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

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Paul H

No worries. Still use my two Vaio 3D laptops for initial evaluations. They don't have Darblet enhancement capability. But it still wouldn't matter. Your argument/concern should be the same for evaluators using professional theatrical equipment vs consumer economical displays. What is most important for disc evaluation is knowing that the bar is raised equally across the board/spectrum for all titles. i.e. The flaws for crap will still be there in comparison ratio to the best quality.

That's like saying one can give accurate reviews of the video quality of a blu-ray disc using vivid mode as long as vivid mode is always used. Should be fine as per your logic as the same bar is used at all times. It is such flawed logic I am almost assuming you are joking but something tells me you are not.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

That's like saying one can give accurate reviews of the video quality of a blu-ray disc using vivid mode as long as vivid mode is always used. Should be fine as per your logic as the same bar is used at all times. It is such flawed logic I am almost assuming you are joking but something tells me you are not.

Darblet's-in-chain at low-levels affect 3D with real-world visual perception. Don't know the science behind the "neuro-biologic" models of human vision they used that inspired the algorithms, but it is visually affective. Vivid mode is argumentative nonsense.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Darblet's-in-chain at low-levels affect 3D with real-world visual perception. Don't know the science behind the "neuro-biologic" models of human vision they used that inspired the algorithms, but it is visually affective. Vivid mode is argumentative nonsense.

It really isn't. I'm glad your happy though.

Now back to this threads normal programming. X-men DOFP 3d blu-ray.

[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.

[Zivouhr]

One possible reason for why filmed 3D might have flatter faces in close ups for a movie:

-Converged 3D camera rig (Think of a V shape, the tips of the V being the origin of each camera pointing at the face at the meeting of the V). where both cameras angle inwards towards the foreground object. If the two cameras don't give enough interaxial distance to the foreground face, it'll appear more flat once the post editing of the 3D is converged digitally to keep the face even with the screen plane.
Post editing here usually doesn't need much convergence to blend the foreground object, though it does require adjusting the angles of the cameras of the single focal object, where based on the angles, sometimes the top and bottom won't match, and look like they're at different angles (a chin that is pointing right in one frame, and in the other dual frame, pointing left, requiring adjustment).

In comparison:
-Parallel 3D camera rig, (picture the number 11. The tips of the one are the cameras, both pointing parallel in the same direction) Two dual cameras are pointing at the character, but the closer it gets, the closer the interaxial distance between both cameras needs to get to avoid being too far apart as to cause eye strain from the dual images of the face being too far apart. In post editing, they can be blended into one image, with offsets based on each angle of each camera. This is a common set up in CGI and computer animated movies.

-Converted 3D: (a single 2D frame, duplicated into two frames, and then altered in one) You can create any depth you want based on the 3D strength intended, taking one image, duplicating it, and offsetting one image so the nose is in a different spot compared to the other picture. The more difference there is, the stronger the 3D depth and layering can be. This method has much control at the cost of a careful and time consuming conversion process for every frame.

[Jay Ellis]

I actually found the 3d depth and layering to be stronger during the dialogue scenes than the action scenes with the exception of the slo-mo sequence. Overall, I'd rank it as medium 3d. It's pretty good but not great. I want to get a projector so I can watch this movie on a 100+ inch screen instead of my paltry 55 inch. I think a lot of the visual impact of 3d is lost on such a small screen because even Mr.Peabody and Sherman was a disappointment for me on my current rig compared to the strong 3d presentation I saw at the theater.

[Suntory_Times]

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]

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]

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?

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

X-Men had a lot of shots of faces in medium shots where they had fantastic volume in the faces. This is one of the reasons why I rate this movies 3D so highly. There haven't been any other native 3D movies, apart form T.S. Spivet, that have captured that much volume out of human form consistently. The opening shot of the guy in the hood looked great. I'd say 30% of the runtime of X-Men has great stereo roundness on human faces. which is a lot compared to others. Although admitting only 30% of a movies has great volume doesn't say much about the state of modern 3D filmmaking.

