Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D Blu-ray (2014) [Region Locked / Free]

[BleedOrange11]

Yeah, thankfully we've reached the point where conversion delivers a much better experience than poorly shot native 3D. My non-enthusiast friend's first comment on the 3D afterward was on how much better the Hercules trailer looked.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I tend to agree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean it will always hold true or that others will or have to agree with you on what is subjective as it is entirely down to opinion. As with all things films my only (contradicting) rule is the only rule is there is no rule. There are general trends seen as good, but often this trends are not followed and something fantastic can result.

I'm all for 3D artistic experiment and breaking technical rules for better story-telling. I see shooting an entire movie with 2.3D-ish depth more as incompetence and/or odd 2D preference, rather than as a legitimate artistic choice with meaningful benefit though. Sadly, many of Hollywood's native 3D filmmakers don't have the basic skill-set to follow the rules, let alone purposefully break them and provide original 3D artistic ideas. They still follow 2D rules and formulas, even from behind a 3D rig.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I'm guessing that "pro review" is marketsaw? They are very bias.

Yeah, marketsaw is sponsored by 3ality Technica and goes absolutely nuts over anything shot with their rigs.

[mseeley]

I know I'm gonna get flack for this (and saying someone like me is in denial because they saw 3d they liked is insensitive and rude) but I was impressed with the 3d in DOTPOTA. It's not strong 3d, but it's nowhere near the disaster and disappointment people make it out to be. To me, the 3d in the movie is outstanding in putting you right there with the apes and the world. It's naturalistic 3d without being insulting or unsatisfying and it completely fits with the movie and kept me immersed throughout imo. And I noticed alot of shots that had medium depth to them and I know 3d and what to look for when a movie employs 3d. And apparently I'm still in the minority that thinks the 3d in Tron legacy is great and the only way to watch the film.


Anyways, in terms of the film I honestly felt it was a masterpiece! The story had so much weight, power, and emotion behind it and the special effects by WETA are just jawdropping and extradordinary to behold. It seriously damn looks near photoreal and the 3d made that illusion even more believable at points. the acting by Andy Serkis and the rest of the cast (Particualry Toby Kebbel as Koba who just wbout completely steals the show)is superb.

DOTPOTA is probably my favorite movie of the year. Just amazing!

Previews:

Guardians of the Galaxy: still looks kickass in 3d and was wonderfully surprised to see that the expanded aspect ratio of the IMAX 3d version looks like it's going to be in the Cinemark XD version when I saw DOTPOTA in Cinemark XD 3d tonight.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For: Holy shit the 3d on this movie looked strong! Easily near the top of my most anticipated 3d movie list now! Now I just need to see the original finally first lol

Exodus: looks absolutely gorgeous and stunning in 3d. Mostly strong 3d for the entire trailer. Can't freaking wait for Ridley Scott's latest film and second 3d movie!!!!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Yeah, thankfully we've reached the point where conversion delivers a much better experience than poorly shot native 3D. My non-enthusiast friend's first comment on the 3D afterward was on how much better the Hercules trailer looked.

I agree, conversions can look better. I have not seen a conversion that competes with the best of native 3d though.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I'm all for 3D artistic experiment and breaking technical rules for better story-telling. I see shooting an entire movie with 2.3D-ish depth more as incompetence and/or odd 2D preference, rather than as a legitimate artistic choice with meaningful benefit though. Sadly, many of Hollywood's native 3D filmmakers don't have the basic skill-set to follow the rules, let alone purposefully break them and provide original 3D artistic ideas. They still follow 2D rules and formulas, even from behind a 3D rig.

I agree this is an issue that will take time to fix. You have to remember this is a new tool for many film makers that they have to learn how to utilize which will take time.

Originally Posted by mseeley

I know I'm gonna get flack for this (and saying someone like me is in denial because they saw 3d they liked is insensitive and rude) but I was I pressed with the 3d in DOTPOTA. It's not strong 3d, but it's nowhere near the disaster and disappointment people make it out to be. To me, the 3d in the movie is outstanding in putting you right there with the apes and world. It's naturalistic 3d without being insulting or u satisfying and it completely fits with the movie and kept me immersed throughout imo.

You see that makes it sound like the kind of 3d I want (exactlya s the trailer showed). Transformers 4's 3d and TASM2 3d felt to all over the place to me, to the point of it becoming distracting then beneficial. I don't dislike heavy depth, I in fact like it, but when 3d becomes distracting that to me is a problem.

Originally Posted by tigermoth

People will pay extra for things if there is a premium value attached to it. The whole idea of entertainment is to sell people something they don't need in the first place. Even an unneeded conversion done competently will still come up with decent results that a poorly shot native film can't compete with.

It's really sad that a consumer these days can now bank on any conversion being at least a decent 3D experience over native. Man how times have changed.

Yes but not all will be able to justify it even if they want to see it in 3d. Thus it will effect sales. You also seem to be linking low depth and lack of z axis as clearly bad which it is not. I for example love the use of 3d in Tron Legacy as it helps put me right there in what is happening which heavy use of 3d can often fail to do (I don't want to be watching the 3d, I want to be watching a film that uses 3d to enhance the film).


Anyway I shall see this film shortly and report back with my thoughts on how the 3d was used.

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

Though the movie was amazing. I can't really recall a moment where a scene in 3D blew me away or even impressed a little. I feel the 3D conversion was a bit mediocre and didn't really add anything to the experience of the film itself. Just another movie to say it's 3D to raise prices and get asses in the seats. That being said I can't wait to own this on Blu and will most likely pick up 3D version since it will be a 5 dollar difference but will watch 2D mostly.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by RyRyMcNizzy13

Though the movie was amazing. I can't really recall a moment where a scene in 3D blew me away or even impressed a little. I feel the 3D conversion was a bit mediocre and didn't really add anything to the experience of the film itself. Just another movie to say it's 3D to raise prices and get asses in the seats. That being said I can't wait to own this on Blu and will most likely pick up 3D version since it will be a 5 dollar difference but will watch 2D mostly.

It was not a conversion. It is a native 3d film.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

You should see Deliver Us from Evil, Earth to Echo, Tammy, The Purge: Anarchy and Lucy in 3D. They all have the most naturalistic 3D ever in 3D movie history. Just take your 3D glasses and immerse yourself

I don't need your snark. Just because I can appreciate and SEE shallower 3d depth and understand the artistic merit of using it doesn't mean you have to be a stuck up ***hole to everybody else.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I don't need your snark. Just because I can appreciate and SEE shallower 3d depth and understand the artistic merit of using it doesn't mean you have to be a stuck up ***hole to everybody else.

Agreed, that was uncalled or tigermoth.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I know I'm gonna get flack for this (and saying someone like me is in denial because they saw 3d they liked is insensitive and rude) but I was impressed with the 3d in DOTPOTA. It's not strong 3d, but it's nowhere near the disaster and disappointment people make it out to be. To me, the 3d in the movie is outstanding in putting you right there with the apes and the world. It's naturalistic 3d without being insulting or unsatisfying and it completely fits with the movie and kept me immersed throughout imo. And I noticed alot of shots that had medium depth to them and I know 3d and what to look for when a movie employs 3d. And apparently I'm still in the minority that thinks the 3d in Tron legacy is great and the only way to watch the film.

You seem to genuinely enjoy and appreciate the shallower 3D in this movie. I can respect that you are brave enough to give a review like that even when your opinion is in the minority here. It seems to be similar to the Marketsaw review. I have seen shallow 3D used effectively to depress emotions in select sequences in movies (Coraline, Tron, Life of Pi), but I don't know a good reason why anyone would choose it for an entire runtime. I am curious to know more about what artistic value you think it gave the story.

What was "naturalistic" about the 3D? Was it more or less natural than round 3D? More natural than 2D? Natural compared to human vision?

Why do you think shallower 3D was appropriate? How did it benefit the characters or setting or emotion conveyed compared to using round 3D or just shooting it in flat 2D?

[mredman]

I will watch this and judge by myself.

