots. For this year's remaster these film outs were rescanned.
Essentially what they did this year was reconform the film from the original negative and regrade it.
Enjoying the channel. Keep up the good work 👍
People keep saying they re-scanned at 4K, but I can't find any source for that. Jackson specifically does NOT say that in his interview. They appear to be 2K upscales.
Still looks crap though. The FX shots are the biggest disappointment with these new UHDs.
@@HagbardCeline23 yes and no. The Balrog looks much more amazing compared to the dvd version that is hazey and the highlights are taken down too much/too dim.
@@BobbyD262 They are upscaled from the 2k DI's and re-color timed with an HDR pass with DNR tinkering.
@@dan_hitchman007 Yeah, so not as exciting as advertised. I think there were some weasel words used, meaning they DID re-scan the negative in 4k, but only for the 20% or so of FELLOWSHIP that had scenes that were not sourced from a DI. The vast majority of FELLOWSHIP and 100% of the other 2 films were totally DI, with no finished OCN to recan.
Jeff at “Films at Home” said “Lord of the Ring Trilogy” 4K is the best & greatest picture quality ever! 😖
I've seen universal praise for the video quality, even from professionals who actually know what their talking about. I respect eliots opinion, but....
I think so too. Many professionals have agreed that this is in fact one of the very best 4K releases of older films ever. That doesn't mean they are flawless, but I think this review (although he kept it very professional) did sink into a very uneven negativity towards the end. I haven't seen anything yet to support the claim that DNR was used, in fact the HD Blu-rays to my knowledge did use filters which were probably removed now. This definitely looks closer to the source material and the theatrical experience, the HD versions always felt a bit too influenced IMO. Some mistakes are probably unavoidable when working with such extensive material, but everything I've heard so far suggests that the works on this trilogy have been far more extensive and resourceful than any project before. I also believe that workers from the project have officially stated it is a new 4K scan, for which other analysts have also found a lot of evidence, and that the CGI was partly remastered in 4K. In the end all that matters is that you enjoy it, and even Elliot didn't deny how much of an improvement this is.
@@ebertsisko5185 You're right. It definitely is an improvement when you factor in the great use of HDR and Atmos. I'm only merely highlighting the negative aspects of this release, and perhaps I just got a little frustrated towards the end of the video! For good reason though, the use of DNR is there on screen, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. You can't get detail scrubbed out of an image like in the frames of these 4K discs without some digital smoothing. As for universal praise for these 4K discs, I can only share my opinion. These are my thoughts on my multiple viewings of these 4K discs through my own eyes.
@@ElliotCoen Thanks! Again, I don't know enough to say anything for certain, I am just raising assumptions, but I believe that DNR might only be one possible origin for the issues you pointed out. It could very well be that they used DNR on single shots or frames (although I would be surprised if they used it on the entire trilogy), however this doesn't really align with the information that they have been working for over a year on this with a big staff and a lot of resources. It could still be DNR. On Apocalypse Now it has also singularly been assumed that DNR was used because the images of the 4K version mostly had few to no perceivable grain. However as most people didn't believe Francis Ford Coppola would use a technology like that it has been pointed out that certain restoring processes on 35mm films and also certain digital treatments on CGI and HDR can have similar effects to DNR. A lack of film grain can also come from very high quality scans, such as some scenes from Lawrence of Arabia show.
I really appreciate the fact that there are people like you going into details like this and I like your channel a lot, I just wanted to leave a new perspective here!
@@ebertsisko5185 Lawrence of Arabia was filmed on 70 mm which is possible to be scanned in 10k. So thats the reason for little grain. 35 mm could be scanned in 5k but that was not done with this trilogy, it was simply upscaled from 2k. Here is a detailed review in german which has the same opinion: blu-ray-rezensionen.net/der-herr-der-ringe-die-rueckkehr-des-koenigs-4k-uhd/
Thanks for this video! I watched Lord of the Rings in the theatre multiple times when it was first released. It's absolutely one of my favourite movies so I've been watched so many times on DVD, Blu-ray as well. I was so excited for 4K release and while I was watching it, I just knew that picture was somewhat strange. I didn't know exactly what was wrong, I just noticed it looks like weirdly fake digitally-filmed. Now I know what was really wrong. To me this 4K release removes real nostalgic cinematic feelings for the Lord of the Rings movies. I love the Dolby Atmos sound but I still prefer 1080p Blu-Ray release. It's more original to me. Again, thanks for the video and what an amazing channel!
hi, i have a high-end 4k tv and player.
i‘m also very concerned that the 4k version cold vanish the mystical atmosphere and the horror of the dark scenes. i loved the darkness of the original and it looked like a perfect match(cgi and actors).
