X-Men: Apocalypse 3D Blu-ray (2016) [Region Locked / Free]

[Biss Skyler Bluray]

Originally Posted by EVERRET

Cinematography by

Newton Thomas Sigel

Visual Effects by

Matt Akey ... executive producer: legend 3d
Elizer Cabais ... stereo artist: Legend 3D
Francesco Capone ... stereographer
Tim Chou ... stereo supervisor
Benjamin Conner ... lead stereo compositor
Noelle Cyr ... Stereo Coordinator: Stereo D
Fred Duarte ... stereo coordinator
Juan Carlos Ferrá ... stereo compositor
Matthew E. Gill ... Roto Dept Manager: Stereo D
David Lieberman ... stereographer
Felicia Mah ... stereo compositor: Legend 3D
Carson Majors ... stereoscopic qc artist
Lewis Menga ... senior stereoscopic editor: Prime Focus
Avadhut Nerurkar ... render wrangler/render support: 3D Stereoscopic Conversion
Aaron Parry ... stereo executive producer: Stereo D
Jason Ramsey ... stereoscopic production supervisor
Ryan Ramsey ... lead stereoscopic compositor: Legend 3D
Tyler Rice ... stereoscopic compositer
Sudhirvarma ... stereo digital compositor
Chris Treichel ... stereo line producer: north america - stereo d

Direct Dimensions (DDI) (3D scanning)

Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Red Epic Dragon
Laboratory Company 3 (digital intermediate)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (6K) (dual-strip 3-D) (source format)
Printed Film Format D-Cinema (also 3-D version)

combination of both native 3d and converted 3d footage, i'm guessing.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by EVERRET

I like what i'm hearing so far about the 3D in this film.....

Bryan Singer interview: X-Men: Apocalypse, Quicksilver



Read more: http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/b...#ixzz48tLbFCfY

I bet the 3D is just as mild as DOFP was. These directors talk the talk but are generally clueless when it comes to delivering a knockout 3D experience.

The only Singer movie I really like is Jack the Giant Slayer but he should have pushed the 3D more in that.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by levcore

I bet the 3D is just as mild as DOFP was. These directors talk the talk but are generally clueless when it comes to delivering a knockout 3D experience.

The only Singer movie I really like is Jack the Giant Slayer but he should have pushed the 3D more in that.

Yeah, clueless is the right word, he literally doesn't have a clue how to use 3D.

Bryan Singer's approach to 3D was ultraconservative in his last two films, so I can't imagine this one will be any different.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Yeah, clueless is the right word, he literally doesn't have a clue how to use 3D.

Bryan Singer's approach to 3D was ultraconservative in his last two films, so I can't imagine this one will be any different.

Exactly, I hope he proves me wrong but I doubt it. I'm fed up with film makers talking up how great their 3D movie will be only to see it and find that the 3D is fine but far from great.

[BleedOrange11]

I like Singers native 3D better than the 90% of conversions saturating the market but agree that it could and should have larger interaxials for a better visual experience. DOFP maintained great roundness in faces, which is frequently a problem in modern native features, but was shot with mostly 2D cinematography except for some VFX sequences. Jack's roundness was not quite as good but the cinematography incorporated the z-axis better. Singer has said multiple times that he doesn't really like 3D but thinks it's important for X-Men to be available in 3D and to shoot it native. He's sort of a confusing opinion. I don't think we should ever expect "Avatar"-like 3D from him but I'm glad he's still supporting native 3D.

Wim Wenders is another that talks even more on his 3D. Pina looked good, but the depth in Every Thing Will Be Fine is stretched very thin, straddling the line between barely satisfying and offensively flat. Gaspar Noe's Love looks the same, likely because both were shot by Benoit Debie.

[Zivouhr]

Thanks for that info BleedOrange. Filmed 3D is awesome in the right hands.

Originally Posted by levcore

Exactly, I hope he proves me wrong but I doubt it. I'm fed up with film makers talking up how great their 3D movie will be only to see it and find that the 3D is fine but far from great.

When some of the reviews for Jungle Book 3D raved about the 3D being the best since Avatar (don't quote me on that) I was wondering if I missed something in the 3D trailer I saw a few times of it, which had a range of mild to medium 3D but not much more. The 3D for that movie had to sell me to buy a ticket, but it was under utilized so I passed. X-Men is more of a movie I'd normally go to see in theaters, so the 3D is a bonus. But yes, I wish Singer, Ridley Scott and Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil, all filmmakers who prefer filmed 3D, cranked things up to strong 3D in practically every shot if they could. But for whatever reason, they feel consistently strong 3D isn't important as it was back in the days of the classic 3D films highlighted by 3-D Film Archives for example.

