Sites attacking Mr.Bay on Transformers Blu-Ray release. And they lie doing so.

[wingzero]

http://www.dvdfuture.com/review.php?id=1085

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.

---

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/tr...mersbluray.php

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.

---

http://dailygame.net/news/archives/008233.php

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:

Version: U.S.A - Disc One
MPEG-4 AVC BD-50 1080p / 23.976fps / High Profile 4.1
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes
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

Now, how can they claim no visual quality difference since the average video stream bitrate on the Blu-Ray release is 53% approx higher ?
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...

[myothercar]

I just signed up to this forum to respond to this.

I strongly feel you're imagining things if you think an excerpt like this is bashing Blu-ray/Michael Bay:

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?

I've looked a a number of direct comparison screenshots of the two and it's difficult to tell the difference. Zooming to 2x it becomes clear that the HD DVD had more compression artifacts, but at 1x, in motion, from realistic 1080p-optimal viewing distances, it won't be noticeable. You might actually be able to see the improvement in the nighttime grain, but other than that, it's hard to see a difference.

I do however think the guy who used the "too little too late" line is an idiot. I mean, what's he even talking about? This isn't some double-dip opportunity. It's the first time it's been available on Blu-ray. Nobody cares if it has any extras beyond what the HD DVD had, or that it came out a year later (format war MIGHT have had a little to do with that ) In fact, the Blu-ray is estimated to have sold between 70-100k copies its first week. That's almost as much as the HD DVD sold when it was released day and date with the DVD! In other words, nobody gave a f___.

The guy who said that use of the AVC codec was "proof" that Paramount used the exact same encode as the HD DVD, is an idiot as well. All you had to do was show the disc stats to prove that. And for what it's worth- if I recall correctly- Bay did the Blu-ray encode a year ago, which would explain why it's not VC-1 like their latest.

In summary, we all now know not to blindly trust those reviewers.

[wingzero]

I just signed up to this forum to respond to this.

I strongly feel you're imagining things if you think an excerpt like this is bashing Blu-ray/Michael Bay:

Well, you just signed to do what? Are you following an agenda, I wonder? How comes that out of the quotes above you selected the one without the Mr.Bay name on it and the direct bashing?

Have you signed up in a hope to debunk the clear facts that those quotes are all about?

I've looked a a number of direct comparison screenshots of the two and it's difficult to tell the difference. Zooming to 2x it becomes clear that the HD DVD had more compression artifacts, but at 1x, in motion, from realistic 1080p-optimal viewing distances, it won't be noticeable. You might actually be able to see the improvement in the nighttime grain, but other than that, it's hard to see a difference.

That's not true at all. The 53% higher video bitrate it's really massive and even on small 720p displays you can tell the difference. Every scene has an higher depth and overall better definition, the motion flow axis of every object on the screen doesn't get corrupted in any way thanks to it, human eyes can follow fast scenes easier.

And then there is the new audio mix lossless encoded with DolbyTrueHD5.1 codec which ensures top notch audio quality over the previous barely average DDPlus5.1 encoding found on the HD-DVD release.

If you can't tell any difference over the previous HD-DVD release then that's your problem because the difference is there and you don't need to be a video codec expert to recognize it.

[myothercar]

You're so insecure it's scary. I don't have an anti-Michael Bay, anti-Blu-ray or anti-AVC agenda. I like Blu-ray and Transformers alot, and quite firmly support the theory that added bandwidth improves picture quality. All I said was that I agree with dailygame when they say that there's hardly any picture quality difference. It sounds to me like the extreme differences you're noticing are a result of your hardware setup.

You should share your impressions with the folks at the Transformers Blu-ray vs HD DVD thread. From what I've read of the thread, nobody mentions the motion difference you brought up. You aren't talking about Auto Motion Plus, are you? Because I couldn't care less what it looks like in that mode. That will only be used for 30/60fps content on my set (once I buy a tv that supports it.)

[wingzero]

You're so insecure it's scary. I don't have an anti-Michael Bay, anti-Blu-ray or anti-AVC agenda.

You know nothing about me and you think you can judge how insecure I would be from what exactly ? That's a really pathetic statement of yours there.

I like Blu-ray and Transformers alot, and quite firmly support the theory that added bandwidth improves picture quality. All I said was that I agree with dailygame when they say that there's hardly any picture quality difference. It sounds to me like the extreme differences you're noticing are a result of your hardware setup.

