Transformers 3

[David Mullen ASC]

I just came back from seeing this at the Rave Cinema at the Howard Hughes Parkway.

 

I tried to see it in IMAX 3D but as soon as the movie started after the 2D trailers, something seemed wrong -- there was hardly a 3D effect but there was a double-image blurring a lot of the frame. I played around with my 3D glasses (which I have to wear over my regular glasses), the problem didn't go away, so I went into the lobby and got a new pair of 3D glasses, but the problem was the same.

 

By the time I returned to the lobby a second time, there were a dozen people all crowding around the attendant complaining that the 3D projection was messed up. One of the geekier guys claimed that the light from one of the two projected "eyes" wasn't being polarized. The attendant called the projection booth but the projectionist kept saying that there was nothing wrong with the projection.

 

I spent about ten minutes with the gathering crowd of confused moviegoers who felt something looked screwed up, then gave up. I went to the box office and got a refund -- they also gave me a free ticket to the Real-D screening that was to begin in fifteen minutes, so I saw that. I hope they eventually fixed the IMAX screening - I hate to imagine people watching a 2.5-hour movie with screwed-up projection like that, and paying extra for the pleasure. I suspect many aren't going to want to pay extra in the future for that sort of experience.

 

The movie was OK, had some good action moments... the 3D felt pretty mild at times, which was OK. In fact, the only thing that annoyed me technically was the inconsistency from intercutting HD spherical and 35mm anamorphic.

 

I preferred the intercutting of brief IMAX elements into 35mm anamorphic in the second installment to this one -- the look of the 3rd movie was a bit all over the map, grain, no grain, grain again, sharp, soft, sharpened, plasticy, clippy, anamorphic bokeh, spherical bokeh, etc.

[Chris Millar]

Some really nice sequences - the flying men jumping out of the planes, very nice, that is for about 10secs after which the whole scene makes ZERO sense aside from that:

 

unfunny, crass, tiresome, headache inducing tosh (and thats in 2D)

 

this is from a fan of the first

 

I could go on, but what use is it ...

 

 

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Some really nice sequences - the flying men jumping out of the planes, very nice, that is for about 10secs after which the whole scene makes ZERO sense aside from that:

 

unfunny, crass, tiresome, headache inducing tosh (and thats in 2D)

 

this is from a fan of the first

 

I could go on, but what use is it ...

 

Yes, despite all that expensive CGI work of robots transforming and bashing each other for over two hours, it was an old-fashioned stunt involving soldiers "body" gliding into the city that that was the most thrilling. Don't know if it was all an effect or not, but it certainly looked real. I think the reason it works is just because it's human beings doing something that looks dangerous. Same goes for the stunt work involved in the collapsing building, there was enough physical reality to the action to make it thrilling, the way that the action in the original "Die Hard" is exciting and suspenseful.

[Chris Millar]

The transformers themselves are just too generic, especially the decepticons... Any that manage any personality (starscream, megatron, those little guys) are taken from the archetypes of screenplay101.

 

Unless Optimus getting a little testy (read deadly) Bumblebee is about the closest you'll get to a character you'll care about.

 

Sam going to a job interview with John Malkovich ??? and John Malkovich trying to start fist fight with bumblebee ???

 

And the relentless humans: 'look at me! look at me! I'm crazy !"

 

"crazy

 

crazy

 

crazy

 

me me me ! "

 

 

Sly yet dull innuendo all over the place, of which about say %10-20 went over the heads of the average viewer anyway...

 

Pretty simple really, too much not good, not enough good

[Matthew W. Phillips]

David, I promise to buy your next cinematography book (if you ever write another one) if you place a picture of you wearing those 3D glasses in it. ;)

 

Seriously though, thanks David for giving an honest review and saving me $10.50 at the local cineplex.

[Ben Syverson]

Seriously though, thanks David for giving an honest review and saving me $10.50 at the local cineplex.

$10.50? You're lucky! It's going to cost me $17 at the IMAX or $15.50 at the normal theater.

[K Borowski]

David, you realize that XD is just the same old 2K projector on a bigger screen, right? You're paying $4.50 or whatever for a sh** image blown up even bigger so you can see the ugly JPEG jaggies and all the other awful obvious flaws. Same thing with Digital IMAX. LieMAX might be a ridiculous name for it, but it really is a lie calling it that.

 

 

If you saw your movie at a Cinemark,, please take your business elsewhere in the future! They are/were worse than WalMart in their employment practices.

 

 

 

I can understand wanting to see 2K projection, but all this premium stuff you are paying off their digital projectors and getting very little out of it. All 2K systems, (even the 4K Sony) halve the spatial reolution to give you 3D. IDK how you can even SEE differing grain patterns at what 1.4K per eye? That is barely HD resolution at that point.

 

 

I'll go to see it in 70mm 15-perf. IMAX, thank you very much.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry I see you didn't go to Cinemark. When I saw XD, I thought you meant their proprietary version, not a generic term for it. All of the other systems are the same: None are 4K.

