Transformers: Dark of the Moon comparison *PIX* and *VID* - Page 2

Wow what is with that horrible green & teal look on the 3D version? The 2D looks much better - glad I am sticking to the 2D version. Look at the shot in the building with the cars where Carly and her boss works - the 3D looks horrid.

And yes WTF is up with the brightness of the later part of the 3D movie? It looks absolutely terrible. So much for the 3D version being the 'better' version. Put those 3D glasses on and you can probably hardly see the damn movie.

Is the 2D disc contained in the set the same as was previously released? I doubt Paramount would bother with a remaster, but I'm I just want to be sure. I held off on buying the original pressing only because I'm a special features lover.

That brightness issue is pretty sad. It's bad enough we have to wear glasses that make the movies darker, and now they're throwing this on top of it?

Interesting, looks just like the dimness/greenness in Fellowship of the Ring EE.

My thoughts exactly - it looks horrid versus the 2D which actually has an overall excellent transfer IMO. No complaints with it really.

Response directly from the man himself via his official forums:

The reason some 3D TV color on some systems might not look perfect? Well because there is no standards in 3D. It sounds stupid doesn't it. When we color transfer we spend weeks on a single format. Six weeks on the feature, then weeks additional on DVD, then weeks more on 3D. Every single shot might have brightness windows color moves high light adds. My colors on almost every one of my films have had almost perfect color space scores. I'm the guy who did the first - film to digital - digital transfer release on a movie - Bad Boys 2. I know color and telecine equipment better then almost any director out there. But when I started doing my 3D transfer with the most talented color telecine expert in the world, my buddy Stephan. He told me 3D is ****ed. There is no standard to the equipment it is the wild west right now. So if it looks bad it's your product. We aimed color space for the most the equipment that has the biggest market share. In our room it looked perfect. So I'm sorry but it's your equipment. Tell the business to standardize and it will all look perfect in the future. Sorry.

Michael

I trust him

Of course.

Nice to have a response from Mr. Bay, and I think Joe Kane has also complained about a lack of calibration standards for 3D. That would explain inconsistency when compared to other movies, but when compared to itself? The Paramount logo at the end of the film is around half as bright as the one at the start. Granted, they aren't identical to begin with, but that's a very wide variation.

Will it help me identify wich robot is wich during the fight scenes?

I can feel the sarcasm oozing out of your post

At least Peter Jackson didn't come out with such a radical statement regarding LOTR Fellowship EE, telling everyone else that they were wrong, if he had he may have lost respect over it, at least with HT enthusiasts.

I actually equate this 3D Dark of the Moon release closely to that release, something just doesn't feel right about the transfer - they even look similar. Too much.... teal.....

And brightness changing through the movie? Yeh Mr Bay, I'm sure you intended for that...

I was and am, 100% serious. The guy knows his stuff

How do you explain the problems with the transfer then?

He did, did you read his reasons? Looking at a 2d image of a 3d movie timed for 3d sets could be something to do with it

Ok so if we believe him about the color grading part of it, what about the brightness change? In the first part of the movie, the 3D version actually looks brighter than the 2D release.

Yet as the movie progresses, towards the end the 3D becomes uncomfortably dim - just look at the shots of carly at the end or the space shot of Cybertron....

I can hardly even make out the fine details of Cybertron in that shot it is so crushed - I assume if you were watching in 3D it would be worse due to further brightness loss....

Without being familiar with the equipment being used to come to these conclusions, I wanted to ask if the display has been calibrated separately
for 3D specifically. In other words, have you calibrated your projector through
the actual glasses you are using, and have separate color, gamma and grayscale
for 3D content.

Our final 3D settings on our projector when calibrated through the RealD glasses we use are significantly different from the 2D calibration. Each set of glasses adds its own tint to what you are seeing.

I just watched this in 3D the other day and didn't notice any odd green/teal coloring to any of the images. When this was being worked on, I wouldn't be surprised if the colors were adjusted to match a specific set of hardware and glasses being used by their team. Using images directly from a 3D screen, without those images being taken/filtered through the glasses first, is not an accurate representation of what the director intended us to see, as they know very well it's the image we see adjusted by the glasses that is important.

Please don't take this as an attack, as you may have already done so and these images were taken correctly through actual glasses and a projector color corrected through those 3D glasses during calibration. However, consider that all glasses are different, and add their own tint. Let alone as Bay mentioned the variance in hardware and no standards to follow. So I can very well see how it's impossible to get any one result that is perfect for all, as even if every display was identical, you would still have the variance in color/tint change due to various glasses. If their team created this 3D master using RealD to achieve ideal settings, I don't see how this same image being
viewed through a set of different glasses could look correct as well. At least that seems to make sense.

We auditioned many options during the process (Xpand, Monster, RealD) and I can tell you they do not look the same and
all add their own tint to the image. Once a final set of glasses is chosen, the projector needs a dedicated calibration setting done through those glasses to hit the proper standard. And once the display was calibrated through them, then the image looked quite accurate in terms of color.