I dont know if the 4k versin lost some magic. is it nice to see all the details in battles. because sometimes when i watch 4k, i feel like watching a „making of“ version. i can see the greenscreen, CGI, the actors and the costumes.
this can ruin the feeling.
when i watch bad quality 1080/blu ray, i cant notice any bad matching.
what do you think about the 4k version here ? is it immersive?
I wish they made the 4K version with the look of the 2010 release.
Fellowship's global green tint was atrocious. At least the 4k upscale version fixes that.
Just watched the 4K discs over the weekend on my Panasonic player and LG OLED and everything seemed fine to my naked eye. I was purposely looking for strange things to pop up like you referenced in this video - makes me curious what the person who captured the screen shots viewed on.
Interesting. I viewed on an LG OLED with an Oppo 203 and noticed these issues. It might be down to peoples' own view of the films. Some things will stick out to some people and not to others. I'm glad you enjoyed the 4K discs anyway!
Can i ask which panasonic? I ordered the 820K. Bought the Sony x800m2 but would freeze half way. Returned it within 30 days after multiple tests. Heard tje 820K is excellent. Any issues cause it sux my ps3 is best invention for blu rays that have been abused and 4k players today stink. My last hope is the 820K i really wanna enjoy lotr 4k and atmos sound
@@billm3210 I used to have an LG but sold it and bought the Panasonic DP-UB820-K which has been excellent - have had it for about 3 months.
@@ElliotCoen but if I had the choice between bluray and 4k Version - would you recommend the 4k version or would you say the Blu-ray version caption the (kind of mythic) Lord of the rings feeling better?
I have to make a choice and I can’t really decide
@@ElliotCoen I have to agree with CoinOP, I watched it on my LG C9 OLED and didn't notice most of these. (I have the dvd's, blu-ray, and now UHD) It felt closer to the original dvd's then the blu-ray. Overall I felt the detail was better, the picture more clear, and I won't even go into the extra scenes over the original extended edition. There were a few I noticed but they felt like intentional changes in color that were meant to be noticed.
Personally I would put the DVD and UHD over the blu-ray (1080p) but that just may be me.
Thank you for your time spend on this! Much appreciated.
What do you listen to the Atmos mix on? How was the surround mix? Audibly better?
Well... that's quite a different take than Films at Home had.
I like Jeff but his 4k reviews sometimes are unreliable
I don’t like Geoff because his 4K reviews are regularly unreliable.
@@mclovin7326 “Film at Home” is a Big Fake & Scam! 💩 Incredible he has over 50k subscribers! 😳
@@radfordrams4909 damn son, even the smaller channels can't keep away from toxic kiddos..... I mean there are things we like to call opinions, I personally like the dude and his opinions 😅😒
Films at home... Jeff... Is good - I personally like his channel. But in his own words he's not technical and he is doing the ear and eye test. His schtick is in the title.... Just regular people who enjoy watching films at home. I have no issues with his opinions but they may or may not always suit mine....same with anyone's.... including Elliot. I have not seen these yet myself in 4k as I'm waiting for the big ultimate combined set next year ... But I am totally against any form of DNR on filmic source elements - unless absolutely necessary due to some damage or other reason where it HAS to be used to improve things - which should be very rare. Otherwise IMHO it's a crime against cinema and artistic vandalism to apply DNR to a non-digital source, even if used minimally. There should be no reason to. IMHO Jackson would have been better off making The Hobbit look more filmic rather than making LOTR look more digital. I get the consistency thing but I always preferred the filmic look of LOTR over the digitally shot Hobbit. This DNR issue and filmic vs organic certainly doesn't seem to be anywhere near the debacle the Star Wars Skywalker saga 4K was handled so although I'd have preferred a slightly different approach they still seem like they look amazing and I still can't wait to see them and the lovely HDR. I've always got my Blu ray deluxe sets to fall back on if I need to as they are nice sets and I plan to keep those.
