The Energon Pub

Seibertron wrote:

LiKwid wrote:Try watching Transformers and The Dark Knight on a 120mhz tv.... You'll see a difference then
Saying there is no difference between Blu Rand dvd is just denial..Plain and simple..

I wonder which version is going to come with the Best Buy exclusive?.. Getting the Op bust is cool and a gift card to Sideshow collectibles($50?) and the movie for $50 usd is a killer deal. Especially when you have $10 bucks in reward certificates to use

We're not saying there's not a difference. We're just saying that the DVD upconverting makes regular DVDs a nice enough quality that the difference between regular DVD and a Blu-Ray DVD is minimal to the average consumer and not worth the extra $10 per disc.

I have to ask again ... how are you guys connecting your DVD / Blu-Ray players to your TV? Upconverting only happens with HDMI wires. If you have a DVD player hooked up to your TV with component or AV wires, you aren't viewing an upconverted image from your player so it's not even a fair comparison to Blu-Ray.

Oppo DVD players used to upconvert to 1080i and p via Component a couple of years ago. (I think they're strictly HDMI now.) An Oppo DVD player can give BD a run for it's money. But, of course that kind of conversion tech comes with a hefty pricetag. (Last I checked, Oppo's cheapest player was $150.00)

As for our A/V rig, we have a LG 26in HDTV, with a Sony upconvert player. In all honesty, the Sony is crap when it comes to upconverting. It looks good, but not great. Samsung and LG, on the other hand...both upconvert with breathtaking results. The Samsung we tried was so good, that my Dad preferred it over BD due to cost. And he was right. It was close enough to 1080p with all of the quality, but a quarter of the pricetag.

And I agree that upconvert is more than capable, and visually impressive for most people, so that they don't require a new disc system and player. The only times you'll ever really notice a great difference is if you have a craptastic player like our's, or a TV with 120hz. (But they make TVs with 120hz now that adapts to all input sources through a chipset system that cleans up the signal, reduces noise, and removes artifacts.)

With an adaptive TV set (which happen to be quite affordable, now) and a good upconvert player (around $100.00), there's really no need for Blu-Ray, unless you're an absolute stickler. And to say that the difference is so overwhelming, etc, etc is silliness.

Upconvert DVD players aren't that far behind Blu-Ray, and with technology like Oppo systems use, the distance is shortened even more.

Mathematically, yes, there are more pixels, etc. But, to the naked human eye, not a tremendous difference, and for some, none at all. (and no comments about a person's eye sight sucking or whatever, that's just pathetic, people.)

And on top of the A/V rig in the living room, my laptop's screen upconverts to 720p (with anything I throw at it), plus software from Cyberlink or WinDVD, there's really no reason to upgrade to Blu-Ray right now. Plus with the VGA connection to the TV, I can still wring out the 720p (and above) resolutions and have an impressive picture, still.

Heck, we owned a Blu-Ray player, I rented movies for it, but never bought any. In fact, I watched more upconverted SD DVDs than I did BD films. And a Blu-Ray player will upconvert to near BD quality anyway, so you really don't need to rush out and change your library over.

Having a BD player will help future proof you, for a while, but it's not really necessary.

I'll buy the 2-Disc SD version of ROTF. As much as I like the BD version's special features, they're not worth the extra money to me. That's the price of a figure, right there. (well one on sale, or a good down payment on a Scout. LOL)

Rodimus_light wrote:uhh... Dark Knight is like night and day in dvd and blu-ray. I am not someone who notices the difference normally but the Imax shots are more amazing on a normal tv on blu-ray than they were on a normal theatre screen. And yes I stand by that I saw it in theatres three times.

The IMAX shots are a gimmick, an added feature to Blu-Ray. While impressive, they're not needed to watch the movie. They add to it, yes, but not needed. Take the IMAX bits away, and compare the upconverted DVD and BD versions side by side, and you won't find a stellar difference unless your equipment is lacking in one department or another.

To be honest, IMAX has never thrilled me either. (and yes, I've been to one) I prefer my movies to be enjoyable and watchable as is. No special requirements, equipment, etc.

ROTF and G.I.Joe were both a lot of fun and both entertaining without gimmicks necessary.

Autobot032 wrote:The IMAX shots are a gimmick, an added feature to Blu-Ray. While impressive, they're not needed to watch the movie. They add to it, yes, but not needed. Take the IMAX bits away, and compare the upconverted DVD and BD versions side by side, and you won't find a stellar difference unless your equipment is lacking in one department or another.

To be honest, IMAX has never thrilled me either. (and yes, I've been to one) I prefer my movies to be enjoyable and watchable as is. No special requirements, equipment, etc.

ROTF and G.I.Joe were both a lot of fun and both entertaining without gimmicks necessary.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of IMAX theatres. I'd rather go to a theatre that has a nice picture, stadium seating and great audio and spend $5 less to see a movie. I would've liked to have seen ROTF at the IMAX just to see that forest scene, but it wasn't really worth $15 to go see it at the Navy Pier IMAX in Chicago. I'll just wait to watch it on my nice setup at home.

Seibertron wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:The IMAX shots are a gimmick, an added feature to Blu-Ray. While impressive, they're not needed to watch the movie. They add to it, yes, but not needed. Take the IMAX bits away, and compare the upconverted DVD and BD versions side by side, and you won't find a stellar difference unless your equipment is lacking in one department or another.