The main reason why native doesn't have so much volume in human features and form (or at all in any form when it comes to capturing stereo roundness) is a combination of lens choice and acceptable parallax budget usage over the course of a feature runtime in a cinema. Most filmmakers hate wide angle prime lenses, wide angle prime lenses will extract the most amount of volume while using less parallax. Longer lenses will compress space and volume in both 2D and 3D... especially in 3D! Instead of devoting the production to 3D the filmmakers are basically just shooting the same way they shoot 2D but with a 3D rig. As a result we end up with flat 3D that looks like paper cut outs.

It takes filmmakers like Jean-Pierre Jeunet who were already making movies with incredibly wide angle prime lenses to make 3D at its pinnacle. Everyone else is just treading water unless they post convert with todays top conversion companies. Terry Gilliam would be great for 3D as he also loves wide angle primes. Terry and Jean-Pierre are pretty much the only major fimmakers who use wide angle primes so prolifically in their filmmaking. That's the severity of the 3D problem we are having! Of the thousands of filmmakers working today only two have the working knowledge of how to work with wide angle primes at the extreme 3D needs.

Ultimately the solution by Hollywood will be to combine native with conversions if filmmakers won't stop shooting with long lenses. The technology is already there, it's just that nobody is using it as far as I know. Someone here mentioned the 3D face scan of Tom Cruse and how the conversion studio used that to get good volume in EOT... well they can do that same thing in native to punch volume into faces without the hassle of cutting the rest of the body/scenery out. basically it's the best of both worlds as you don't get messy soft cut out lines around everything and you get decent volume in human form consistently.

Sorry for the long rant... a lot of people won't agree with me. I know a hell of a lot of stereographers who work on modern 3D movies don't agree with me. I just find it perplexing that people think 3D movies shouldn't be 3D all the time.

Agreed 100%! 3D should be 3D for the entirety of the film.

I watched Winter Soldier last night and there were probably about 20 ultra quick shots throughout the film that didn't even look like they had bothered converting them because they were so quick. It was VERY distracting and took me out of the film every time it happened!

If I am paying the extra money for a 3D film, I expect to see the whole bloody film in 3D.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

I actually found the 3d depth and layering to be stronger during the dialogue scenes than the action scenes with the exception of the slo-mo sequence. Overall, I'd rank it as medium 3d. It's pretty good but not great. I want to get a projector so I can watch this movie on a 100+ inch screen instead of my paltry 55 inch. I think a lot of the visual impact of 3d is lost on such a small screen because even Mr.Peabody and Sherman was a disappointment for me on my current rig compared to the strong 3d presentation I saw at the theater.

Agreed. And a screen 100"+ would be awesome in 3D. Projector probably the easier way compared to a big 100" 3D HDTV.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

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.

Thanks Suntory Times. Glad he's a fan of 3D (filming in 3D too) and since I haven't read the comic of this storyline, who was supposed to be the time traveler instead of Wolverine? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Impossible

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?

While I do enjoy the 3D in Prometheus, I agree they could have pushed it a few notched up, from mild/medium 3D to strong 3D along the lines of Avatar, also a sci fi film. I would even say the 3D in this was a notch stronger than Prometheus, though the new Exodus from Scott hopefully will deliver the stronger 3D trailer impression into the whole movie.

Patrick Stewart like ET. I didn't notice that yet but will take another look.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks Suntory Times. Glad he's a fan of 3D (filming in 3D too) and since I haven't read the comic of this storyline, who was supposed to be the time traveler instead of Wolverine? Thanks.

Kitty does, and it isn't Kitty who sends herself back in time (Wolverine basically takes her spot, and she takes the other). I think it would have been a far more gutsy move to have a young female be in that role in the film and wish they had taken that risk).


While I do enjoy the 3D in Prometheus, I agree they could have pushed it a few notched up, from mild/medium 3D to strong 3D along the lines of Avatar, also a sci fi film. I would even say the 3D in this was a notch stronger than Prometheus, though the new Exodus from Scott hopefully will deliver the stronger 3D trailer impression into the whole movie.

In cinemas I felt the 3d was mild in x-men dofp. However at home it is a mixture of medium, a small amount of mild and some strong shoots. The layering was sublime as well. Cinema 3d (just like 2d) is so hit or miss. My local cinema use to always give a great 3d presentation but in the last year or so they have become hit or miss sadly (image is getting darker).

