X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) Blu-ray 3D [Region Free] - Blu-ray Forum

Suntory_Times · 10-16-2014, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

The story here was nicely told and I didn't have trouble following it. I like how they made Wolverine the main component, along with Mystique (the transforming lady played by Jennifer Lawrence). I wonder how many more Wolverine films Hugh Jackman will elect to be a part of. He does a great job at it.

So is the sequel to this one still in the works and filming again in 3D I hope? I'm guessing so, since this did well enough world wide I'd say.

3D was worth it.

The director is a fan of 3d from what he has said so I expect Apocalypse will be in 3d. I wish they hadn't changed the comic with Wolverine being the one going back in time. I get he is a fan favorite but he has become far to much of a focus and his character has been played out. On top of that seeing Wolverine fight the sentinels would have been nice.

Geoff D · 10-16-2014, 01:34 PM

As tigermoth rightly said, the lenses themselves play a big part in determining just how much depth is captured, which ties in to what I've said before about most directors and DPs not being savvy enough to really exploit native 3D. It's not just about pointing a dual-camera rig and shooting, it's about how much depth the filmmakers are willing to go for and choosing the right lenses for the right effect; if you're a fan of using long lenses for close-ups then you're greatly shortening the depth of field, which is fine for 2D because it gives you that sense of space between foreground and background, but in 3D it robs the foreground object of its own sense of 3D volume because the limited focal length of the lens is already being given over to creating that sense of foreground/background separation.

The same charges could be levelled at anamorphic photography in general, with the glass being famed for its shallow depth of field which creates that charactistic 'out of focus' look to the background. I don't think anyone's been crazy enough to shoot a native anamorphic 3D flick since Amityville 3D (the dual-lens single-strip ArriVision system probably put paid to that). But that's what I love about Edge of Tomorrow's 3D: that movie was shot anamorphic and the conversion team have taken advantage of that shallow depth of field to really separate foreground from background AND to give a lot of volume and depth to faces as well, it's like the best of both worlds. There's a great over-the-shoulder shot of Cruise facing Bill Paxton's character, and you can clearly see Cruise's nose poking out just beyond his cheek, while the peak of Paxton's baseball cap is clearly defined ahead of his features and yet his eyes and nose have subtle stereo depth of their own.

3D needs an entirely distinct visual vocabulary to really come alive in all aspects (depth, volume etc) when shooting natively, and most modern filmmakers simply don't get it IMO.

Impossible · 10-16-2014, 01:39 PM

I actually noticed it more in the Exodus preview than the actual Xmen film and then I thought back to Prometheus and remembered it was the same. Everyone raved about the 3D in that but I never really got it as all of the faces in it were really flat looking and it was only really the depth that was impressive, so for me that was a big killer. Xmen was ok but I did still notice it on quite a few occasions. Personally I think it makes the shots look very pop out booky.

*sidebar

Does anyone else think Patrick Stewart is looking more and more like E.T with each passing day?

10-16-2014, 01:34 PM	#2
Geoff D Blu-ray Emperor Top contributor Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Swanage, Engerland 4K collection:1347 Blu-ray collection:2524 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:33	As tigermoth rightly said, the lenses themselves play a big part in determining just how much depth is captured, which ties in to what I've said before about most directors and DPs not being savvy enough to really exploit native 3D. It's not just about pointing a dual-camera rig and shooting, it's about how much depth the filmmakers are willing to go for and choosing the right lenses for the right effect; if you're a fan of using long lenses for close-ups then you're greatly shortening the depth of field, which is fine for 2D because it gives you that sense of space between foreground and background, but in 3D it robs the foreground object of its own sense of 3D volume because the limited focal length of the lens is already being given over to creating that sense of foreground/background separation. The same charges could be levelled at anamorphic photography in general, with the glass being famed for its shallow depth of field which creates that charactistic 'out of focus' look to the background. I don't think anyone's been crazy enough to shoot a native anamorphic 3D flick since Amityville 3D (the dual-lens single-strip ArriVision system probably put paid to that). But that's what I love about Edge of Tomorrow's 3D: that movie was shot anamorphic and the conversion team have taken advantage of that shallow depth of field to really separate foreground from background AND to give a lot of volume and depth to faces as well, it's like the best of both worlds. There's a great over-the-shoulder shot of Cruise facing Bill Paxton's character, and you can clearly see Cruise's nose poking out just beyond his cheek, while the peak of Paxton's baseball cap is clearly defined ahead of his features and yet his eyes and nose have subtle stereo depth of their own. 3D needs an entirely distinct visual vocabulary to really come alive in all aspects (depth, volume etc) when shooting natively, and most modern filmmakers simply don't get it IMO. Last edited by Geoff D; 10-16-2014 at 01:45 PM.

10-16-2014, 01:39 PM	#3
Impossible Banned Member since:Mar 2010 Blu-ray reviews:3	I actually noticed it more in the Exodus preview than the actual Xmen film and then I thought back to Prometheus and remembered it was the same. Everyone raved about the 3D in that but I never really got it as all of the faces in it were really flat looking and it was only really the depth that was impressive, so for me that was a big killer. Xmen was ok but I did still notice it on quite a few occasions. Personally I think it makes the shots look very pop out booky. *sidebar Does anyone else think Patrick Stewart is looking more and more like E.T with each passing day?

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals