AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen DVD, BD & Walmart Big Screen (IMAX) Edition *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen DVD, BD & Walmart Big Screen (IMAX) Edition *PIX* - Page 11

post #301 of 404
For the record,I have listened to both versions of ROTF on BR using the core 1.5 Mbps track...and there IS NO difference 'tween them.They are identicle,however this applies to the core track only.
post #302 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd View Post

What is "Proof"? Numerous people including myself have measured it with an SPL. The Wally disc is exactly 4 DB below the regular disc if all other settings are kept the same.

Without doing a full frequency plot there really isn't a good way to know if any particular frequency has been altered from disc to disc.

If your ears can't hear a difference does it really matter? You guys crack me up with all of this talk. The two discs have the exact same audio 4 db apart. Can't you all just enjoy the disc?

I will enjoy the disc when I feel 100% confident of what is going on with the audio.


The problem is there are conflicting reports from people who have both, compared both and applied the 4db increase to the IMAX version. The other problem is some peoples ears ARE hearing a dif (atleast from the reports). Some say there is no dif, some say there is clearly a dif and some have even measured a 8-10db dif between versions http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=27195 (please explain this audio review to me where he is getting a 8-10db dif between versions depending on the scene) depending on the scene. So yeah, I want some proof
post #303 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by atabea View Post

I am trying to decide whether to get the imax version or the regular BD. Can someone who has both versions verify whether there is a significant amount of IMAX scenes?
How many minutes of total IMAX?

There is exactly 8 min. 54 sec. of IMAX footage in the movie. Many of these shots are 1-2 seconds long.

The IMAX version also runs 32 seconds longer than the standard version, but I'll be damned if I could tell you what was added. I believe it's mostly a bunch of 1/4 to 1/2 second extensions to existing shots, nothing you would notice during regular playback.
post #304 of 404
Okay I rented the standard disc to compare to my Imax edition.

Pioneer BDP-05FD bitstreamed to my Pioneer SC-05. All speakers set to small, 80hz crossover all Polk LSi speakers to include the sub. Using a radio shack sound level meter to measure levels.

In a nut shell we all know to get equal dialogue levels we need to add 4db to the volume control For the Imax edition. I myself have my receiver set to -27db. Any DTS track usually pops +4db in the dialnorm so I decrease my volume to -31. This is what I did here. Decreased 4db for the standard edition. Dialogue is the same.

Now LFE is 1db hotter on the standard edition from my tests. Consistently with any explosions or deep level of bass in the score like music I am getting a 1db increase from the standard disc. If I increase the volume 1db on the Imax edition the LFE is the same, but dialogue is louder.

The best example will be when someone compares the tracks on a computer and does the cascade test.
post #305 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I will enjoy the disc when I feel 100% confident of what is going on with the audio.


The problem is there are conflicting reports from people who have both, compared both and applied the 4db increase to the IMAX version. The other problem is some peoples ears ARE hearing a dif (atleast from the reports). Some say there is no dif, some say there is clearly a dif and some have even measured a 8-10db dif between versions http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=27195 (please explain this audio review to me where he is getting a 8-10db dif between versions depending on the scene) depending on the scene. So yeah, I want some proof

Toe,you should just enjoy the disc.
In a situation like this,there will always be conflicting reports that are all over the map so to speak.
I did not for one minute let anything prevent me from getting the BSE edition of TF2.I also got the standard version from netflix on Wed.
As I stated earlier,there are no volume or LFE issues with the core track,and it sounds great!
If there is a DN issue coming up on the lossless track,with a need to increase the overall listening volume by +4db,then that's all it is.
Jusy my opinion....
post #306 of 404
Well, I for one enjoyed the movie. I liked the first one better but the second was enjoyable. There were some parts where I felt it was a bit too long or just going out in left field for the sake of going but still enjoyed:
  • Sam's sarcasm
  • the parents
  • bumblebee
  • Optimus still kicks a**
  • Megan Fox

You may now resume debating audio, video, length of IMAX scenes, whether or not the movie looks better on the 3rd Tuesday of the month compared to the 2nd, etc...
post #307 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by umass03 View Post

you may now resume debating audio, video, length of imax scenes, whether or not the movie looks better on the 3rd tuesday of the month compared to the 2nd, etc... :d

lmao!!
:d
post #308 of 404
I had a movie night last for my 11-year old son. Although I bought the IMAX version I chose to watch it is scope. I figured there would be more impact watching it on a 117" scope screen than a 92" 16x9, with most of the film letterboxed within that.