That was a good Gandalf Staff find. It's a shame tho. I guess I'll just hang on to my Blu-ray for now. Maybe in another few years they'll release a better restoration.
Considering how the previous releases have been handled, probably not. If they do an 8K rescan, let’s hope the film hasn’t degraded too much by then. If they even do it properly, that is.
@TheThingHidingUnderYourBed the tint is horrible, but so is less detail in a 4K release than a 1080p one. The Blu-Ray theatrical cuts have good colours, but are also suffer from DNR use.
@TheThingHidingUnderYourBed I believe they have more detail than the DVDs (though not as much as they should have), and the colours for both are good. The DVDs were excellent for their time, with pretty much no flaws when you take into account the limitations of the format.
Every release since has failed to live up to what it should be in some respect. The Extended BDs for Two Towers and Return of the King look excellent though.
Overall, just enjoy what you enjoy, but if you don’t have an HDR TV, I’d say the 4K release isn’t worth it for full price.
I just bought a 4K tv and surround sound. I have the extended blu-ray versions. Should I upgrade?
Cool video, I have a question, if you had to choose between the Blu-ray version and the UHD version (despite its blemishes), which would you choose? I'm leaning towards UHD because of the resolution and HDR, but I'm not too sure if the price is worth it.
The old Extended BD is better, they scrubbed fine details like jacket fur hair or snowflakes which are visible on BD.
So, I would need to buy FHD and UHD versions, rip both, an combine FHD image with UHD sound. Nice!
Yo send me that haha
im a big fan of the trilogy. i picked up the steelbook case and watch them on my oled. i see your points, but the colors and sound are awesome. If i wasnt a big fan i would wait 6 months when its on sale for half the price
Great review, I currently have the DVD extended edition. From this video I suspect that I'd be better getting the BR version and letting my player upscale to 4k
I'm amazed at the details you've noticed but I agree with your assessment. Do you think that they'll fix those in the Ultimate Collectors' Edition that is schedule to be released during the summer of 2021?
Nah why would they, random people watching this hate grain they will be happy with the changes. We audiophiles are a dying breed and a minority, WB wont throw millions to please a small fracture of the audience...
Interesting analysis. Would have been good to also show examples of where the 4k is better than the 1080p
I saw a lot of images where the 4k definitely looked much better. It seems a hit and miss situation.
@@pietroscarpa2384 Now that I own the 4k I know it much better than the bluray.
@@snowpuppy77 I will buy the 4K version eventually because I have never owned the blu rays.
I agree with virtually everything you are saying about each screenshot, but when actually watching the movies and not staring at screencaps, I personally like both versions. I could see myself watching the Blu-Rays whenever I want that more authentic, filmic look, and the 4Ks when I'm looking for the amazing audio and crisp picture (too crisp arguably, but still nice to watch for some people). And I think I will almost always go for the 4K when watching the Extended Editions, just because of the awful green-ish tint on the Blu.
do you think the 1080p bluray release coming out later this year will have the same issues as this release?
16:38 I was literally in the process of typing exactly what you said at this point!
I have the original extended DVD editions of LoTR trilogy and to-be-honest apart from the obvious resolution limitations. I rather watch them then any releases after as there the ones who (in my opinion) are more superior in-terms of colour grading and the intricate details such as the DVD menus and transitioning into other menus then the Blu-ray releases. Also, the countless memories of watching the DVD releases with friends and family, when they first came out add to the enjoyment of viewing them.
I was so sad when the Blu-rays didn't have the "page flip" that exists on the DVDs.
I’ve got these versions and had these since they released and they’ve probably been then best movie purchase I’ve ever made. The quality of the packaging, the discs, the appendices and the overall films themselves were amazing. I’ve just purchased the 4K versions as I’d heard so many good things but I will really miss the warm colour tones and the grain if they’re no longer there, they always felt perfectly balanced and applicable for these movies.
Pretty disappointed now having watched this review I must admit.
