What sorts of flaws? I know about the layer-skipping in certain, specific scenes of the first-press DVDs...are they anything like those?

 

 

found the link at the end of the video it shows him Signing, for us fans 5000 signatures. That is cool.
Michael Bay Showcases Transformers Blu-ray Limited Edition - YouTube

 

Let's clear away the misunderstandings in what Mr. Bay just told us. I'm not going to waste much time on this, so Google items for yourself please.

Blatant outright stupid lie. The first one of these was done years before Bad Boys 2. It was done by none other than George Lucas on Star Wars Episode I. It was an easy look-up to find this out.

Mr. Bay then proceeds to layout an explanation as to why there is nothing wrong with any of the DotM 3D Blu-rays.

One small problem: his explanation works for people who are having problems with brightness and color problems on the film as a whole. If that were the only issue it would indeed be as it says on the front page here "Kudos Mr. Bay". However, a few posts later in the same thread that Mr. Bay posted in, a different issue is brought to light. Somewhere between 40 - 50 minutes into the film the brightness drops for the remainder of the movie. This is not an issue that would result from different 3D standards.

There is a link in that thread to an audio/video forum that has screen captures showing the brightness difference between the 2D and affected 3D versions of the movie. Doing a Google search I found this problem was also noted on two other forums (I didn't go past the 10th page of results to see if there were more, as I'm only going to spend so much time on something that doesn't affect me personally).

Not everyone in these three other forums has the same issue (as in the one that would not result from differing 3D standards) with their copy of the movie (which is why I used the "affected 3D versions" qualifiers in my previous paragraph). There was speculation that the problem may only be occurring in one (or more) batches of the discs that were produced.

 

Nice research there - well done

 

Don't get me wrong - I can see the merits of some things. I do actually own a DVD recorder hard drive thingy with built-in Freeview, but only because a friend gave me his old one when he bought himself a new one. It's practically unused because he'd always record straight to DVD instead of using the hard drive.

When weighed against VHS it's nice not to have to worry about limited recording capacity or watching stuff off it to make room like I do have to with tapes. I don't have to watch stuff off it in reverse order to free up tape. I enjoy the time-skip feature for 'pausing' live telly or if I've put something onto record and then come home just after it started and I decide to start watching it while it records the rest of the show rather than have to wait until later. Or watching something I've already recorded to it while recording something else at the same time. Wish it had a twin-tuner though so I can record one channel while watching another.

Currently though VHS is just so much easier for me when recording shows. It takes less than ten seconds to shove a tape in and start recording. I don't have to mess about formatting things. And I don't have to write something to disc or download to a stick if I want to watch it in another room or lend something to someone to watch. Maybe when I have more machines like this I'll be fully for it, but it's not yet that time for me.
I'll have to upgrade fully eventually, but while I still have equipment that works fine enough I'll save my cash. The march of technology is no bad thing - I know I'd hate to have to go back to using vinyl records. I'm even 'hip' enough to have an mp3 player, although even those are probably considered old tech now by many.

Anyway, I think I'm derailing the thread with my caveman views. Maybe I'll make a new thread elsewhere in the boards about this stuff.

 

Checked mine last night. All the way past minute 40-50. No noticeable brightness or color drop with the 3D on or off.

Setup:

Collector's Edition 3D BD
PS3 Slim updated firmware.
Samsung LED UN55D8000
Samsung 3500CR 3D Glasses.

We should leave this kind of info here. Not too much videophile savvy info, just the basic setup stuff.

I'm pretty sure I haven't read any complaints of someone with the Collector's Edition BD. Two different transfers maybe? Who knows.

 

I guess the real test would be to take a disk that shows the issue and try it on a player where they arent seeing the issue with someone elses disk.

Not like I know anyone else with 3d blu ray but that test would clinch it if it is the disk.

kinda hard to dispute one disk working and the other not on the same machine.

 

If that's the case, it would likely be an issue that happened at the authoring house rather than with the masters they got from Bay and his team. He'd likely have no knowledge of something like that.

 

-snip-

Notice how he doesn't mention multiple TVs, which is where the brightness issues are almost definitely coming from.

I don't, but it's a possibility worth consideration.

He did tweak it. He said he tweaked it. That's the entire point of the statement Bay made about the issue. That's where the "problem" comes from. There's not a standard among 3D sets on how colors are supposed to turn out once the image is decoded, possibly interlaced, and the glasses (if needed) are on. When preparing a 3D video for home viewing, you've got a choice: you can try to make the colors really pop, tweak it for as many types of sets as you can, and hope for the best on the others, or you can settle for the lowest common denominator and use conservative color values. Most studios have gone with the latter approach, which means everybody gets an okay color experience. Mr. Bay, being unusually picky about color, has opted for the former, which means most people get an amazing color experience and a few get garbage. That's a lousy set of options to choose from, and he is correct in pointing out that if the industry would standardize then this wouldn't have to happen.

That's a fairly safe assumption, after considering all information available. Maybe not "crappy" so much as "inadequate" but yeah.

No, but I'm pretty sure that you are.

And yet not here, on one of the largest Transformers forums in the world...

How about your position, which assumes no equipment has limitations that are only evident with some recordings when it's a known fact that some do? How about your assumption that "my settings are fine" means they actually are? (You've clearly never worked in tech support) How about the assumption that the people with problems aren't largely the same people posting on multiple forums (plausible)? How about the HUGE assumption that if there was a significant issue with the video it would not have been made known on the largest Transformers forums already? The explanation we've been given is 100% plausible and highly likely given the current state of the technology and Bay's obvious refusal to play it safe. You're in much worse shape here.

Pff. Try the 1840s  

 

^ That's almost EXACTLY what I was thinking when reading most of those comments, thanks for taking the time to put it down in words more knowledgeable and accurate about the subject than my own would have been.

The eager readiness of thankless haters to jump down Bay's throat at his every effort to do good work for them is truly ridiculous.

 

Personally, I love TF3 in 2d more than in 3D mostly because it's easier to catch the ton of details put into the movie. I like it in 3D, don't get me wrong, but there's yet a LIVE-ACTION movie in 3D that has really made me go "WOW! That's some serious depth being displayed there." Avatar included.

Animation however...

Kung-Fu Panda 2, Puss n' Boots, and Lion King are all fantastic in 3D...they really pop. I think it's because in animation (particularly CG cartoons), they have more control over the environment to really pull out the distortion/camera depth, etc. Nightmare Before Christmas is awesome in 3D as well.


Technically, you can do 3D without the glasses anyways. It's all in how you layer the picture/block it etc combined with spacing. It won't come out at you but you can make something go out by properly spacing, scaling and sizing objects next to one another.

 

That's not actually 3D though. What you're describing is the "illusion of depth" that painters have exploited for centuries. That relies on psychovisual cues to create the same impression of distance experienced by someone who is blind in one eye. 3D actually needs both eyes for sensory rather than psychological perception of depth. There are ways to do 3D without glasses, but none that would work in a cinema. Lenticular displays are getting almost good enough for TV though.