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

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I never meant to lump you personally into the camp of people that complain about mild 3d, and If I came across as harsh or insulting it was not my intent and I apologize.


I agree that mild 3d can't compare to strong 3d and that strong 3d for all movies should be the end goal of the industry. However, isn't it disingenuous to to say that medium range 3d movies appear as mild 3d in comparison to vintage 3d movies? Vintage 3d movies after all were made with a go for broke mentality in regards to interaxials and parallax due to less control from film based 3d cameras that had a strong chance of not working properly. So in that sense, directors didn't truly have full control over how they wanted their films to look in 3d, so the format was never fully allowed to mature as an artistic tool like we have today.

[Show spoiler]
And granted I haven't seen the Bubble or much vintage 3d, but obviously Pompeii is going to look like mild 3d in comparison compared to the vintage 3d image. I just don't think it's accurate or fair saying a medium range 3d film has mild looking 3d when compared to vintage 3d movie. I definitely would notice the depth difference if I was going to compare both vintage and medium 3d, but I would never say the medium range 3d movie looks mild in comparison.

And people get their torches and pitchforks ready when they hear the words "artistic 3d" or "I dialed down the 3d for audience comfort" and I have to say both are completely valid ways to create and present a film in 3d. I love strong 3d like everyone else and believe it should be the end goal in the creation process, but the truth of the matter is not everyone can handle strong 3d and we need these other expressions of 3d in order to provide presentational variety along with a chance for audiences not accustomed to watching alot of 3d films to get acclimated to the format. I've always loved 3d, but even I had to acclimate myself to the format by watching more and more 3d movies in succession in order to train my eyes. By doing that, I did start to pay more attention to depth levels and how the 3d was being used both artistically and also in terms of the effectiveness of its presentation. I also was able to eliminate mild eye strain for the most part by training my eyes in this way. Now to be fair I've never gotten sick from 3d, but I'm sensitive about audience comfort because my wife can't always enjoy strong 3d movies like I can without it straining her eyes for a bit. She's getting more used to 3d and we're starting to be able to communicate more about how we see 3d and what is or isn't effective, but my overall point is I had to get her used to it with time and we need different 3d depth levels in movies in order to get everybody on the bandwagon with stronger level 3d movies. And I also believe the industry is listening to the demand for more and more high quality 3d experiences as the 3d post conversions of late have become truly exceptional quickly over the course of 6 years, which is an amazing pace considering how badly Prime Focus got screwed over with having to rush Clash of the Titans.

And I do agree with most of your strong 3d ratings for movies you've listed and I've seen a pretty large amount of them. I disagree with the mild ratings for Underworld and Pompeii. Last time I watched Underworld I remember it had very pleasant and pleasing 3d that had a good range of medium to strong shots from what I remember with my own eyes (The fight with the Super-Lycant in the vampire stronghold had great high medium to strong 3d in my opinion). Pompeii was mostly medium all the way through for me and the 3d did get stronger for the finale and looked amazing.


Tron: Legacy I'm not even gonna try and argue about anymore since my opinion on the 3d in that movie is already known and is a viewpoint that doesn't have much traction here anyway.

So yeah, I do see 3d differently, but I don't blindly dismiss mild 3d either when it does occur. Case in point, I watched Man of Steel in 3d in prep for Batman v. Superman and the 3d in that movie didn't look as good as I remember it when I saw it in Imax 3d on opening weekend and I will readily admit that Batman v. Superman is a very noticeable and eye-popping improvement. MoS's 3d depth tended to be more mild but it wasn't completely paper flat which is what I would qualify as mild 3d in my book. I hope what I'm saying makes sense and isn't coming across as rude.

In terms of the thread topic, I did get around to seeing X-Men: Apocalypse and the 3d looked wonderful. Definitely high-medium to strong throughout and the movie was absolutely worth watching in the format. The movie itself, I felt mixed, underwhelmed, and disappointed at the same time. I honestly feel like I missed something, so I believe I need a do-over.

[Show spoiler]Plus it still annoys me that Wolverine just pops up at Alkali Lake already having undergone the Weapon X procedure, which creates a giant plot hole that doesn't connect to the ending of Days of Future Past at all. Now I get that the time travel theory of Days of Future Past was that time is like a river and that ripples can be made but course-correct themselves over time, which would partially explain Wolvie's predicament in Apocalyspe. I still don't get why they just glossed over the ending of DoFP and didn't provide an explanation for it unless you read interviews or listen to director's commentary (my friend let me know that basically Mystique rescued Wolverine instead of enacting the Weapon X procedure as explained by Bryan Singer in one of the commentary tracks

The Wolverine scene was welcome since it was one of the rare action scenes, though I see what you're saying about how it connected to the story. The movie wasn't too exciting IMO, but I still liked it in general and was entertained. That's actually how I felt about Batman vs Superman.

3D:
Mseeley, no need to apologize as you have the right to your view. I don't get offended easily so it's cool. I actually enjoy a good debate as I tend to learn more.

As far as comparing any movie to strong 3D, whether made yesterday or 100 years ago, it's all comparable, since 3D can only get so strong before it enters the realm of extreme 3D. I see what you mean by a range to account for those new to 3D, though the eyes are faster to adapt if sitting farther back to reduce the degree to converge the two images into one.

The fact we've gotten a good number of strong modern 3D films proves today's 3D can be just as strong as vintage 3D, regardless of the 3D equipment and skill.

Mild 3D, like the lines on a measuring stick, is a measurement of 3D, though measuring it without accurate tools or options is where the opinions arise. What is it being compared to and how is it gauged in the theater?

Here is a 3D examples I put together to explain the ranges of mild, medium, strong and the rare extreme 3D.

3DrangetestanaglyphB2.jpg
Anaglyph 3D:
If you have red/cyan glasses, you can see the Flat 2D, mild 3D, medium 3D, strong 3D and extreme 3D. Extreme 3D is pushing 3D too far for most eyes.
These are just the main ranges, not counting very mild, mild, low medium, medium, high medium, strong, very strong 3D.
Here's a link to a lot more examples:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=278703

Should every 3D movie aim for strong 3D? Medium 3D is good, but imagine if every new movie ever made from this point forward had mild, barely there 3D? People would stop seeing 3D movies altogether if the effect was barely there.

On topic, again, I was pleased with the 3D in X-Men Apocalypse. Medium and some strong 3D. Hardly any mild 3D noticed. Medium and strong 3D are good things, and mild is fine during rare, distance scenery shots.
Mild 3D in much of Man of Steel on the other hand, or Tron Legacy, not the kind 3D I want to see too often.

[Show spoiler]
Tron Legacy may have nice depth going into the screen (easily achieved by converging/cropping any two flat duplicate film clips in a 3D editor), but the 3D layers are mostly mild for much of the film, with barely any separation compared to the strong 3D forest of Avatar for example.

Just imagine if they pushed the 3D to the 3D strength of the shot where the Tron Game Keeper walks up to each program and says "Games, games" before that guy jumps off into the pit in retaliation, as Sam learns his fate in the games. That was strong 3D in that shot, probably because the 3D camera was set at a mild 3D default (set it and forget it) and it was a close up shot, so the mild setting for most shots ended up looking stronger since the objects/characters were so close to the 3D eyes of the camera.