It's not just a theory, it's a fact that higher bitrate which means less lossy compression leads to an higher perceived quality. And unless you are watching it on an ancient CRT SDTV screen you would see the huge quality difference in favour of the BD version on any HDTV display both 720p and 1080p.

You should share your impressions with the folks at the Transformers Blu-ray vs HD DVD thread. From what I've read of the thread, nobody mentions the motion difference you brought up. You aren't talking about Auto Motion Plus, are you? Because I couldn't care less what it looks like in that mode. That will only be used for 30/60fps content on my set (once I buy a tv that supports it.)

I was talking about how the motion vectors get calculated and encoded by the algorithms chain during encoding thru various filters, which always involves a certain amount of optical flow axis distortion. Higher the bitrate lower that distortion is and so higher the perceived quality will be. The encoder to achieve lower bitrates must discard information in practically everything, discarding higher frequencies first, decreasing motion vector precision, reducing the number of bits used for color samples and so on.

[myothercar]

You know nothing about me and you think you can judge how insecure I would be from what exactly ? That's a really pathetic statement of yours there.

Based on how you jump on anyone who doesn't see the differences you are seeing between the two encodes (supposedly).

[wingzero]

Based on how you jump on anyone who doesn't see the differences you are seeing between the two encodes (supposedly).

Yeah, sure because I'm the one spreading lies on websites and telling that higher bitrates, almost doubled don't give an higher perceived quality, uh?
And because I would be the only one worldwide able to see the huge difference, right? Because I'm dreaming and such, uh ?

How much effort you put there at trying to attack me for just have joined up on Mr.Bay forums, really. Well, are you involved with any of those websites I put quotes from, perhaps? Because it really seems that you are trying to push it on a personal level, and no fancy smiles would debunk that.

[myothercar]

It's not just a theory, it's a fact that higher bitrate which means less lossy compression leads to an higher perceived quality. And unless you are watching it on an ancient CRT SDTV screen you would see the huge quality difference in favour of the BD version on any HDTV display both 720p and 1080p.

I'm telling you, they barely look any different. There are screens at the thread I linked to and also starting here. As I said earlier, I think the screenshot of Megan Fox during a grainy nightime scene is handled more faithfully on the Blu-ray encode, but other than that I nor anyone else can tell which looks better. The differences do become visible when you zoom 2x, as seen here, but when a reviewer watches a movie he doesn't pause and zoom and flick between sources. So why are you always biting at my neck?

[wingzero]

I'm telling you, they barely look any different. There are screens at the thread I linked to and also starting here. As I said earlier, I think the screenshot of Megan Fox during a grainy nightime scene is handled more faithfully on the Blu-ray encode, but other than that I nor anyone else can tell which looks better. The differences do become visible when you zoom 2x, as seen here, but when a reviewer watches a movie he doesn't pause and zoom and flick between sources. So why are you always biting at my neck?

Ok, now you are trying to play the poor victim card and I would be the ugly mean vampire, what ?
What a silly tactic of yours. You are claiming what it's technically just not true and doing that you are trying to defend sites likes those I quoted that claim the same thing which is a clear lie.
The difference is huge, it's not an opinion but it's a fact. And everyone can see that. Who tells otherwise either has some serious issues related to his/her own eyes and needs medical attention and a checkup or it's claiming false things for a purpose.

[myothercar]

Those reviewers are idiots for some of the things they said, but I don't fault them for not seeing where the extra bitrate went. The only way I can see a difference is by zooming 2x. If you want to post comparison screenshots that highlight where the differences are, be my guest. I'd be happy to admit I and those DVD reviewers are wrong, as I own the Blu-ray.

[kevski]

Oh no...

[nelson]

I've actually seen both.

To the trained eye, there is a difference in the color space.

To neglect that one would be an idiot.

[Swift]

My thoughts, I like the blu-ray version better. I watched the HD one at a friends, and its almost the same as the DVD. And I own the DVD too and the effects are still awesome! (In other words, any movie done by Michael
bay, is AWESOME!!!)

Just my oppinions

[myothercar]

My thoughts, I like the blu-ray version better. I watched the HD one at a friends, and its almost the same as the DVD. And I own the DVD too and the effects are still awesome! (In other words, any movie done by Michael
bay, is AWESOME!!!)

Just my oppinions

Michael Bay did a good job on the HD DVD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=100
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=118
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=16
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=81
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=92
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=111
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=117
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=123
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=131
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=135
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=136
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=140
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=144
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=151
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=172

[darthrage]

I'm an avid Hi-Def and DVD viewer and I have both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray versions of the movie.