Oh yeah, one last thing, I need a better subwoofer!!!!!
post #309 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-not-k View Post

I had a movie night last for my 11-year old son. Although I bought the IMAX version I chose to watch it is scope. I figured there would be more impact watching it on a 117" scope screen than a 92" 16x9, with most of the film letterboxed within that.

Didn't your movie spill over the top and bottom of the scope screen when the IMAX scenes were playing? The IMAX opened up to 1.78:1 so if your scope screen was filled for the normal scenes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by c-not-k View Post

Oh yeah, one last thing, I need a better subwoofer!!!!!

Are you joining the ranks who think the BSE soundtrack lacked impact or is this a general statement from prior films in the theater?
post #310 of 404
I saw T2 at an IMAX theater and was surprised that the soundtrack did not have bass galore but it did have pants flapping bass. I thought the bass was inconsistent with certain action parts in the movie, same goes for when I saw it in a reg theater. Now that I have a home version (BSE) it is the same thing but it sounds better and has better bass presentation. Cool thing is hearing all the new sound effects, subtleties and great use of the surround channels, in some scene the surrounds sound like it has a subwoofer near it! Also there is some very nice subsonic bass that shakes your theater and chairs violently, I'm pleased with the DTS-HD soundtrack overall, you just have to crank the volume up a little and enjoy the ride.
post #311 of 404
hello all,

why isn't this entire dvd "the big screen version?" i loved the 8:54mins of footage. it made my 60' sony xbr2 sxrd look great.
post #312 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldsonjune View Post

hello all,

why isn't this entire dvd "the big screen version?" i loved the 8:54mins of footage. it made my 60' sony xbr2 sxrd look great.

Because only certain scenes were done in the 'big screen' format for the IMAX theatrical presentation. This release is indicative how of the movie appeared on IMAX screens.
post #313 of 404
I’m not a fan of Transformers; I didn’t grow up with them. I just like sci-fi action and effects films. I saw this film in theaters once. My expectations were somewhat low in terms of plot, acting, and dialogue, but my expectations of the VSFX and sound were very high. I was hoping it would equal or surpass the first installation. In terms of action and effects, TF2 didn't disappoint me in the theater (except near the end when the film ripped after Devastator appeared). I didn't even know some scenes were shot in Imax until I heard about it during the BD release week. I thought TF2 was a great flick for pure entertainment and carnage. However....

I like the first movie slightly better than this sequel, but not by much. The first had better pacing, somewhat better comedy scenes, and, I think, better human characters. TF2 excelled in magnitude, number of bots, explosions, and special effects. My favorite scenes include Ravage deploying all those round mini-bots into the secured military chamber where the last All-Spark piece was kept. Those small bots combined into that mantis looking robot. I think that scene is so cool and depicts the real future of robotic applications.

TF2 is wackier; yet, the comedic scenes weren't as funny to me as those in TF1. The human characters were over-the-top; their human reactions were exaggerated to the point of hysterical (and some say racist portrayal). There are some plot discontinuities, too.

I think what is most disappointing (and alarming) are some scenes that are inappropriate for the kind of audience this film attracts, mainly kids under 13 years of age. Yes, it is rated PG-13, but still, the adult “humor” and language should have been left out. Certainly parents need to make good judgment concerning what their kids watch in theaters. However, studios knew that TF2 would attract both adults who grew up with Transformers in the 80’s and kids who are into them now; therefore, studios put content for both kinds of audiences. Arguably, Michael Bay may be the best director for military-related, action-packed, blow-up and smash‘em kind of films – factors that made it easy for the studio to decide who would direct Transformers on the big screen – but, for a film directed mainly at kids, Bay is probably not the right director. My point here is, the language and certain scenes in TF2 didn’t enhance the quality or level of enjoyment. Bay put them in to make the PG-13 rating.

Some folks have already suggested a re-boot of the Transformers franchise. Perhaps they are right, but I don’t think it will happen soon. If TF3 is made, could it redeem the fallen Transformers franchise?
post #314 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey100 View Post

Some folks have already suggested a re-boot of the Transformers franchise. Perhaps they are right, but I don’t think it will happen soon. If TF3 is made, could it redeem the fallen Transformers franchise?

