| John2290 said: Very much so. 360p. is still acceptable in some instances. I even made the decision to go from a Galaxy s4 (1090P LCD) to a Galaxy A5 (720p Super AMOLED) and I still consider the A5 a better screen. I lock my laptop screen to 720p and play certain pc games on it (Civ 5, Xcom, Starcraft 2) and some times I'll step down from 1080p to sub 900/720p if the blue ray is to sharp or "crisp" if noise filtering doesn't work. For example the Lord of The rings Trilogy blue ray extended which I have no idea how people manage to watch such an overly crisp picture at the expense of fluid movement. Never mind the unesessary "bloating" of the extended 3 and a half hours of complete filler, random scenes. |
That's a first I heard complaints about the sharpness of LOTR, it's actually quite a soft picture compared to new releases. The first one is even kinda blurry due to it being one of the first movies with a 2K master. Perhaps your laptop screen is the problem, I doubt it has 24p playback.
From Blu-ray.com (extended version) about the softness
The transfer was created from 2K scans, and the resulting clarity should be viewed with an understanding of the limitations of a 2K source.
Jackson and Weta, like most filmmakers and effects houses, did employ some judicious noise reduction techniques when finalizing the original film
I loved the 13 hour version, and watched the whole thing again with commentary track. There were still plenty things missing from the books :p Yet It wasn't as big a step up from the DVD as I had hoped, any 4K release will be completely pointless. The movie is stuck in the early 2K era.