They look identical to me. The only difference that I notice is the audio and the TrueHD track is well worth it to me. And that's the only reason why I bought it on Blu-Ray even though I had it on HD-DVD.

The picture is already near perfect aside from the noticeable grain in exterior night shots and and in the pentagon control room scenes.

Overall, its a must buy for any Hi-Def enthusiast

[This is getting expensive]

I think almost every review or coment by the more average folks agree's that on a good TV the difference in video clarity is minimal if any "Until" you zoom then the Blurray looks better but playing them side by side there's not much difference.

So the Blu-ray is handy if you want to read the car number plates and signs to look for easter eggs - but it seems the main difference that the averge joe spots is the Blue Ray disk has noticably better sound quality.

Personally I'd rather have the movie tweaked in other ways like doing something to make the action scenes a little clearer is something i'd find agreeable (which is probably impossible to do due to them needing to be rerendered to do it) and fixing the messed up color balance - but again that's probably deliberate artistic choice so I suppose that won't happen either .. I just find it a bit of a pain that Ratchet is a different color in every scene and that sometimes Bumblebee's limbs are black and other times grey - regardless of the lighting conditons. it just randomly changes and it's not the light shining on them it's just colortimed a bit funny so even in bright normal daylight they randomly change color.

Also there's a really creaky cut when Sam sticks the Allspark in Megatron's chest [That was a point that was messed with after the test screenings - and it shows up badly it needs to be fixed I feel as it looks like a jump in the movie as it stands]

So if there is a "special edition" when Movie #2 or #3 comes out on disc then I'd be more bothered by that sort of thing that minisucle coding differences that cause artifacts you can only see on zoom. The quality on the BluRay is adiquate for the time being.

I think the people coming at the movie from the Transformers angle rather than the Michael Bay / Action Fans angle would want that Devastator Subtitle changed to Brawl for sure though - as it makes Hasbro look foolish if left unchanged.

I've heard a lot of people lately wonder why the Barricade / Bumblebee 1st car chase is so short, why Epps Death is not shown and a few more scenes that were shot have not even been shown as deleated scenes on a disc some of them i'd like to see - even if it is as Deleted scenes.

I wonder what Michael Bay's Policy is on re-editing a completed movie into a special edition - if certain things were missing due to lack on money - I have to wonder if the footage has been shot if they can cram in the missing CGI and finish the missing scenes and such for Movie # 1 under the sequel's budget.

I know i'd appreciate that.

I know I'd much prefer to see the longer Bumblebee/Barricade car chase put back in the movie - if only as it seems curiously short as it stands at the moment.

Also if Barricade is in movie #2 (Some say he's the Audi) then it might be fun to have him actual doing a runner from the Highway battle in the 1st movie rather than being forgotten about. the Original script called for him to be killed by Optimus -so obviously I'm happy that did not happen as a Barricade Fan.

And if he does show up in Movie 2 then adding an explanation would be nice if they do ever make a special edition of Movie # 1.

Back to the BluRay the only complaint I have about it in general is that it still is lacking a special Effects and Writers commentry. Mr. Bay's is Ok but he does go silent for extended periods - which I feel is why it's usually best to do these with 2 people per commentary.

There's talk of adding new Commentaries via i Tunes though.
I also think it's a fun thing (not often seen) when a movie allows you to run it through with the dialogue mixed out and listen to just the music / sound effects.

[]edit[]

I Noticed the grain some scenes on the normal DVD to in those same places - It's interesting it's still on the HD version - I wonder if this implies it's actually on the Movies original print and not just on the home format disks.

[Xsubs]

I'm an avid Hi-Def and DVD viewer and I have both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray versions of the movie.

They look identical to me. The only difference that I notice is the audio and the TrueHD track is well worth it to me. And that's the only reason why I bought it on Blu-Ray even though I had it on HD-DVD.

The picture is already near perfect aside from the noticeable grain in exterior night shots and and in the pentagon control room scenes.

Overall, its a must buy for any Hi-Def enthusiast

The more grain you see, the better/sharper the quality of the movie is.

[darthrage]

The more grain you see, the better/sharper the quality of the movie is.

Well the grain is only noticeable in the background. You know those parts of the screen where you are only supposed to see deep blackness?? Well instead, you see this blue "noise" specs.

The grain looks good in movies like Miami Vice and Collateral for example but then when a movie like Transformers goes from perfect quality to grainy, it looks off. OVerall an awesome Hi-Def release.

[Xsubs]

Well the grain is only noticeable in the background. You know those parts of the screen where you are only supposed to see deep blackness?? Well instead, you see this blue "noise" specs.

The grain looks good in movies like Miami Vice and Collateral for example but then when a movie like Transformers goes from perfect quality to grainy, it looks off. OVerall an awesome Hi-Def release.

I think Michael Bay purposely used the grainy style for a reason because all the dark scenes seem to have the same graininess, otherwise i like that sort of style.

[megatron42]

I think almost every review or coment by the more average folks agree's that on a good TV the difference in video clarity is minimal if any "Until" you zoom then the Blurray looks better but playing them side by side there's not much difference.

So the Blu-ray is handy if you want to read the car number plates and signs to look for easter eggs - but it seems the main difference that the averge joe spots is the Blue Ray disk has noticably better sound quality.

Personally I'd rather have the movie tweaked in other ways like doing something to make the action scenes a little clearer is something i'd find agreeable (which is probably impossible to do due to them needing to be rerendered to do it) and fixing the messed up color balance - but again that's probably deliberate artistic choice so I suppose that won't happen either .. I just find it a bit of a pain that Ratchet is a different color in every scene and that sometimes Bumblebee's limbs are black and other times grey - regardless of the lighting conditons. it just randomly changes and it's not the light shining on them it's just colortimed a bit funny so even in bright normal daylight they randomly change color.

Also there's a really creaky cut when Sam sticks the Allspark in Megatron's chest [That was a point that was messed with after the test screenings - and it shows up badly it needs to be fixed I feel as it looks like a jump in the movie as it stands]

So if there is a "special edition" when Movie #2 or #3 comes out on disc then I'd be more bothered by that sort of thing that minisucle coding differences that cause artifacts you can only see on zoom. The quality on the BluRay is adiquate for the time being.

I think the people coming at the movie from the Transformers angle rather than the Michael Bay / Action Fans angle would want that Devastator Subtitle changed to Brawl for sure though - as it makes Hasbro look foolish if left unchanged.

I've heard a lot of people lately wonder why the Barricade / Bumblebee 1st car chase is so short, why Epps Death is not shown and a few more scenes that were shot have not even been shown as deleated scenes on a disc some of them i'd like to see - even if it is as Deleted scenes.

I wonder what Michael Bay's Policy is on re-editing a completed movie into a special edition - if certain things were missing due to lack on money - I have to wonder if the footage has been shot if they can cram in the missing CGI and finish the missing scenes and such for Movie # 1 under the sequel's budget.

I know i'd appreciate that.

I know I'd much prefer to see the longer Bumblebee/Barricade car chase put back in the movie - if only as it seems curiously short as it stands at the moment.

Also if Barricade is in movie #2 (Some say he's the Audi) then it might be fun to have him actual doing a runner from the Highway battle in the 1st movie rather than being forgotten about. the Original script called for him to be killed by Optimus -so obviously I'm happy that did not happen as a Barricade Fan.

And if he does show up in Movie 2 then adding an explanation would be nice if they do ever make a special edition of Movie # 1.

Back to the BluRay the only complaint I have about it in general is that it still is lacking a special Effects and Writers commentry. Mr. Bay's is Ok but he does go silent for extended periods - which I feel is why it's usually best to do these with 2 people per commentary.

There's talk of adding new Commentaries via i Tunes though.
I also think it's a fun thing (not often seen) when a movie allows you to run it through with the dialogue mixed out and listen to just the music / sound effects.

[]edit[]

I Noticed the grain some scenes on the normal DVD to in those same places - It's interesting it's still on the HD version - I wonder if this implies it's actually on the Movies original print and not just on the home format disks.

that gave me a headache

[This is getting expensive]

How come ?

[megatron42]

to long

[fuzz!]

If you can't tell any difference over the previous HD-DVD release then that's your problem because the difference is there and you don't need to be a video codec expert to recognize it.

The difference you saw is either in your imagination (most likely - emotion does funny things to an otherwise rational mind) or the player/display you were using.

Realisitically there is zero difference between the two, I encourage you to see this for yourself by looking at the many side-by-side comparisons of the raw image data available all over the net.

By scrutinizing the images ever so carefully (zoomed in a whole bunch of course) you can pick out a couple of tiny fragments where the Blu-Ray version is superior - it's just that your eyes would never pick up on those while watching the film.

Hehe.. sorry couldn't resist responding after your deliciously crazy exchange with 'myothercar'.