Studios don't reboot movies that make $833M worldwide and are the #1 ranking film of the year domestically. If Bay dialed down his stupid toilet humor and didn't try to work through a writer's strike, they'd be fine. They began shooting with what was basically a first-draft script, and lost a couple months of post-production as well.
post #315 of 404
Here what happens with my HTPC - USB external card - toslink - pre/pro PCM - 7 separate amplifiers - multiple subwoofers (4 12") and a fullrange speakers set to small at -4 on my dial. The dial goes to +10 and there is a 20Hz subsonic filter.



These are around the same time in the film? Red is pink noise (-30dBFS), green is a Decepticon rolling in the air then landing, purple is Sams mother tackling someone and blue is a conversation. I found I liked -7 or less on the dial my second viewing.
post #316 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey100 View Post

If TF3 is made, could it redeem the fallen Transformers franchise?

What do you mean "if"? TF3 already has the green light for July 2011 release. Confirmed on michaelbay.com and here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/
post #317 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey100 View Post

I'm not a fan of Transformers; I didn't grow up with them. I just like sci-fi action and effects films. I saw this film in theaters once. My expectations were somewhat low in terms of plot, acting, and dialogue, but my expectations of the VSFX and sound were very high. I was hoping it would equal or surpass the first installation. In terms of action and effects, TF2 didn't disappoint me in the theater (except near the end when the film ripped after Devastator appeared). I didn't even know some scenes were shot in Imax until I heard about it during the BD release week. I thought TF2 was a great flick for pure entertainment and carnage. However....

I like the first movie slightly better than this sequel, but not by much. The first had better pacing, somewhat better comedy scenes, and, I think, better human characters. TF2 excelled in magnitude, number of bots, explosions, and special effects. My favorite scenes include Ravage deploying all those round mini-bots into the secured military chamber where the last All-Spark piece was kept. Those small bots combined into that mantis looking robot. I think that scene is so cool and depicts the real future of robotic applications.

TF2 is wackier; yet, the comedic scenes weren't as funny to me as those in TF1. The human characters were over-the-top; their human reactions were exaggerated to the point of hysterical (and some say racist portrayal). There are some plot discontinuities, too.

I think what is most disappointing (and alarming) are some scenes that are inappropriate for the kind of audience this film attracts, mainly kids under 13 years of age. Yes, it is rated PG-13, but still, the adult humor and language should have been left out. Certainly parents need to make good judgment concerning what their kids watch in theaters. However, studios knew that TF2 would attract both adults who grew up with Transformers in the 80's and kids who are into them now; therefore, studios put content for both kinds of audiences. Arguably, Michael Bay may be the best director for military-related, action-packed, blow-up and smashem kind of films - factors that made it easy for the studio to decide who would direct Transformers on the big screen - but, for a film directed mainly at kids, Bay is probably not the right director. My point here is, the language and certain scenes in TF2 didn't enhance the quality or level of enjoyment. Bay put them in to make the PG-13 rating.

Some folks have already suggested a re-boot of the Transformers franchise. Perhaps they are right, but I don't think it will happen soon. If TF3 is made, could it redeem the fallen Transformers franchise?

I agree with your points. the problem is that when they are aiming at the core demographic audience that will go to these films knowing that they will be a gold mine, those types of scenes (farts, poop and pee jokes, anything involving testicles etc.) will always make it into the film. It's disappointing because it turns into a contest as to who can be the most creative when trying to put these juvenile scenes into their movies. And worse, these are the scenes that most young kids will remember and tell there friends about. It happens all the time with my nieces and nephews. but, I guess that's Hollywood.
post #318 of 404
Small Soldiers and Transformers (07) are almost identicle.
post #319 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWL5 View Post

What do you mean "if"? TF3 already has the green light for July 2011 release. Confirmed on michaelbay.com and here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/

Ok. But I don't follow Michael Bay news or Transformers news, nor do I care to.
post #320 of 404
I do not believe these two encodes are identical. I would agree the standard edition is putting out a bit more mid range bass. I measured using a sound level meter and the Imax version puts out about 1 db less bass when the dialogue levels are matched. Now crank the Imax version up 5db and the LFE effects match, but again dialogue is a bit louder. So decreasing the volume 4db on the standard editon and it still has more ooomf, but not by more than 1db according to the sound level meter I measured with.

I am still waiting for the waterfall test comparing the 2 versions to be the definitive answer.
post #321 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by subavision212 View Post

I agree with your points. the problem is that when they are aiming at the core demographic audience that will go to these films knowing that they will be a gold mine, those types of scenes (farts, poop and pee jokes, anything involving testicles etc.) will always make it into the film. It's disappointing because it turns into a contest as to who can be the most creative when trying to put these juvenile scenes into their movies. And worse, these are the scenes that most young kids will remember and tell there friends about. It happens all the time with my nieces and nephews. but, I guess that's Hollywood.