[MercurySeven]

Apart from a tremendous title sequence (zipping through some kind of CG time tunnel), the 3D in X-Men Apocalypse is just as conservative as Singer's previous efforts. Actually, there are a couple more fast-moving CG tracking shots through narrow spaces that really stand out, but they only serve to remind how lacklustre the rest of the 3D is here. It isn't terrible, but it isn't exactly impressive either. A slight step back from Days of Future Past, I'd say (that one ultimately looked rather good on 3D BD), it's the kind of 3D experience that will wow no-one. Which is the format's biggest problem right now.

As a film, it's so-so. The big bad is just big and bad, with no personality or character whatsoever. Embarrassing. Magneto, Jean Grey, Wolverine, Professor X, Nightcrawler, Beast, Mystique are given nothing new to do that we haven't already seen before, but I like all the actors playing them, so whatever. Quicksilver brings all the fun, like last time. Olivia Munn as Psylocke is distractingly hot (and kinda badass). Didn't like the new Storm or the new Cyclops, but then again I didn't like the previous incarnations either.

Solid action scenes, an interesting first hour, way too many characters shoehorned into the doom-laden story (Stryker, Moira, Wolverine, etc), and a large-scale finale that frankly just gets silly: it's all very uneven, and sub-Marvel Cinematic Universe. They need to dial back the scale next time or risk turning this franchise into another Transformers.

For the record, my fave X-Men films are First Class, Last Stand, and Days of Future Past. I'd rate this one on a par with X-Men 1, which was just okay in my book.

[BleedOrange11]

Singer on 3D for X-Men: Days of Future Past:

So how much do you think the percentage of you shooting 3D is in the film?

SINGER: Of genuine stereo?

Yeah.

SINGER: Most of it, the only stuff we don’t shoot in native stereo is complex action stuff. Complex stuff where we’re just trying to keep the camera more agile and we’ll post dimensionalize that, but anything dramatic or characters. Today is a very rare day where I’m shooting 2D because you can’t get the cameras, lenses, and rigs in the jet, but normally, we did an intimate scene in that jet that follows this scene where I actually forced the 3D cameras into the space. So this is rare, normally we’d be shooting native stereo.

Talk a little bit about coverage if you don’t mind, when you’re shooting, you were talking earlier, that when you’re shooting in 3D the rigs are so huge you only have one rig, are you ever doing any second camera for extra coverage just in case?

SINGER: Oh yeah, yeah I do some. It depends on how much space I have. I mean the rig is this big, so as long as I’ve got some room here I can put another one, but in a jet I don’t want to try and put three cameras in at one time there’s just no way. So I figured I’d just use these, plus I’m using some wider lenses which we don’t have with 3D.

...

Can you talk a little more about the process of shooting Quicksilver using the high speed camera?

SINGER: Yeah, with the Phantom I can shoot over 3000 frames a second or something to that effect. So I’m doing like a variety of different things, high speed photography, slow speed photography, just a bunch of different technologies, motion controlled cameras. So sometimes we’ll be at our own speed, sometimes we’ll be at his. So we’re using that technology and it’s all 3D technology so we can shoot all of that native stereo, even at that speed.

Lauren suggested that that is fairly eye popping in 3D.

SINGER: Yeah it’s fun. He’s not in the movie a lot, he’s just sort of in one section of it but there’s a fun sequence which will be fun to watch in 3D. Lots of stuff.

...

You’re friendly with Mr. Peter Jackson. He’s obviously using high frame rate, is that something you’re interested in or is 3D something you’re more interested in?

SINGER: I don’t even think I’m that interested in 3D frankly, it’s necessary now, so if I want to have good quality 3D it’s good to be able to shoot in native stereo. Maybe down the line the technology for conversion will be so polished and so great that I won’t have any desire to shoot with 3D cameras. I don’t particularly like to go see 3D movies, but when I’m doing it I kind of do enjoy it. I enjoy seeing the image in 3D, there’s a childhood fun about being able to see those dimensions. With high frame rate it’s the same thing, when it enhances the image quality it’s exciting, when it makes it too clear or too vivid where it starts to look exposed, then I’m not as much of a fan of it. There’s some parts of The Hobbit where it enhanced the experience enormously, I mean I saw it at the premiere with 12 foot lamberts so it was bright as anything. But you know it’s interesting, if it pushes the image forward and makes the experience more exciting it’s a good thing, I just don’t seek to go see 3D movies.