To be honest, IMAX has never thrilled me either. (and yes, I've been to one) I prefer my movies to be enjoyable and watchable as is. No special requirements, equipment, etc.

ROTF and G.I.Joe were both a lot of fun and both entertaining without gimmicks necessary.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of IMAX theatres. I'd rather go to a theatre that has a nice picture, stadium seating and great audio and spend $5 less to see a movie. I would've liked to have seen ROTF at the IMAX just to see that forest scene, but it wasn't really worth $15 to go see it at the Navy Pier IMAX in Chicago. I'll just wait to watch it on my nice setup at home.

$15.00?! Oh hell no! Though, to be fair, it is Chicago, and the theater pricing will of course be more expensive than my little town.

Still...as much as I love ROTF (and it's now in my list of favorite all time movies) I could spend $15.00-20.00 and see it multiple times, rather than just once with a glorified version of a Viewmaster on steroids.

PASS.

part of the draw for ROTF Imax for me were the purported additional scenes (as they did w/TF1). Besides the bigger picture, the premium price was for those scenes. Instead, they lied and screwed us, the regular screens and Imax played the same exact movie. That really pissed me off. What was the official explanation for this??

vectorA3 wrote:part of the draw for ROTF Imax for me were the purported additional scenes (as they did w/TF1). Besides the bigger picture, the premium price was for those scenes. Instead, they lied and screwed us, the regular screens and Imax played the same exact movie. That really pissed me off. What was the official explanation for this??

The OP says the deleted scenes will be part of the special features.

Give it time, we'll have a fanedit sooner or later.

So no deleted scenes? Huh.

I am assuming that this two disc Blu Ray is the same one best buy is offering with a Optimus bust? Yes? I don't need 3 copies of this movie. two would be perfect though. DVD and Blu Ray. I just want the Optimus bust.

Autobot032 wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:part of the draw for ROTF Imax for me were the purported additional scenes (as they did w/TF1). Besides the bigger picture, the premium price was for those scenes. Instead, they lied and screwed us, the regular screens and Imax played the same exact movie. That really pissed me off. What was the official explanation for this??

The OP says the deleted scenes will be part of the special features.

Give it time, we'll have a fanedit sooner or later.

the movie could've benefited from having a shorter cut for regular screens & longer version in Imax for the diehards. All of the extra jokes & BS, esp. Simmons' thong, that shoulda been cut out without a 2nd thought. Maybe Bay likes guys though... He had too much power with the final cut, studio should've stepped in at some point, but they %ussed out.

vectorA3 wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:part of the draw for ROTF Imax for me were the purported additional scenes (as they did w/TF1). Besides the bigger picture, the premium price was for those scenes. Instead, they lied and screwed us, the regular screens and Imax played the same exact movie. That really pissed me off. What was the official explanation for this??

The OP says the deleted scenes will be part of the special features.

Give it time, we'll have a fanedit sooner or later.

the movie could've benefited from having a shorter cut for regular screens & longer version in Imax for the diehards. All of the extra jokes & BS, esp. Simmons' thong, that shoulda been cut out without a 2nd thought. Maybe Bay likes guys though... He had too much power with the final cut, studio should've stepped in at some point, but they %ussed out.

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about some of the humor.

Tazing nuts, landing on balls, underneath the enemy's scrotum, Simmons's thong, "Go whine to your boyfriend", "That's cuz you a pussy", Leo sleeping on Simmons shoulder (which was a ha ha moment, but once you throw it in with the rest...) ...some very eye opening moments there. (in hindsight)

One really "HAHA!" moment testicle joke would've been fine. Two was reeeeally pushing it, and the current amount was unfunny and just complete overkill/bordering on weird territory.

I don't know if it was the writers, or Bay, but somebody on that team has some issues.

I agree. While I enjoyed RotF, there were cringe worthy moments in the humour department due to the excessive and relentless use of overly macho humour. It's as if the movie is trying way too hard to convince us that it's "all man" by utilizing comedy gags like simulated testicles, groin injury(tazer and Mikaela falling into Leo's lap), and a shot of JT's bared posterior. Now with the exception of Mikaela, the other mentioned instances of comedy don't seem too appealing to men, at least not me. Haha, big balls. Haha...wait, did JT just moon the audience? Yeah...

The first movie had some funny if juvenile moments like the BB peeing/expelling lubricant on Simmons and oddly embarassing moments like OP saying "My bad." or Jazz saying "What's crackin', little bitches?"(Come on...really?) but other touches of humour were great like Ratchet's observation of pheromone levels suggesting Sam wanted to "mate" with Mikaela and Sam's innocent whistle afterwards. I also thought Shia's comedic delivery and timing really shined through when he interacted with Kevin Dunn when Sam brings the Autobots to his home when he looks for his grandfather's glasses.

"Sleep well, handsome man.".

That scene always cracks me up.

Speaking of which, Kevin Dunn is great in the movies as Sam's father. I just love the extra touches on a character that could be a throw away role.

Looks like there are a lot more extra contents this time around. I will definitely get it on Blu-ray since it'll look totally gorgeous on my 1080p 46" Bravia Z, can't wait to see the full screen Imax scenes if The Dark Knight is any indication.