In the comparisons that I've seen, I think the coloring of the 4K discs looks MUCH better than the Blu Rays. I'm glad they corrected that horrible green tint in Fellowship for instance, although the black and white in the "vision" is a bit strange. I can see the DNR in comparisons though, and that is a major shame and I wish they hadn't done that, but I still think the 4K looks better than the Blu Ray overall from what I see so far. (Admittedly I haven't been able to watch the actual discs myself yet, though, because the person who wants to watch them with me is unavailable for a short while so I have to wait for them)
In any case, I'm going to be keeping my extended edition Blu Ray set anyway because I really love the multitude of fascinating special features on it.
I have the original DVD collector's extended set. However, I have been considering the HD Blu Ray set and the UHD set. Having watched your review, I am much less interested in the UHD - except for the ATMOS soundtrack. Do you know if there is an extended HD Blu Ray set with the ATMOS soundtrack, or will it always be exclusive to the UHD set? Thanks!
I may talk shit, bc i dont have the possibilities to enjoy Dolby Atmos by myself, but on the back of my Blue Ray Extended Box, they wrote Dolby Atmos as sound information. So it should exist on the extended Blue Ray box i guess
Thanks for this video Elliott, I'm sticking with my Blu Rays as I'm not a fan of DNR at all, yeah the colours are brighter in some parts, but its a big outlay for something that's not a great upgrade 🤔 very enjoyable video 🤩🤩👍👍
this is so in-depth. That part where Gandalf loses his staff also shows part of the horse's ear before it turns its head.
I totally agree with Elliot with basically everything he said about this 4K release.
Hey, thank you!
Yep, Elliot is definitely not a sheep. Plus, he has the empirical evidence to back it up. Thanks to him, I will be investing in other 4K UHD's worth of my money.
What you think is the result of noise reduction is, I think, more of the result of the upscaling process. i'm using a famous denoiser everyday since years, and you can fine tune it to be non intrusive. What I see is more of a local contrast il some shot, like what you can obtain with the MD (midtone) in Davinci Resolve for example, BUT in this case the default is more likely produced in my opinion by the upscaling process.
And for the noise with the oliphant for example, I'm pretty sure there is not a lot noise in the original shots, it's been added in post to fit the format, so the smallest the format, the biggest the grain size will appear, and in 4K the grain will appear smaller. So the process of adding grain is not the same in small format vs 4K, the result can be different, even if they add the choice to maintain a big grain in some shot if they have wanted to. Just my opinion.
Thank you! I will check it out. Which screen size were you watching on?
65 inch LG OLED
I really appreciated you taking the time to go into such detail on the DNR and “edge scrubbing”. These films are nearest and dearest to my heart and I’m now 70% convinced from your breakdown that this probably isn’t a 4K rescan like I thought it was as well. Truly I could have watched an hour or more of your analysis! Well done!
It *is* a 4K scan of the negatives. The VFX shots are a 4K scan of 2K film prints though. See blu-ray.com and thedigitalbits reviews.
how about hobbit 4k trilogy?ur opinion on them ?
I haven't purchased it yet, but I may do soon and do a review. Thanks for watching!
you, my friend, have just earned yourself a new sub and bell ringer. great vid!
Wow, good job. My takeaway from this, had ATMOS audio not been added, your final comments might have been to pass on this version. It seems the audio upgrade may have ‘saved’ this 4K release ???
Hi Chris. Yes, but not just the audio. The HDR Dolby Vision grade is worth the pick up too!
Thank for the reply. I am a LOTR fan so I will make the Extended ver purchase but you provided an excellent commentary. I have a Kaleidescape player (digital download) and I am interested to see how the Extended version downloads - one huge file per movie or will they break it up like the physical disks.
There's an interview with Peter where he talks about the restoration process, it's indeed a 4K scan. And though I think the new color timing lacks some of the old personality, IMO they have gone for a more timeless palate.
Christopher Liddell when does Jackson mention the 4K scans?
@@Slask7 Interview on Warner Brothers Channel
this needs to be up higher haha.
@@Slask7 The Lord of the Rings was shot on 35mm as stated in that Peter Jackson video, the Hobbit was shot at 4K.
I just watched that interview for the 5th time. In that interview, no where is it mentioned that it is a 4K scan of the original camera negative. All Peter Jackson says is it is 'restored in 4K' and 'converting to 4K' - we've heard those words on 4K releases before and that has not implied a 4K scan of the OCN.