IMO the worst 3D movie this year was Godzilla so much potential but so damn flat. The movie is good but the 3D 1.5/5 in Stars. Best this year is 300 rise, edge of tomorrow, Transformers 4. They are amazing in 3D

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I know I'm gonna get flack for this (and saying someone like me is in denial because they saw 3d they liked is insensitive and rude) but I was impressed with the 3d in DOTPOTA. It's not strong 3d, but it's nowhere near the disaster and disappointment people make it out to be. To me, the 3d in the movie is outstanding in putting you right there with the apes and the world. It's naturalistic 3d without being insulting or unsatisfying and it completely fits with the movie and kept me immersed throughout imo. And I noticed alot of shots that had medium depth to them and I know 3d and what to look for when a movie employs 3d. And apparently I'm still in the minority that thinks the 3d in Tron legacy is great and the only way to watch the film.


Anyways, in terms of the film I honestly felt it was a masterpiece! The story had so much weight, power, and emotion behind it and the special effects by WETA are just jawdropping and extradordinary to behold. It seriously damn looks near photoreal and the 3d made that illusion even more believable at points. the acting by Andy Serkis and the rest of the cast (Particualry Toby Kebbel as Koba who just wbout completely steals the show)is superb.

DOTPOTA is probably my favorite movie of the year. Just amazing!

100% agree with everything you said here (except Tron Legacy). That's what I was saying the other day. The 3D isn't what I would classify as strong but it serviced the film very well, and did a very nice job of bringing me "into" the film. I always prefer strong 3D and this wasn't strong but it was not nearly the disaster some naysayers are claiming it is. Too much hyperbole in these threads. We need a little bit more "rounded" opinions, not extreme.

[Pfreddy]

Originally Posted by mredman

I will watch this and judge by myself.

IMO the worst 3D movie this year was Godzilla so much potential but so damn flat. The movie is good but the 3D 1.5/5 in Stars. Best this year is 300 rise, edge of tomorrow, Transformers 4. They are amazing in 3D

I agree with your list of the best (Havent seen Transformers though) but would add "How to Train Your Dragon 2". Dreamworks did it again on that one!

[gamermwm]

Originally Posted by Pfreddy

I agree with your list of the best (Havent seen Transformers though) but would add "How to Train Your Dragon 2". Dreamworks did it again on that one!

Yes and add Amazing Spider Man 2 to that list as well

[Zivouhr]

The Argument for Stronger 3D:

Most of us here are fans of 3D in general regardless of our preferences for the quality of the 3D. The key is remembering we're all in support of the 3D movie experience (and the hope that it continues well into the future). At the same time, understanding why stronger 3D ( in the range of Avatar's 3D as a classic example most have seen and enjoyed, or more recently Pacific Rim's 3D) results in a very clear, visual contrast compared to 2D and gives many of us an unmistakable sense of immersion into the strong 3D film. Had the 3D in Avatar been weak, mild 3D that was nearly 2D, would we be watching 3D on our 3DTV's today?
Would mild, nearly two dimensional 3D have gotten people excited to spend the extra money to see a film in 3D and help Avatar reach record breaking box office numbers? Why did James Cameron opt for stronger 3D instead of mild 3D in many shots (excluding the distant scenery and planet shots for the sake of a more human view of those planets)?

Mild 3D, being as close to 2D as 3D can get, is something stereographers really should try avoiding if possible unless they have a great reason for their film, if they value the reputation of 3D in movies; knowing a mild 3D film might be the first and the LAST 3D experience some new fans are willing to give 3D.
Thinking back to the comparison of Avatar's 3D, contrasted against Sam Worthington's very next 3D film, Clash of the Titans 3D and the online responses against 3D afterwards.

To argue on the opposite side against the constant desire for stronger 3D, I can understand the view of accepting mostly any form of 3D quality, and realize that might be enough to satisfy the most enthusiastic of 3D fans. The emotional connection with the movie may merge to some degree into the feelings about the 3D. Sort of like being on the side of a movie most people hated. They're seeing value where others don't.