Do you find yourself composing the frame differently for 3D?

SINGER: Yeah, definitely, yeah you do. Jack I directed with the 3D monitors and the glasses and I did it there but I think what I did was I limited myself because I became so captivated and caught up with the framing for the 3D that I didn’t shoot as aggressively as I had in my previous action/adventure films. I wasn’t giving my editor the volume of material, he complained tremendously about it that I wasn’t giving him the coverage. He’s like “You’re better than this, you’ve delivered wicked shots and things that you’re just not giving me on this,” and I was like ‘Well Jack is a more traditional movie and stylistically it wasn’t supposed to be all whatever” but I also blame the fact that I was a bit distracted by the monitor size and by the 3D itself, so I made a commitment on this film to not direct in 3D but knowing that I have the knowledge of shots that work in 3D and shots that don’t. Like my DP pitched a shot where they have all these great murals in the Pentagon and we have a character walking through the Pentagon at night and they’re really cool murals and he’s like ‘Hey lets get a shot where we follow him like this,’ and I’m like ‘No, it’ll be him walking past blurs and strobes’ those shots just don’t work in 3D. If you want them to you’ve got to have everything moving towards you or backwards.

http://collider.com/bryan-singer-x-m...ast-interview/


Singer on 3D for Jack the Giant Slayer:

How does all this work together for the 3D? When you’re doing previz and all the preparation what kind of things were you keeping in mind at that point?

SINGER: Size, perspective- large objects, when you make them too 3D, you dimensionalize them too much, they appear tiny, so you have to be careful about things like that. We actually render a lot of our previz in 3D so that was a nice luxury we had. Third Floor is, again, a really good company.

This is your first 3D adventure.

SINGER: First 3D, first fairy tale, first movie with fully rendered CG characters, creature characters, first movie that takes place in a time before there was electricity, first movie with horses, third movie with cats. They’re very difficult to direct, they look everywhere but where you want them to look.

Out of all those elements was there anything in particular you had to really adjust to, that threw you off?

SINGER: The 3D, yeah, it changes the way you shoot in a way, especially when you’re shooting live action 3D elements. I mean for Jim Cameron he’s in the virtual world with a movie like Avatar, so you can adjust those things, ultimately you’re post dimentionalizing. But when you’re dealing with shooting a lot of live action in 3D, you’re committed to how much 3D you’re giving the audience. Also, if the camera’s moving around too much it strobes. If you put people too much into the side of the frame here, they look like a blob that’s sort of there and it’s kind of aggravating. So it’s compositional, I can’t just pop two cameras in, have a close camera, and just grab things. I have to be more committed to the shots.

I’ve spoken to some filmmakers that say you pick your moments for 3D, and that when there’s a lot of action and you want to do quick chasing, you just dial down the 3D, is that what you’re doing?

SINGER: Our action’s not that frenetic. There’s other movies I’ve made where the action’s more frenetic, like you’d have in Transformers or something like that. Ours is just different it’s more…I don’t know, there wasn’t a lot of dialing down. I was just very clear, I’m making a 3D movie, I want it to be a great 3D experience, I want to be very conscious with every shot. But if there’s some that are using long lenses for instance, you just pull back on it, but we’re pretty consistent. There won’t be times when you want to take your glasses off and be like, “It doesn’t matter.”

http://collider.com/bryan-singer-jac...yer-interview/

[Creed]

I caught a 3D showing. Go to the X-Men Apocalypse thread for review. I liked it. Here's the 3D review.

It's pretty good. Medium to high medium for a few shots. Only popouts are

[Show spoiler]the opening X-Men title where some objects fly through the screen quickly

and Archangel's metallic wings.

[Zivouhr]

Mercuryseven, thanks for the detailed review.

Originally Posted by creed123

I caught a 3D showing. Go to the X-Men Apocalypse thread for review. I liked it. Here's the 3D review.

It's pretty good. Medium to high medium for a few shots. Only popouts are

[Show spoiler]the opening X-Men title where some objects fly through the screen quickly

and Archangel's metallic wings.

The 2nd trailer's 3D looked very good during the action scenes. Would you say some of those go into the strong 3D range?

[Creed]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Mercuryseven, thanks for the detailed review.