Since we use RealD and that is very common in the professional world, maybe it's possible we are not seeing the color issues due to us using similar glasses and calibrated hardware. Or it could be something else I am not considering. But I definitely can agree with Bay's statement on there being absolutely no standard.

As for the brightness issue, I'm going to have to go back and watch for that again and see if I can find time to take some measurements myself. I did not notice anything resembling a dim image during the film, but then again we are using a pretty powerful projector with several thousand lumens, so it may be obscured. I would have to take a measurement to see when I have some time.

I am on the side of the man who has never signed off on a bad HD master

I wouldn't jump on Michael Bay quite yet, as there may be a communication issue here.

Michael Bay is responding to complaints that a poster made that stated only that the colors were off/"terrible" compared to the 2D version. (Though Brightness was included in the subject of the thread, it was not mentioned in the original post itself.) Thus, it's possible that Bay has not followed the link to this thread and/or has no knowledge of the progressively diminishing brightness present on retail 3D Blu-rays. It's possible that Bay has only approved of what he saw in-house, which may have slight saturation and brightness adjustments compared to the 2D disc, but in no way matches what was rendered to retail copies.

In my opinion, if Xylon's screenshots hold true, this is clearly a screw-up. Even though 3D has no standard, it is fairly obvious that, when authoring a 3D version, you are supposed to make it brighter than the 2D version to compensate for the glasses. Never, ever should it end up being dimmer, much less grow further so throughout the feature.

this.

The fact it is brighter than the 2D at the start, which is what I assume was the intention, color grading aside, yet towards the end is far far dimmer than the 2D, shows someone somewhere along the chain screwed up. Looks like that person took the meaning of the title Dark of the Moon a little too seriously

Anyone look at the screenshots if you don't believe me, doesn't matter if you are looking at them on a calibrated display or not, it is plain as day to see. Or dark as night.....

As you say, Michael Bay may not even be aware of this if he hasn't viewed the retail 3D disc but only what he approved beforehand.

One correction though, saying you are supposed to make the 3D transfer brighter isn't necessarily true, since current 3D tech makes things darker than they should and you do need to future-proof somewhat, and there's nothing wrong with having the transfer the same brightness as the 2D like many BD 3D's do, but darker? no way.

msgohan,

The ones on the right look less contrasty and filtered. Are you sure that the pics on the left isn't from the 3D version?

Also he is using different codecs one is libav and the other is ffmpeg

I think we need a more fair comparison

Ah, the patented Michael Bay humility. Apparently, he knows as much about basic English grammar as he does about coherent storytelling.

i haven't seen the 3d bluray yet, but that statement from Bay is one of the most self-aggrandaizing I have ever read coming from a director. now i don't even want to buy the disc, and i was looking forward to checking it out in 3d.

And yet there is a thread for every Lars Von Trier and Polanski movie, it is possible to detach the director from his words/choices why deny yourself something?

Yes. The links on the left are copied from a comparison post I made before the 3D version was released.


There is only one correct way to decode H.264, and incorrect decoding doesn't result in shifted brightness. Besides that, they are the same codec anyway:

http://ffdshow-tryout.sourceforge.net/wiki/video:codecs

Thanks msgohan.

What the heck is this? One of the most stupid remaster effort of a recent flick. Going to cancel my pre-order right away. Were the guys in the QC department sleeping or took bribe to approve this transfer?

Were you planning to watch the 3D version?

Also in regards to 2D screenshots from 3D releases, look at this thread I made a while ago about Megamind 2D vs 3D:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1328454

This was a case where the 3D release actually had better PQ than the 2D, based on screencaps from both. So as far as I'm concerned, 2D caps from a 3D release is a pretty good indication of what it will look like in 3D, obviously without depth and pop-out.

The fact that the caps of DOTM 3D are so dim late in the movie is very worrying and I have even seen posts from people on blu-ray.com notice it, without necessarily viewing caps. For Michael Bay to say that the release is 'perfect' either means he is unaware of the issue or god knows. But his statement almost feels like an attack on anyone who thinks otherwise.... I wonder if he actually viewed the retail disc itself.

You're also on the side of the man who signed off on such a horrible movie
I'd give this film a 1/5. Rolling Stone gave it a 0. A Zero!

It's the X-Men Last Stand of the trilogy in my opinion. If you like it good for you. I'm just saying
I enjoyed the excellent 7.1 soundtrack more than anything else

Lucky I have my own opinion then, and enjoyed it.

just picked up the 3d version...will look out for the weird colors and dip in brightness. in this case i am glad it comes with the 2d version also..will help yield a fair comparison

impressions of first 20 minutes - 3d seemed better in the live action scenes than the CGI scenes. the moon scenes looked good. i'll report if i see the dip in brightness...with the 3d glasses i'm sure it will be obvious if it occurs