With that in mind:
The Contrast of 2D versus 3D:

2D is like comparing two lines that have merged into 1: |
Mild 3D is like two lines very close together: |_|
Medium 3D being those two lines a bit farther apart: |___|
And Strong 3D the farthest apart
within comfort to the eyes' range: |______|

Those lines can represent an analogy to the interaxial distance of the two cameras on a 3D Rig when the stereographer is setting up the film shot. He or she could settle for the mild setting for every shot, just to avoid resetting the distance since "It looks good for close ups of the face" and speed up the production. Or they could go the extra mile and make the time to adjust every shot as needed and when appropriate (some distance shots don't need stronger 3D if more natural 3D is the goal), and end up with a strong 3D film in as many shots as possible.


One thing to keep in mind is, the stereographers who helped put the 3D together in these movies are probably at least curious about how the general public viewed their 3D efforts, and occasionally might find this forum by typing a "3D review forum for.." search.
The point being, they'll possibly consider our views and make adjustments as needed. Not likely, but it is a remote possibility if thinking about how social media can very much influence the quality of products we buy from the manufacturers.

Just one point of view.

Originally Posted by mredman

I will watch this and judge by myself.

IMO the worst 3D movie this year was Godzilla so much potential but so damn flat. The movie is good but the 3D 1.5/5 in Stars. Best this year is 300 rise, edge of tomorrow, Transformers 4. They are amazing in 3D

Edge of Tomorrow had plenty of high medium to strong 3D, agreed. 300 was very good, and I felt Godzilla had a nice range of medium to high medium 3D based on my single view at a Cinemark theater (and also comparing it to the 3D previews shown beforehand).

Originally Posted by mar3o

They didn't go anywhere near as weak as Tron Legacy. It was much better than that. No, it wasn't what I would classify as strong 3D, but it was moderate. I've seen much weaker use in some films. I will say that Pacific Rim, Jurassic Park and Titanic were all excellent examples of 3D conversions that were stronger than this film. Like I said, it could have and should have been stronger, but I can say that about most 3D films. I still enjoyed it all the same.

Thanks. I agree with your examples of strong 3D, whether converted or filmed as this is reported to be. The trailer I saw in 3D didn't look too bad; mild to low medium range 3D, thought I'll have to see it on blu ray 3D to see if the rest of the film followed suit or dropped down in 3D quality as reported by others who also favor strong 3D. For now, I'll be checking this one out in 2D in theaters, based on all the great reviews of the film itself.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

In general, I expect two things from 3D movies.

1. Semi-realistic depth cues and proportional volume (technical aspects)
2. Story-telling and art direction that utilizes the z-axis (creative aspects)

DotPotA is severely lacking in both categories. Gravity does the second award-winningly well, and the first good enough.

Most people don't consciously recognize #1 but respond very subjectively and emotionally to #2. And some people, like Matt Reeves apparently, enjoy or tolerate 3D that looks just like 2D because that's what they're used to. The phenomenon with this forum is that most of us "3D enthusiasts" have watched so much 3D that we intuitively notice the technical aspects. Hence the preference for "strong 3D," which roughly correlates with better roundness/proportional volume. Just seeing stereo depth and maybe a pop-out if lucky becomes no longer enough. We want the complete experience that the best 3D movies have offered.


I don't know of any journalistic sites with reviewers that understand and evaluate the technical aspects of 3D applied to movies. Most poorly articulate what their 3D experience was like and say "good" or "bad" or how it made them feel, which isn't helpful for previewing technical quality. CinemaBlend gets an 'A' for effort, but their scoring system is odd, and their reviewers need some 3D education and experience because they are wildly inconsistent. I usually can't relate to what they're describing. Like tigermoth said, it seems like they just make stuff up.

Some Blu-ray review sites have been a little more consistent for me but it is still very hit and miss with them as well. There are some forum members here and at AVS that do have more technical knowledge of creating 3D, and I usually agree with or can easily respect their opinions. A stereographer named Clyde de Souza has done a few critiques on his blog that I really enjoyed and learned something while reading.

http://realvision.ae/blog/category/s...d/3d-critique/

Good points Bleed Orange.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I actually went ahead and saw it anyway, you guys got me curious. Good movie, 3D - while IMO not as terrible or unnoticeable as some people are saying - was pretty disappointing. As has been pointed out it really seemed more like an afterthought with the lack of z-axis movement and composition and the general shallowness. There wasn't a single shot that really stood out to me and some were just offensively flat.