The 2nd trailer's 3D looked very good during the action scenes. Would you say some of those go into the strong 3D range?

Some went a bit strong, and some aren't action.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by creed123

Some went a bit strong, and some aren't action.

I just caught a 6:00 showing and I really liked it. It wasn't perfect, but the movie was entertaining throughout.

Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner and Kodi-Smith Mcphee's performances. I love Sheridan's performance in Mud and Kodi was excellent in Slow West. The chemistry between Tye and Sophie was well handled while Kodi and the duo worked perfectly.

Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy. Nuff said. He was flawless.

Evan Peters. I loved his scene in Days Of Future Past, so for him to have a bigger role and another scene for him was fortunate. He's funny, too.

The action sequences and visual effects. Really stunning and well choreographed.

3D. Go to the 3D thread for 3D review.

Oscar Issac. Friggin love this guy. He was solid as the titular villain, although he was a bit generic.

80's references: Return Of The Jedi, Knight Rider , Ms. Pacman etc.


It's worth the admission.

Thanks.
Just read your other thread review. I didn't realize Oscar Isaac was in this too. He's starting to appear a lot more often lately. Ex Machina, Star Wars VII, this, etc.

[FatalSpiderbite]

Is this not showing in IMAX 2D or 3D? I just checked the local show times for tomorrow thru next week and my local Liemax doesn't appear to be showing it which I found strange.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by FatalSpiderbite

Is this not showing in IMAX 2D or 3D? I just checked the local show times for tomorrow thru next week and my local Liemax doesn't appear to be showing it which I found strange.

The IMAX release is only for overseas territories. Alice Through the Looking Glass will be playing in most U.S. IMAX locations this weekend (of the 4 IMAX locations near me, 3 were playing Civil War and one was playing Jungle Book, and all are switching to Alice)

[FatalSpiderbite]

Well that sucks. Even if it is a Liemax, I prefer the larger screen, brighter 3D and better sound. I have no interest in Alice whatsoever.

I may just stay away from the 3D showing altogether now as every non-IMAX 3D movie I have gone to (Real 3D) is just always too dark in the theater to enjoy it.

Thanks for the answer xbs2034!

[revgen]

^The only non-Imax theater I go to for 3-D is Cinemark. For whatever reason, their 3-D screens are brighter, at least in my area anyway.

[mseeley]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I just re-watched Days of Future Past in 3D and it's a marvelous 3d movie. Almost every single shot is either high medium or strong 3d and Singer definitely knows how to use the format (Even if he isn't interested in 3D, he still cares enough to use native cameras to provide the best experience and it really shows in so many ways) and I have complete and utter faith he'll wow me again with Apocalypse and I have absolutely no doubts that he knows what he's doing with 3d

And no offense to anyone, but lumping Paul W.S. Anderson, Bryan Singer, and Ridley Scott's 3D films into "mild 3D" categories is simply ludicrous to me when all 3 directors have given us some of the best native 3d shot movies with just about every 3d film of theirs in this era of the format outside of James Cameron's Avatar

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by mseeley

And no offense to anyone, but lumping Paul W.S. Anderson, Bryan Singer, and Ridley Scott's 3D films into "mild 3D" categories is simply ludicrous to me when all 3 directors have given us some of the best native 3d shot movies with just about every 3d film of theirs in this era of the format outside of James Cameron's Avatar

I think their 3D films look good, and own them all, but they certainly aren't what I'd call "strong 3D".

If people want to lump them together as "mild 3D" I can see why they would do that..

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

Maybe I'm crazy, but I just re-watched Days of Future Past in 3D and it's a marvelous 3d movie. Almost every single shot is either high medium or strong 3d and Singer definitely knows how to use the format (Even if he isn't interested in 3D, he still cares enough to use native cameras to provide the best experience and it really shows in so many ways) and I have complete and utter faith he'll wow me again with Apocalypse and I have absolutely no doubts that he knows what he's doing with 3d

And no offense to anyone, but lumping Paul W.S. Anderson, Bryan Singer, and Ridley Scott's 3D films into "mild 3D" categories is simply ludicrous to me when all 3 directors have given us some of the best native 3d shot movies with just about every 3d film of theirs in this era of the format outside of James Cameron's Avatar

The 3D of the trailer looks promising for Apocalypse with medium to strong 3D layers, so I'm hopeful it matches the trailer though early reports suggest the 3D isn't as strong. I'll keep an open mind.

I agree, the 3D in Days of Future Past is nicely done, with mostly medium 3D layers and some strong 3D during some action shots.

