Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 3D (2016) [Region Free]

[dartfrog298]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

If it was anything like my theatrical experience the 3D was poorly used throughout.

I haven't watched my copy yet, I hope to tonight. Anyway, If the 3D is as mild as most are saying I wonder why they even bother converting it in the first place. In all honesty it pisses me off.

[Frank@Chicago]

Originally Posted by levcore

I tried adjusting the depth on my LG and it just caused real problems at the right and left of the frame.

In my experience, you have to adjust Viewpoint & Depth in tandem.

If you only adjust one or the other, you get distortion on the edges of the sceen.

On the chart there's 'even stops', which should provide stronger 3D without distortion.

With -2/+14, my entire display is still full and clean using a 3D disc menu for tuning.

Alot of people push things further than that, but for me that's enough of a bump.

[dartfrog298]

On my 65UH8500 I seem to get the best 3D effect by leaving the 3D mode on Auto.

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by dartfrog298

I haven't watched my copy yet, I hope to tonight. Anyway, If the 3D is as mild as most are saying I wonder why they even bother converting it in the first place. In all honesty it pisses me off.

Honestly, I enjoy a lot of movies that are considered mild. I believe there's quality mild 3D presentations out there where it is used consistently from scene to scene to convey space in a way that doesn't make you think about it (finding nemo comes to mind). I only remember this one using it in an inconsistent way where sometimes I think everything is fine and other times I am wondering what happened to the 3D. Keep in mind I am only commenting on the theatrical presentation and the theater I was in could have some blame for the presentation as I saw it. I'd wager the home release is stronger for me, but I'd also bet that the inconsistent usage that leaves you questioning their choices persists.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by levcore

I'm not really a Star Wars fan though so that's probably a key factor in my enjoyment of these movies. I thought Force Awakens was pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy science fiction visuals and sci fi action scenes and I love 3D of course, I was just not very invested in any of the story or characters. I actually thought the characters were really bland in Rogue One. At least there was lots of exciting action in the last 30 minutes.

I thought the CG recreations of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher were not that great. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty much state of the art CG but it clearly looks very, very artificial still. The tech just isn't there. It wasn't there when they made Tron Legacy and it still isn't there now. That said I thought the CG 1984 Terminator from Terminator Genisys was a far more convincing digital human.

I'm not saying I thought Rogue One was a bad movie, just an average one. If you're a fan of the Star Wars universe I can imagine it being one of the best things ever, however if you're not it just is what it is. Fan service. Force Awakens just felt like a remake of A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back and Rogue One just treads water filling in details that we don't really need. It would interesting to see the franchise move forward and start news stories with new characters but Disney are too afraid to do that.

In the theater, Peter Cushing looked more convincing on the big screen than at home to my eyes, since at home I can more closely see the finer nuances/movements that don't quite pass as entirely believable. I was pretty convinced the wrinkles of Peter Cushing are spot on accurate, it's just that a few of the movements and gestures seemed animated versus from a real human. I have to watch Ant Man 3D again, as young Michael Douglas in CGI is very convincing.

This one is an improvement for Cushing compared to the animated younger Bridges in Tron Legacy, but

[Show spoiler]Leia, she did not convince me she was real in the CGI shot of Rogue One. Her expression looked animated and not authentic. Leia more than likely would not smile, knowing her stern, no nonsense character. She would take it and give a look of determination, but not smile. They were being pursued by Vader afterall. The look of Leia was off slightly also, like a portrait painting that isn't quite 100%, even though it's close. So I agree, they're not quite there yet but they are getting closer. Motion capture is a big key they need to perfect. Especially with the eyes.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Ghosting is entirely your display device failing to render the image correctly. On a dlp, or a vr headset there will be zero ghosting as it is a display related issue, not a source one. Beyond the above mentioned display types, black on white is incredibly hard to achieve without ghosting.

Good point about the high contrast, strong 3D shots being a big factor of ghosting, where the glasses can't fully block out all of the light from the white on a black background or vice versa, and so a little bit seeps through the eye that's supposed to be blocking it, even when sitting directly aligned with the TV. I hear the 4K passive 3DTV solves this issue however, and would like to see it firsthand.

Originally Posted by gafool

3D was meh, but movie was good! turned off the 3D half way cause it was as the review said boring, but nonetheless good movie

Actually, the 2nd half onward is when the 3D actually improves a bit. Definitely tune in for the 3D in the final act in outer space especially.

Originally Posted by dartfrog298

I haven't watched my copy yet, I hope to tonight. Anyway, If the 3D is as mild as most are saying I wonder why they even bother converting it in the first place. In all honesty it pisses me off.

I hear your concern, though this is not mild 3D if comparing it to Green Lantern's 3D, or Star Trek Beyond 3D, or Conan the Barbarian 3D, Clash of the Titans 3D, or Deathly Hallows Part 2 3D, etc. If you watch those films, much of them have mild 3D with hardly any separation of the layers. It's not as solid as the Force Awakens 3D conversion however but in the 2nd half, there are more shots that look high medium and even a few strong 3D shots.

Forest Whitaker, in the early trailers, had a bald head, while in the reshoots, he has a full head of hair, evidence that reshoots were made later and could have affected the time Stereo D had to convert those shots on a short schedule.

[Suntory_Times]

^ yeah man, 3d without ghosting on a dlp is simply unmatched (besides by maybe vr headsets, but probably not yet). Cinemas using polarized dlps do get crosstalk which is a result of angled viewing. I tend to watch films on my 65 vt60, and it has some mild crosstalk issues. But when I feel like the big screen experience and I use my w7000 (dlp projector using dlp link for the 3d glasses), there is absolutely no crosstalk in anything. I have watched countless films and even put black on white 3d on it, and no ghosting/crosstalk ever.

I watched this again. This is mostly lower medium with some upper medium shoots, until the final act where it is upper medium with some strong shoots. Overall a film which is notably better in 3d, but it isn't going to enthrall people who have not yet been sold on 3d like I feel TFA could.

[nycomet]

^^^^^

My projector set is DLP with DLP link 3D glasses. No crosstalk/ghosting ever.

I am reading mixed reviews about the 3D quality in Rogue One. I guess I am one of the lucky few who is seeing a very good overall 3D presentation. I will credit my set up and the big size screen in my home theater.

Sure, the 3D could have -- and should have -- been a bit stronger. I will say that about every modern 3D movie -- LOL! Still, I am very satisfied with Rogue One's 3D quality, especially during the last third of the movie. For me the story itself is absolutely fantastic.

If I have any gripes, one is when Donnie Yen kept repeating "I am with the force...the force is with me." His mantra seemed a bit silly to me. I also agree with what others here have said about the CGI recreations of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher. They were amazing to see, but there was something "off" about them. I hope that someday this technology will be perfected.

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by Frank@Chicago

Make sure you check out the LG Depth thread to fine tune your 3D experience.

There's a handy chart that lays it out very nicely. Think I'm using -2/+14 for modest boost.

I was under the impression leaving 3D settings at defaults in both television and blu-ray player was the only way to experience the 3D as designed. Is it calibration dependent?

I can no longer find it, but some time ago I turned up a reply from LG in their forum that at least one of those settings--Viewpoint, maybe?--was only intended for use in 2D to 3D mode. In truth, though, none of LG's input on precisely how their settings are to be utilized has ever been consistent or clear.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ yeah man, 3d without ghosting on a dlp is simply unmatched (besides by maybe vr headsets, but probably not yet). Cinemas using polarized dlps do get crosstalk which is a result of angled viewing. I tend to watch films on my 65 vt60, and it has some mild crosstalk issues. But when I feel like the big screen experience and I use my w7000 (dlp projector using dlp link for the 3d glasses), there is absolutely no crosstalk in anything. I have watched countless films and even put black on white 3d on it, and no ghosting/crosstalk ever.

I watched this again. This is mostly lower medium with some upper medium shoots, until the final act where it is upper medium with some strong shoots. Overall a film which is notably better in 3d, but it isn't going to enthrall people who have not yet been sold on 3d like I feel TFA could.

That sounds good, thanks Suntory.

Originally Posted by nycomet

^^^^^

My projector set is DLP with DLP link 3D glasses. No crosstalk/ghosting ever.

I am reading mixed reviews about the 3D quality in Rogue One. I guess I am one of the lucky few who is seeing a very good overall 3D presentation. I will credit my set up and the big size screen in my home theater.

