---Paramount delivers "Transformers" to Blu-ray in 2.40:1 widescreen, encoded in 1080p/AVC video on a BD50 Dual Layer disc. While Michael Bay touted that he was personally overseeing the encoding of this disc, so that it met his specifications, I found no differences between this transfer and the original HD DVD. Proof that this is the same encode is the use of the AVC codec, a codec Paramount no longer uses on their latest new Blu-ray releases.
---Finally, there's no evidence that the transfer of Transformers has been optimized in any way for the expanded capacity of the Blu-ray format. Considering the fuss that Michael Bay made about Blu-ray during the format war, this is well nigh unacceptable. Doing a side-by-side comparison of the HD-DVD and the Blu-ray disc yields no significant differences. The Blu-ray disc looks a shade brighter on my set, but that's easily attributable to settings. Considering the inevitable sequel release, this Blu-ray smacks of "too little, too late." I have a strong feeling that we'll see a Blu-ray release to coincide with the release of the sequel that will taut itself as "optimized by Michael Bay for Blu-ray" or some such nonsense.
---Is there a major leap in quality from the HD-DVD to the Blu-ray? Aside from a slightly sharper picture, I don't believe so. But since the HD-DVD picture looked beautiful to begin with, is this really an issue?
Now, are these guys just some Michael Bay haters or are they getting paid to write so many silly things which are not based on facts since they are stating things that are not true at all ?
They claim that H.264 is no longer used by Paramount, like it was an older codec or something, instead it's the best available codec on Blu-Ray and the now dead HD-DVD discs, surely much better than Microsoft tweaked WMV9 Aka VC-1. That's a silly statement indeed.
Anyway, as confirmed by a reviewer on Amazon.com, the Blu-Ray VS HD-DVD disc sizes and streams bitrates are:
Now, how can they claim no visual quality difference since the average video stream bitrate on the Blu-Ray release is 53% approx higher ?Version: U.S.A - Disc One
MPEG-4 AVC BD-50 1080p / 23.976fps / High Profile 4.1
Running time: 2:23:27 (h:m:s)
Movie size: 44,482,652,160 bytes
Disc size: 45,753,719,301 bytes
Total bit rate: 41.34 Mbps
Average video bit rate: 31.43 Mbps
Dolby TrueHD 5.1 3659Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)
DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps French / Spanish
DD AC3 2.0 192Kbps English
DD+ AC3 2.0 192Kbps English
Subtitles: English / English SDH / French / Portuguese / Spanish
Number of chapters: 23
HD DVD Disc One Stats
MPEG-4 AVC HD-30
Running time: 2:23:18 (h:m:s)
Movie size: 26,911,285,248 bytes
Disc size: 27,972,889,186 bytes
Total bit rate: 25.03 Mbps
Average video bit rate: 20.54 Mbps
DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps
And not taking into account the all new lossless DolbyTrueHD track on the Blu-Ray which features a new mix with proper LFE channel which was pretty toned down on the HD-DVD release.
I received my copy yesterday from Amazon.com and both video and audio quality are top notch played by my Playstation3 at 1080p on a Sony Bravia 46X3500 LCD display. There is a huge visual quality difference in favour of Blu-Ray thanks to the massive 32-36Mbps video stream bitrate.
So, why so much hate against Mr.Bay, against Blu-Ray and Sony as well as against the H.264 Codec from those sites ? Just their own ignorance or paid by someone to act like that ? I really wonder...