To make matters worse, a fair amount of bad post-production work (again, overseen by Jackson) and malicious DNR has left the end result something of a jumbled mess, at once capable of showing what picture-perfection is all about, when the very next second your jaw could drop over an irredeemably soft focus close-up or a botched night scene. A large chunk of the blame has to go to the manner of filming, in my opinion, with far too many soft-focus shots (particularly in the Shire at the beginning) which - whilst obviously artistically intentioned by the Director - just don't show off what Blu-ray is capable of. One might expect this, because it was the first in the trilogy, but since they were filmed in close succession it does not seem to make sense that this one could come across so very different from the final entry, Return of the King. That said, they do look considerably better than the SD-DVD versions, which, upconverted or not, just do not hold up against the power of full High Def.įellowship suffers the worst. I'm not sure whether things will be improved by the time the Extended Editions hit the format (by all accounts, they should do) but these are certainly not definitive benchmark renditions for this much-loved trilogy, and they do not hold up well in comparison to the standard-setting monolith that was Avatar. Although shot back-to-back in sequence, the films have each been translated to High Definition with slightly varying results. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy hits Blu-ray with a solid 1080p High Definition rendition of each of the entries, presented with the same common theatrically broad aspect ratio of 2.4:1 widescreen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |