More from Michael Bay

[haushausman]

This guy is classic!!! And he obviously obsessed with quality if he takes the time to argue with a bunch of HD-DVD tardmuffins.

Bay is the man!

[webmaster@michaelbay]

Originally Posted by Neo65

Assuming Michael Bay saw a 'Blu-Ray' encode of a portion of his movie. All it means is that he has a higher bitrate encode of a segment that he understands well. That he understands each frame of picture of TF is likely NOT in dispute, he not only is reponsible for visualizing and framing the pictures originally, he also spent time in the editing room on it.

What he has seen is how close the Pearl Harbor, The Rock, and The Island Blu-ray disks come close to what their respective master color-timed prints looks like.

[alain turgeon]

Gotta love this guy,go Michael go!!!!!!!!!

[mystiksuicide]

Michael has become HD medias version of EF Hutton.

"When Michael Bay speaks people listen."

[webmaster@michaelbay]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

This post is proof that the man often doesn't think before he speaks.

For one thing, if whatever Wal-Mart pushes wins, then HD-DVD would be winning right now since Wal-Mart was pushing the HD-DVD players for $99 a couple of months ago (to the point of even advertising it on TV).

Generally speaking, Walmart tends to sell things that actually sell to the general public (noting there are exceptions).

[Go Blu]

He's my new Hero!

It's about time someone in Hollywood speaks out about setting a higher standard.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

But he's wrong about anything Wal-Mart supports being successful, otherwise HD-DVD would be winning right now since that was the format that Wal-Mart had a major advertised sale for in the very recent past.

My local Wal-Mart has more shelf space for Blu-ray than HD DVD, not as much as there was before the sales with the free movies (they got a lot more HD DVD stock in anticipation of the sale, and didn't sale that much, I guess. Wal-Mart has also advertised Blu-ray quite a bit this past holiday season, including sponsoring some of the "I Do Blu" commercials.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

And he's ciriticizing Paramount for being paid off for their exlcusivity support for HD-DVD, when it's looking like WB may well have been paid off for their BD support. I personally have no problems with it if WB did get paid for it, but I also don't go around criticizing Paramount for doing the same thing.

Paramount knew that sales were showing Blu-ray to be the consumers' choice, and yet they went against the consumers' choice. WB went with the consumers' choice regardless of whether they were paid off. Do you honestly believe with Paramount titles selling 2:1 better on Blu-ray that they would have switched to HD DVD without getting paid off? It was dirty, WB (if paid), was simply getting a REALLY great bonus!

~Alan

[tron3]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

omg! i was just about to post this. dick wads? somebody been drinkning again. this is hilarious.

This is MY post on his web site back in October.
http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum...=Warner+effect

If Bay is calling ME a wad of penile matter, then maybe I should rethink my support for him.

Really, am I coming off as he is an idiot? I just wanted to make sure he knew the differences.

[javabear]

OMG. I love Michael Bay! I can't wait to get Transformers on Blu-ray.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by tron3

This is MY post on his web site back in October.
http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum...=Warner+effect

If Bay is calling ME a wad of penile matter, then maybe I should rethink my support for him.

Really, am I coming off as he is an idiot? I just wanted to make sure he knew the differences.

I think he was referring to people that were trying to tell him Transformers wouldnt look any better on Blu than it does on HD DVD.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

And then he's criticizing HD for paying off Paramount, but reports are coming out that WB likely was paid something for becoming Blu-Ray exclusive. WB has responded with "no comment", which right off the bat raises suspicions that they accepted some kind of large value compensation for their exclusivity.



For the record, I'm not defending HD-DVD here.

They did say no.

Link here: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...o_Blu-ray/1327

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Just thought you'd like to know.... someone thinks Bay should be shot.

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10422&postcount=103

Just as long as he gets shot with a Cine Alta and it is released on Blu-Ray .

[Li'l Nicky]

I'm not a big fan of Bay's movies. There are some I love like Bad Boys 1 &2. But I must admit the man knows PRESENTATION and with his many years of experience in the industry I'd take his word over some no name living in his parents basement any day.

Also, he isn't the only director who prefers Blu-ray.

[Jonezzee]

I bought The Rock today along with planet earth, gangs of new york, lucky number slevin, close encounters of the 3rd kind, the prestige and 300 all Blu of course and i must say The Rock looks and sounds fantastic as do planet earth.

Bay is a top director and an honest guy, he and only he knows and can dictate which format he feels is best for his movies.

I will buy most of his films because he makes very good action flicks.

[Cordre69]

I wish I was buying Gangs of New York
And The Island...
How come Blu doesn't get released in the UK and the US at the same time? Does it take more/less time to stamp out a different region on the disk?

[Anthony P]

Curious...first post and everything, but I honestly want to understand something from the point of view of people who know BD very well.

Can anyone expain to me the science around this statement from Michael Bay?

"My films finished in Blu-Ray are better - more true." - Michael Bay

What does "more true" mean and what specifically from a technical point of view would net a the movie to look "more true"?

The guy has access to the original film. He knows exactly what it should look like. Both BD and HDVD (and any other public media) cannot show the full detail of any movie in HD. So the video is compressed and a lot of finer detail is lost. Now a Dick wad (to use his term) will look at the movie say it looks good to him but have obviously no idea just how much detail was lost and exactly how far from the original it is (for example was there detail in that scene or did the director decide to soften it?, were the wrinkles on the face of the person air brushed off.....) Especially with a heavily CGI movie like this where each detail was painstakingly added in on purpose he would know exactly what is missing. The thing is that Paramount used to be neutral and in this particular case there actual was a BD master that was created. MB is one of the very few people that has/had access and has seen the BD that was created the HD DVD that was created as well as the original.

The question is why are some dickwads questioning what he is seeing and hearing when in all honesty he is about the only one that should know how it should look and sound?

As for the technical question with more bitrate and capacity more of the original info can be put on the disk and that is what he is seeing and hearing and telling us is observable.

[Anthony P]

I have a professionally calibrate top of the line display and watching both formats on a regular basis. Higher bit rates dont seem to automatical yield a better picture every time. Do you think I am wrong

yes and no.

bitrate is only one of the factor (for example if there is a scene where the screen is a monotone black for 5 seconds you don't need high bitrate)

but in the end you don't have access to the original film so you can't say what is truer to the original or the directors vision. Maybe he decided to screw up the colours on purpose (like all those people that use sepia in their pics) because he thought it made it cool (or better fit his vision). Maybe he decided to make something hazy to hide the pimple on the a$$ of the pornstar. Maybe he decided to add that annoying grain and fake scratches to give it an old time look.......

In the end you can't compare anything. You can say "I think this looks/sounds good" but only someone that has seen and knows the original film can say "I KNOW this looks/sounds good"

[Huge Knuts]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Huge, BDs can assign more bits to the video and audio (for example 40 Mb/s top video, 48 Mb/s to audio + video) therefore the image and the audio can have more information and be truer (have higher fidelity) to the source.

A video encoded at 30 Mb/s carries double the information than a video of 15 Mb/s. 35 mm film is a very high resolution medium (image clarity is defined by frequency (detail-resolution) x amplitude (contrast-sharpness) / noise (graininess-compression artifacts). The more information from it you record and transmit, the better it looks, and the closer to its original quality it is.

Thanks for the reply. So would you say you could tell the difference 10 of of 10 times which had lower vs higher bit rates if both encodes are done well? Honestly I am REALLY looking forward to Paramount releasing this movie on Blu-Ray. It will be the only movie I will own two copies of (one on each format) becuase I want to see for myself this difference. If there is is one I will see it becuase I have always been a video nut, but equally if there is no difference I will see that too.

[turboedguy]

Originally Posted by Huge Knuts

Thanks for the reply. So would you say you could tell the difference 10 of of 10 times which had lower vs higher bit rates if both encodes are done well? Honestly I am REALLY looking forward to Paramount releasing this movie on Blu-Ray. It will be the only movie I will own two copies of (one on each format) becuase I want to see for myself this difference. If there is is one I will see it becuase I have always been a video nut, but equally if there is no difference I will see that too.

The major difference will be that your copy will be a collectors item, and the Blu-version will play on players that are made 2 years from now.

and the Transformers 2 sequel will match the blu case.

[GasCat]

Originally Posted by Huge Knuts

I have heard this many times, but just dont see it on a constant basis. I also have to wonder if Michael knows it could be more true because of higher bit rates.

I have a professionally calibrate top of the line display and watching both formats on a regular basis. Higher bit rates dont seem to automatical yield a better picture every time. Do you think I am wrong?

Are you saying Michael is saying that his movie does not look "more true" becuase of bit rate?

BTW I am not talking about audio because Michaels comments were about looking "more true"

Is it possible....just possible the Michael bay is wrong and that his movie would not look more true on BD? I really cant wait to see myself, but if I had to bet I dont think it will look any different. Again I admit I could be wrong.

I would not be surprised if Transformers on Blu-Ray is in the can or at least a clip and he has seen a copy of it. I believe Paramount switched right about the time it would have been transferred. That's when he first became very pissed off.