 

 

I know that, in Cleveland, the only true 4K systems (besides film ;-) ) are the two AMCs, and they sent their 2D lenses, the only ones that could PLAY 4K back :slaps hand against forehead: They have an "IMAX" facility out on the Eastside now too, how does taking an 2K file,putting it through a pair of 2K projectors raise the resolution again? B)

Edited July 2, 2011 by K Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

No, the Rave Cinema IMAX in Howard Hughes Parkway is a traditional 15-perf 65mm IMAX theater. In fact, when I complained on CML about the projection problems I saw, Dave Keighley, who's company does the IMAX DMR conversions, sent someone over there to check it out, said that the problem had been fixed.

 

I'm glad because it's nice living so close to a real IMAX theater.

[K Borowski]

Good man David!

 

I wonder if all the 35mm content was 4K for this film, coupled with 6.4 or 8K for the IMAX neg.? I need to subscribe to ASC magazine, I'm sure all the info is in there. . .

 

 

Unfortunately for me, I have to drive to either Cranberry hills (a Cinemark, not sure I want to patronize them ever again unless I can get a free pass) or the Henry Ford IMAX to see it, a drive of at least a couple hours.

 

Am I going to let that stop me from going? Hell no! :-D

 

 

 

No spoilers please everyone, might take me a while to make it out there.

 

Looking over your post again, you say the man who does DMR fixed the problem, so does that mean it was a bad print? If so, ouch, that's another what $20K lab bill?

Edited July 2, 2011 by K Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

No the prints are fine, it's just that I suppose the IMAX people have a vested interest in making sure the presentations are done correctly -- I think the problem was the one of the two projectors had the polarizor filter swung away, probably because it was used for the 2D trailers and they forgot to put it back in for the 3D presentation, so basically the viewer's left eye was seeing the left image but the right eye was seeing both the left & right image, or vice-versa.

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering that most of the true 3D material shot for the movie used HD cameras like the F23, I doubt the movie was finished at 4K, so the IMAX DMR blow-up would have been working from 2K files for each eye. Most IMAX DMR conversions have been from 2K D.I.'s other than Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.

 

I don't know of any 3D movie that has been completed at 4K for each eye other than perhaps the IMAX 3D movie about the elephants.

[Shawn Martin]

I saw it on Wednesday, in regular 35mm, luckily in a really big theater. A lot of theaters around here seem to have installed the digital projectors in all their biggest houses and leave the 35mm in the smallest ones, which sucks.

 

Anyway, what an ugly, stupid, anticlimactic POS this is. It's just as bad as the second one. So many awkward and nauseating scenes that stop the movie cold, like that thing in the bathroom or the Russian bar standoff. The cutting from HD to anamorphic and back again was very glaring too.

 

The gliding parts were very well done, though. What I liked most about them were the shots right behind the guys as they fell straight down; that's what really sold it.

 

Some of that car chase is OK too, where the cars getting knocked around got some serious airtime. I noticed that a few shots were actually taken from Bay's movie The Island.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Shawn Martin

[K Borowski]

Why hans't someone pulled out some of the 3D cameras from the '80s, the film kind and dusted them off? Same stock costs as shooting scope, 2-perf. per eye, though you still obviously will have anamorphic versus flat bokeh characteristics.

 

I think the difference would be less glaring. Surprised that Bay would opt for digital. SOmeone at the rental house I bet told him it was the only way. They use every chance they can get to try to cram the big rough-edged digital pill down our throats!

 

 

I'll take 35mm film please, preferably 2,000 feet at a time :-D

[Chris Millar]

No spoilers please everyone, might take me a while to make it out there.

 

Save yourself the ticket and paracetamol price and just watch the trailer - you get the shot of the guys jumping out of the plane for free minus the migraine - from that shot either way the film spoils itself.

 

Hmmm, I sometimes wonder why people go online and trash such and such film/product/whatever to such a degree that I seem compelled to here, I think in this case its just that so much money was spent on it, take a look at the wider world around you and wonder how this came to be - not pleasant thoughts... and I was a part of the world that allowed this to happen.

 

Midlife crisis

 

 

 

 

 

[Antti Näyhä]

All 2K systems, (even the 4K Sony) halve the spatial reolution to give you 3D.

I thought that all Series 2 projectors already handle triple-flash 3D with full 2K resolution, even if they're only equipped with a 2K chip.

 

I wonder if all the 35mm content was 4K for this film, coupled with 6.4 or 8K for the IMAX neg.?

If you're talking about Transformers 3, they didn't shoot anything on IMAX this time. Mostly 2k digital (true 3D) with some 35mm anamorphic thrown in (post-converted to 3D).

 

As a side note: in Transformers 2, they only did a 4K DI for the IMAX bits, and that was clearly not good enough for a 15/70mm presentation.

[K Borowski]

I thought that all Series 2 projectors already handle triple-flash 3D with full 2K resolution, even if they're only equipped with a 2K chip.

 

 

Mostly 2k digital (true 3D)

 

Don't know about series II. Most projectors in my local market are 1.4K, and they look it. They should pay US extra to sit through the mushy crap.

 

 

Sounds like with your digital remark you're trying to start a war. Normally I'm down to play, but we Americans have more important wars to celebrate this weekend. Would love a chance to come back to the show and play again for prizes though!

[Antti Näyhä]

Don't know about series II. Most projectors in my local market are 1.4K, and they look it.

OK. I guess that’s what you get for being early adopters. Anyway, full-res 2K 3D has already been here for a while (even before Series 2).

 

Sounds like with your digital remark you're trying to start a war. Normally I'm down to play

So I’ve noticed. ;) However, I’m a pacifist, and I was only pointing out that the digital-originated bits of TF3 are ”true 3D” in the sense that they actually used stereo cameras – as opposed to the 35mm bits, which they post-converted.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Antti Näyhä

[Anthony Schilling]

My wife and I saw the trailer for this and got really excited for a potentially awsome movie about the first moon landing. And then we were so dissappointed when they revealed it to be another god damn Tranformers installment. I thought what a waste of a such great historical cinematic portrayal, on a bunch of big budget CGI bunk.

 

 

[Gregory Middleton]

I just came back from seeing this at the Rave Cinema at the Howard Hughes Parkway.

 

I tried to see it in IMAX 3D but as soon as the movie started after the 2D trailers, something seemed wrong -- there was hardly a 3D effect but there was a double-image blurring a lot of the frame. I played around with my 3D glasses (which I have to wear over my regular glasses), the problem didn't go away, so I went into the lobby and got a new pair of 3D glasses, but the problem was the same.

 

By the time I returned to the lobby a second time, there were a dozen people all crowding around the attendant complaining that the 3D projection was messed up. One of the geekier guys claimed that the light from one of the two projected "eyes" wasn't being polarized. The attendant called the projection booth but the projectionist kept saying that there was nothing wrong with the projection.

 

I spent about ten minutes with the gathering crowd of confused moviegoers who felt something looked screwed up, then gave up. I went to the box office and got a refund -- they also gave me a free ticket to the Real-D screening that was to begin in fifteen minutes, so I saw that. I hope they eventually fixed the IMAX screening - I hate to imagine people watching a 2.5-hour movie with screwed-up projection like that, and paying extra for the pleasure. I suspect many aren't going to want to pay extra in the future for that sort of experience.

 

The movie was OK, had some good action moments... the 3D felt pretty mild at times, which was OK. In fact, the only thing that annoyed me technically was the inconsistency from intercutting HD spherical and 35mm anamorphic.

 

I preferred the intercutting of brief IMAX elements into 35mm anamorphic in the second installment to this one -- the look of the 3rd movie was a bit all over the map, grain, no grain, grain again, sharp, soft, sharpened, plasticy, clippy, anamorphic bokeh, spherical bokeh, etc.

 

Not much different than the other movies, with only a passing interest in shooting for 3D I thought. By the end I'm not sure anyone noticed it was still in 3D as our eyes and brains adjust.

One thing I did notice was lots of retinal rivalry in the highlights and reflections. I was surprised, but I think using a 1/4 wave retarder was still too new an idea when they were shooting. I just shot my first 3D film (Cobu 3D) and the results with that filter were a huge improvement. I'm also very used to looking at 3D after weeks wearing glasses on set.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I preferred the intercutting of brief IMAX elements into 35mm anamorphic in the second installment to this one -- the look of the 3rd movie was a bit all over the map, grain, no grain, grain again, sharp, soft, sharpened, plasticy, clippy, anamorphic bokeh, spherical bokeh, etc.

 

I have seen this film digitally projected at 2K and I was surprised by this technical approach. Amir Mokri's lighting is on par with the previous films of this franchise, but it seems that they have mixed formats not only for different scenes, but also to cover different angles during the same scene. The changes of the grain structure are quite noticiable.

[Brian Hulnick]

I also felt that the Imax and Non Imax scenes in ROTF worked together much better. This movie felt very "Choppy" quite nauseating at time to be honest. The battle scenes were phenomenal but the first hour after the initial credits was an utter mess TBH. That Chinese guy was so annoying, and Malkovich was under utilized.

[John Reeve]

The base jumpers were real. Bay has no regard for people. He involved an extra, Gabriella Cedillo, in a stunt, which resulted in her skull being split open by a cable and leaving her permanently paralyzed. Of course the production company was completely blameless and the girl should have known what the risks were when she signed here life away for $65/8hrs.

 

http://www.namelist.co/2010/10/gabriella-cedillo-paralysed-after.html

[Markshaw]

I've heard a great many stories about Bay's total disregard for life (his crew, his stunt people and even his stars) I remember watching a program how Shia actually said that Bay was more concerned about damaging one of his precious cameras than he was about one of his crew or stars getting injured.

[Brian Hulnick]

By all accounts Michael Bay is a rather nasty individual who could not care less about his crew/ talent as long as he gets the shot made. Still Hollywood loves him for some reason.

[Patrick Cooper]

By all accounts Michael Bay is a rather nasty individual who could not care less about his crew/ talent as long as he gets the shot made.

 

Hmmm...I wonder if this lends any truth to what Megan Fox has been saying about Bay. Not just the Hitler comment but all of her harsh remarks about him since the first Transformers movie.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Patrick Cooper