As far as Paul W.S. Anderson, Bryan Singer, and Ridley Scott's 3D in their films (which I didn't lump them all into only "mild 3D")

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

When some of the reviews for Jungle Book 3D raved about the 3D being the best since Avatar (don't quote me on that) I was wondering if I missed something in the 3D trailer I saw a few times of it, which had a range of mild to medium 3D but not much more. The 3D for that movie had to sell me to buy a ticket, but it was under utilized so I passed. X-Men is more of a movie I'd normally go to see in theaters, so the 3D is a bonus. But yes, I wish Singer, Ridley Scott and Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil, all filmmakers who prefer filmed 3D, cranked things up to strong 3D in practically every shot if they could. But for whatever reason, they feel consistently strong 3D isn't important as it was back in the days of the classic 3D films highlighted by 3-D Film Archives for example.

, they push the 3D more during the action scenes, but tend to reduce the 3D effect during many of the dialog scenes to be more specific, which back in the earlier days of 3D, most of the film has consistently strong 3D instead of just saving it for the action parts. On that topic:

Mseeley, I know you tend to see the positive in most 3D that you see, but would you agree on the following?
This difference between 3D layers: || (mild 3D layering)
Can't compare to this difference: |_____| (strong 3D layering)
Agree, disagree? I'll give specific 3D shots in the films if you want.
Have you seen the strong filmed 3D of Creature from the Black Lagoon?

[Show spoiler]
No big deal, but to keep things in perspective about what mild vs strong 3D looks like, compare Hugo's filmed 3D from Scorsese or Flying Swords of Dragon Gate's filmed 3D and then watch Pompeii's filmed 3D or X-Men Days of Future Past' filmed 3D. There is room for improvement in many 3D shots of the latter two and the 3D could be much more exciting if the stereographer was more daring with the 3D as they were during the action scenes. The Bubble has consistently strong filmed 3D and is a vintage 3D film for example. Watch that one, then watch Pompeii's 3D. Most of Pompeii's 3D up until the grand finale' is mild in comparison to the stronger 3D of The Bubble. If not, then we're not watching the same movies.

Mild 3D is preventing new 3D fans from getting excited about 3D in general. The more stronger 3D films we push for and demand, the better the reception to 3D can be. That's why those comparisons are important.

Strong 3D Layering: (quick examples)
Turtle's Tale 2/Thunder and the House of Magic: Strong 3D
Pacific Rim: Strong 3D
Legend of Hercules: Mostly strong 3D
Jurassic Park 3D: Mostly strong 3D till the final act, then medium.
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate: Mostly strong 3D.
Hugo: Mostly strong 3D.
Kung Fu Panda 3: Mostly strong 3D with some medium 3D layers.
Creature from the Black Lagoon: Strong 3D.
The Bubble: Strong 3D.
3-D Rarities: Mostly strong 3D, some medium 3D.
Gog 3D: Mostly strong 3D
House of Wax: Mostly strong 3D, some medium 3D layering.
Madagascar 3 3D: Mostly strong 3D.
Journey to the Center of the Earth: Mostly strong 3D layering. Some med.
Open Season: Strong 3D
Avatar: Mostly strong 3D but a lot of medium and some mild 3D to be fair.
Drive Angry: Strong 3D.

vs

Mild 3D Layering:
Amazing Spider-Man 3D (mostly mild 3D and action had stronger 3D)
Pompeii 3D (mostly mild, then medium and some stronger 3D by the end)
Ratchet & Clank: Mostly mild 3D with some low medium 3D.
Tron Legacy: Mild 3D
Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows 2: Mild 3D
Green Lantern: Mild 3D
Underworld Awakening: Mild 3D mostly.
Clash of the Titans 3D: Mild 3D and poor conversion.
Predator 3D: Mild 3D.
Hotel Transylvania: Mild 3D.
Monster House 3D: Mostly mild, but some medium 3D.

Mostly mild 3D movies have their moments, but can't compare to the more consistently strong 3D of Pacific Rim or Turtle's Tale 2 for example. Comparing them to other current 3D movies is where you'll see the differences when being realistic about strong, medium and mild 3D ranges.

[Paul H]

Went to a early bird 10:15 AM showing this morning. IMO, X-Men: Apocalypse is one of the better 3D conversions. Stereo D, Prime Focus, and Legend 3D are listed in the end credits.

You have to stay through the end-credits to see the brief continuation teaser that is in 3D.