True. Although, aspects of people's complaints confuse me. (Not you, btw). I guess I'm having a hard time understanding if the complaints are about the type of humor specifically, or that type of humor in a film they want to show they're kids.

Because I see a lot of the same people who deride Bay for his style of humor, say how brilliant and wonderful stuff like The Hangover and their ilk are.(Again, not necessarily people here, but in general). The Hangover had actual testicals, male ass, etc, tons of the same style of humor. (Breastfeeding for the sake of showing some actresses, boobs, etc).

But I'm just trying to understand of these folks just hate Bay so much, and don't have any other argument or are just against that type of humor in films they want to show children as well.
post #322 of 404
"But I'm just trying to understand of these folks just hate Bay so much, and don't have any other argument or are just against that type of humor in films they want to show children as well."
I can't quite figure out this aspect either. Bay's films are incredibly well-made, stylized and hilarious if you ask me. And they are identical copies of each other, right down to the way their shot, edited, music used etc. (you could create a drinking game when you watch any of his movies, betting when the first huge sunset shot appears, how many times a huge sun will appear and what type of flying vehicle will be in the shot). He doesn't try to make films that are larger than life, he makes them larger than the known universe. But that's why I love them and enjoy them for what they are. It's sort of sad that he decided to sink to this toilet level of humor for the first time. I guess cheap laughs that bring big bucks will always win out.
post #323 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanbauer View Post

Studios don't reboot movies that make $833M worldwide and are the #1 ranking film of the year domestically.

Die Another Day made $431 million worldwide and was the highest-grossing James Bond movie (out of 20 entries!) up to the point it was released. Nonetheless, the producers recognized that the franchise was spinning out of control and that fans were becoming discontent. And so, the next movie was the reboot, Casino Royale.

Raw box office dollars alone don't tell the whole story about how well a movie is received by audiences.
post #324 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Die Another Day made $431 million worldwide and was the highest-grossing James Bond movie (out of 20 entries!) up to the point it was released. Nonetheless, the producers recognized that the franchise was spinning out of control and that fans were becoming discontent. And so, the next movie was the reboot, Casino Royale.

Raw box office dollars alone don't tell the whole story about how well a movie is received by audiences.

There were four years between "Die Another Day" and "Casino Royal", and the Bond series has made a history of changing up the lead actor to keep him fresh. Paramount already has Michael Bay working on Transformers 3, less than four months after the theatrical release of the 2nd film. So I think it's clear that the thought of rebooting the franchise never even crossed their mind.
post #325 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldsonjune View Post

hello all,

why isn't this entire dvd "the big screen version?" i loved the 8:54mins of footage. it made my 60' sony xbr2 sxrd look great.


I too wish the entire movie was shot in IMAX. That would be unreal
post #326 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveyd View Post

I too wish the entire movie was shot in IMAX. That would be unreal

The budget would be unreal...it would probably add another $100-150 million in production costs...am I wrong? Just an estimation...
post #327 of 404
WOW, those screens on the first screen are insane.
Tempted to get the IMAX now.
In Canada and only have the normal edition.
post #328 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Is that Michael Bay reflected on the far left?

Which pic?
Thanks
post #329 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The IMAX version also runs 32 seconds longer than the standard version, but I'll be damned if I could tell you what was added. I believe it's mostly a bunch of 1/4 to 1/2 second extensions to existing shots, nothing you would notice during regular playback.

IMAX editions of certain movies often include additional credits for the conversion process. That may explain the additional length, though I'm not certain on this one.
post #330 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Die Another Day made $431 million worldwide and was the highest-grossing James Bond movie (out of 20 entries!) up to the point it was released. Nonetheless, the producers recognized that the franchise was spinning out of control and that fans were becoming discontent. And so, the next movie was the reboot, Casino Royale.

Raw box office dollars alone don't tell the whole story about how well a movie is received by audiences.

Good points. However, the Bond Franchise is held in very high esteem in the action genre, and once had integrity and recognition as the apex of action movies. They realized they had lost that, and that it was time to go back to making movies people could take seriously. Casino Royale has become my favorite Bond movie. I feel like they succeeded.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen DVD, BD & Walmart Big Screen (IMAX) Edition *PIX*