As for prometheus, one thing I really like was in distance shoots the 3d was mild and then when things where up close the depth became notably stronger (Avatar did this as well). I don't think more depth was needed in Prometheus as it could have made the enclosed areas they where in fell less confined then they do. But as always I differ to the film makers.

aib

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Kitty does, and it isn't Kitty who sends herself back in time (Wolverine basically takes her spot, and she takes the other). I think it would have been a far more gutsy move to have a young female be in that role in the film and wish they had taken that risk).

I understand the reason they didn't send Kitty herself back was it was before she was born; she can only project minds into their bodies of that time. (Edit: It wasn't a problem in the comic as older Kitty was projecting herself into then present-day Kitty.) Kitty wasn't available in 1973; Wolverine was, not to mention Hugh Jackman plays him in both timelines.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

I actually found the 3d depth and layering to be stronger during the dialogue scenes than the action scenes with the exception of the slo-mo sequence. Overall, I'd rank it as medium 3d. It's pretty good but not great. I want to get a projector so I can watch this movie on a 100+ inch screen instead of my paltry 55 inch. I think a lot of the visual impact of 3d is lost on such a small screen because even Mr.Peabody and Sherman was a disappointment for me on my current rig compared to the strong 3d presentation I saw at the theater.

One mans paltry is another mans heaven as I recently got a 55 inch telly.

Coming from a 42 inch I find the 55 inch immense and perfect size in nearly every way. I don't even think id prefer a projector. It's the same reason I didn't want plasma, diminishing brightness over time and having to deal with active glasses.

And I can only see getting a 65 inch in the future and even that may be too big for my loungeroom. But an upgrade to UHD and maybe 65 inch and I will be eternally happy.

[Udon BeLaze]

I've found that zooming in on some 3D movies (300: Rise of An Empire, Jack the Giant Slayer, for example) without losing much on the sides helps to make smaller display screens like my 50" much more immersive.

Maybe the zoom doubles the 3D effect, but whatever the technical reason, it doesnt feel so paltry afterall. Of course this also means that a larger screen would have it that much better in mimicking a commercial theater experience.

Back on topic... I'm probably not gonna see DOFP in 3D unless there is a black friday deal, or when and if the extended version comes out in 3D. I'll have to rewatch at some point, but something felt lacking in the theatrical cut that didnt make me jump to buy it immediately.

[sookymonster]

This One is only $29 from Big W which is $10 cheaper than everywhere else, here in Australia.��

[Taygan315]

Watched this last night for the first time. Loved every minute of it. Great movie. Detail, dimension, and foreground placement was really well done and very effective. Depth was subtle but good when it was there.

[ultraflexed]

The storyline was great, the casting was perfect old professor and magneto look like their younger versions.

The 3d was very good througout with some amazing great 3d scenes.
The quick silver scenes were insane.
Magneto and stadium lift ans those last scenes were insane.
The futuristic X-men were great despite getting destroyed by the sentinels.


The time line between future an past made sense, great movie, acting.

Some say their was not alot of action thats a total lie.
Future x-men fought sentinels at the begging
Then the quick silver prision break scene
Then mystic army base scene.
Then the scene wolverine, charles and eric go after mystic in public scene.
The future scene x-men scene where storm gets impelled by a sentinel
The magneto stadium around the white house scene

How much action can you have ?

[bandol]

Thought THE Movie WAS Very Slow With Mild To Medium 3d.most Disappointing Movie Of THE Summer For me.

[WJWS Channel 13:Amity]

Originally Posted by ultraflexed

The storyline was great, the casting was perfect old professor and magneto look like their younger versions.

The 3d was very good througout with some amazing great 3d scenes.
The quick silver scenes were insane.
Magneto and stadium lift ans those last scenes were insane.
The futuristic X-men were great despite getting destroyed by the sentinels.


The time line between future an past made sense, great movie, acting.

Some say their was not alot of action thats a total lie.
Future x-men fought sentinels at the begging
Then the quick silver prision break scene
Then mystic army base scene.
Then the scene wolverine, charles and eric go after mystic in public scene.
The future scene x-men scene where storm gets impelled by a sentinel
The magneto stadium around the white house scene

How much action can you have ?

You do realize that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen have been playing Xavier and Magneto since 2000 right?