Thanks for the review UFAlien.

Originally Posted by mseeley

I know I'm gonna get flack for this (and saying someone like me is in denial because they saw 3d they liked is insensitive and rude) but I was impressed with the 3d in DOTPOTA. It's not strong 3d, but it's nowhere near the disaster and disappointment people make it out to be. To me, the 3d in the movie is outstanding in putting you right there with the apes and the world. It's naturalistic 3d without being insulting or unsatisfying and it completely fits with the movie and kept me immersed throughout imo. And I noticed alot of shots that had medium depth to them and I know 3d and what to look for when a movie employs 3d. And apparently I'm still in the minority that thinks the 3d in Tron legacy is great and the only way to watch the film.


Anyways, in terms of the film I honestly felt it was a masterpiece! The story had so much weight, power, and emotion behind it and the special effects by WETA are just jawdropping and extradordinary to behold. It seriously damn looks near photoreal and the 3d made that illusion even more believable at points. the acting by Andy Serkis and the rest of the cast (Particualry Toby Kebbel as Koba who just wbout completely steals the show)is superb.

DOTPOTA is probably my favorite movie of the year. Just amazing!

Previews:

Guardians of the Galaxy: still looks kickass in 3d and was wonderfully surprised to see that the expanded aspect ratio of the IMAX 3d version looks like it's going to be in the Cinemark XD version when I saw DOTPOTA in Cinemark XD 3d tonight.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For: Holy shit the 3d on this movie looked strong! Easily near the top of my most anticipated 3d movie list now! Now I just need to see the original finally first lol

Exodus: looks absolutely gorgeous and stunning in 3d. Mostly strong 3d for the entire trailer. Can't freaking wait for Ridley Scott's latest film and second 3d movie!!!!

Originally Posted by RyRyMcNizzy13

Though the movie was amazing. I can't really recall a moment where a scene in 3D blew me away or even impressed a little. I feel the 3D conversion was a bit mediocre and didn't really add anything to the experience of the film itself. Just another movie to say it's 3D to raise prices and get asses in the seats. That being said I can't wait to own this on Blu and will most likely pick up 3D version since it will be a 5 dollar difference but will watch 2D mostly.

Glad you enjoyed the movie. Also looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy. I hope the 3D holds up to the standard set by the 3D trailers. Yeah, also looking forward to seeing if we get a Prometheus 2 3D as well.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by gamermwm

Yes and add Amazing Spider Man 2 to that list as well

Ditto to HTTYD and ASM2!!! FANTASTIC 3d movies!

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

You seem to genuinely enjoy and appreciate the shallower 3D in this movie. I can respect that you are brave enough to give a review like that even when your opinion is in the minority here. It seems to be similar to the Marketsaw review. I have seen shallow 3D used effectively to depress emotions in select sequences in movies (Coraline, Tron, Life of Pi), but I don't know a good reason why anyone would choose it for an entire runtime. I am curious to know more about what artistic value you think it gave the story.

What was "naturalistic" about the 3D? Was it more or less natural than round 3D? More natural than 2D? Natural compared to human vision?

Why do you think shallower 3D was appropriate? How did it benefit the characters or setting or emotion conveyed compared to using round 3D or just shooting it in flat 2D?

I guess to me it felt more naturalistic in the old school film framing sense. Again, reading the part of one of the online interviews with Matt Reeves really helped in giving an idea of what to expect from the 3d and his approach. It felt naturalistic in a sense that the main 3d elements that were a focus, the foreground and middle ground, had a tangible sense of depth where I still felt like it was a real world I could step in. Plus sometimes with strong 3d the background elements way and the distance can be wasted because you usually don't have time to focus or appreciate them because you're distracted by the story and characters.

The way I would describe the 3d in this movie is it's more about the foreground and middle ground elements and immersing the viewer in that way rather than going all out strong 3d( which would have been amazing, but again I respect Matt Reeves approach and the 3d still immersed me where it counted most I'd say). The film's use of 3d is brilliant in making you believe the apes are real and not special effects (sometimes with strong 3d you can kind of see the special effects seams imo).

And I will still love and defend Tron Legacy in 3d to my grave lol

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I guess to me it felt more naturalistic in the old school film framing sense. Again, reading the part of one of the online interviews with Matt Reeves really helped in giving an idea of what to expect from the 3d and his approach. It felt naturalistic in a sense that the main 3d elements that were a focus, the foreground and middle ground, had a tangible sense of depth where I still felt like it was a real world I could step in. Plus sometimes with strong 3d the background elements way and the distance can be wasted because you usually don't have time to focus or appreciate them because you're distracted by the story and characters.

The way I would describe the 3d in this movie is it's more about the foreground and middle ground elements and immersing the viewer in that way rather than going all out strong 3d( which would have been amazing, but again I respect Matt Reeves approach and the 3d still immersed me where it counted most I'd say). The film's use of 3d is brilliant in making you believe the apes are real and not special effects (sometimes with strong 3d you can kind of see the special effects seams imo).

And I will still love and defend Tron Legacy in 3d to my grave lol

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I didn't experience any of that 3D-related immersion, but I respect your opinion.

The way I saw Tron: Legacy was:

Real World = 2D
Game World = Shallow 3D with decent roundness
IMAX moments = Stronger 3D with better roundness

All part of a depth script designed to give important story moments more impact than others. I'm not really a fan of that style, but I can't deny it's effectiveness and can at least respect a bold creative risk.

[mar3o]

I'm not a fan of shallow 3D. I don't see much of a point in it. They knew how to make 3D films in the 50's. Even the 80's turned out some very strong 3D films. These days 3D is on average much weaker, and that is partly responsible for so many people being unimpressed with it. My girlfriend isn't a huge 3D fan but when she saw House of Wax she actually commented on how good the 3D was.

Conversions are getting better all the time, to the point where many conversions now are stronger than natively-filmed 3D films, since the conversion houses really know 3D and know how to push the planes. Natively-shot 3D films are usually leaning towards weak-to medium 3D. Articles have mentioned this years ago but Hollywood refuses to learn from their mistakes.

All that being said, I wouldn't call Dawn weak. I'd say it was moderate 3D with some weak parts. It did enhance my enjoyment of the film for sure. I wish Hollywood in general would start turning out some stronger natively-shot films. For one thing - they need to learn about hyper-stereo. Separating the lenses further apart than normal for exaggerated 3D - this can give astounding results for far-off shots of cities, etc. - where normal separation gives flat results for far-off objects. There are lots of Flikr boards where amateurs post their hyper-stereo photos, and they look astounding on my 3D tv. Hollywood isn't being creative when using 3D techniques. They're just going through the motions without thinking in 3D.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by mar3o

For one thing - they need to learn about hyper-stereo. Separating the lenses further apart than normal for exaggerated 3D - this can give astounding results for far-off shots of cities, etc. - where normal separation gives flat results for far-off objects. There are lots of Flikr boards where amateurs post their hyper-stereo photos, and they look astounding on my 3D tv. Hollywood isn't being creative when using 3D techniques. They're just going through the motions without thinking in 3D.

In interviews I've read with directors, cinematographers, stereographers, etc, it's generally clear they know about hyperstereo and work to actively avoid it. The issue is that it makes things look smaller than they are because our brains "know" that we shouldn't be seeing so much depth on such a big object because of the actual distance between our eyes. This was Guillermo del Toro's main concern when the conversion of Pacific Rim was first brought up - that it would push into hyperstereo and make his lovingly-crafted, humongous CGI jaegers and kaiju look the same, scale-wise, as men in suits on a miniature set. He made a big point about how the assurances that would be avoided was a major factor in getting him to approve the conversion.

It could work when you're going for an "unreal" perspective intentionally - some sort of dream sequence, a visual statement that it's a small world after all or something of the sort, a shot from the POV of a giant creature - but is generally avoided for most uses as the filmmakers (and myself, frankly) prefer realism in these sorts of wide, distant shots as opposed to exaggerating the depth for the sake of making 3D more noticeable.

That said, Dawn had the opposite problem to me; most scenes were so shallow it ruined the immersion by not even coming close to realistic amount of depth and roundness. It was as if everything were viewed with the depth perception of a small gerbil.