Sure, the 3D could have -- and should have -- been a bit stronger. I will say that about every modern 3D movie -- LOL! Still, I am very satisfied with Rogue One's 3D quality, especially during the last third of the movie. For me the story itself is absolutely fantastic.

If I have any gripes, one is when Donnie Yen kept repeating "I am with the force...the force is with me." His mantra seemed a bit silly to me. I also agree with what others here have said about the CGI recreations of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher. They were amazing to see, but there was something "off" about them. I hope that someday this technology will be perfected.

Sounds like you have a great 3D theater set up, NYComet.

Yes, Donnie Yen's character saying that is a bit comical, though I see what you're saying about it being over the top. He's either doing some very wishful thinking, or he really does have some sense of Force perception to a small degree. For him to repeat it so often, suggests he either has trouble concentrating or needs to keep convincing himself of it as if he's out of practice or doubtful/not fully sure of himself.

There are movies that have perfect 3D IMO, with consistently strong 3D in most shots, like classic film 3D, an NWave 3D movie, etc.

How would you compare Rogue One's 3D to Force Awakens' 3D? Which would you say is stronger 3D overall? Thanks.

And I agree, it was great to see Gran Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) again in Rogue One in some form, along with Vader.

[Show spoiler]Leia was a neat surprise though it was slightly distracting with the animation and smile she made.

[Frank@Chicago]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

I was under the impression leaving 3D settings at defaults in both television and blu-ray player was the only way to experience the 3D as designed. Is it calibration dependent?

I don't have calibration tools, but they do exist and are used by other posters here.

The need (or lack of need) to make display adjustment may depend on the efficiency of your 3D BD player (see the LG Depth thread for more details).

My goal was to take a movie with allegedly pointless 3D (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and see if I could make the 1.85 3D more relevant with display adjustments.

Using -2/+14, I felt like the 3D was very good and present in the moments of the movie.

I'm going to watch Rogue One 3D tomorrow and will report back on that.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Sounds like you have a great 3D theater set up, NYComet.

There are movies that have perfect 3D IMO, with consistently strong 3D in most shots, like classic film 3D, an NWave 3D movie, etc.

How would you compare Rogue One's 3D to Force Awakens' 3D? Which would you say is stronger 3D overall? Thanks.

And I agree, it was great to see Gran Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) again in Rogue One in some form, along with Vader.

[Show spoiler]Leia was a neat surprise though it was slightly distracting with the animation and smile she made.

Hey there Zivouhr,

I would rate the 3D quality in The Force Awakens as noticeably better than in Rogue One. The Force Awakens also offers a brighter, cleaner image quality with consistently better contrast than Rogue One. Rogue One seems a little "murky" in a few scenes, especially in the first third of the movie. The image gets much better (just as does the 3D intensity) as the movie progresses.

As much as I was blown away by The Force Awakens, I was equally blown away by Rogue One. But that might be because I am a huge Star Wars fan. I was a little disappointed by the prequel trilogy, so The Force Awakens was a huge step up after episodes I, II and III. For me, even Rogue One is more satisfying than the prequel trilogy.

At the end of Rogue One it would have been better had

[Show spoiler]Princess Leia not smirked

when her face was revealed.

I watched a bunch of Rogue One special features. Good stuff -- not to be missed.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

I was under the impression leaving 3D settings at defaults in both television and blu-ray player was the only way to experience the 3D as designed. Is it calibration dependent?

I can no longer find it, but some time ago I turned up a reply from LG in their forum that at least one of those settings--Viewpoint, maybe?--was only intended for use in 2D to 3D mode. In truth, though, none of LG's input on precisely how their settings are to be utilized has ever been consistent or clear.

I don't mess with the depth settings on my LG passive set, but I have adjusted for brightness and contrast. I used the AVS calibration disc (with the TV set to 2D>3D mode and wearing 3D glasses) to set the brightness levels and contrast, then adjusted the colors slightly to compensate for the slight color shift in the glasses.

Generally, people shouldn't mess with the depth settings unless they know what they're doing, since they can make the 3D image look worse. Leaving it at default shows the 3D as intended on the disc.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by dartfrog298

I haven't watched my copy yet, I hope to tonight. Anyway, If the 3D is as mild as most are saying I wonder why they even bother converting it in the first place. In all honesty it pisses me off.

It's not as mild as people are saying. As I posted earlier, everyone seems to perceive 3D differently, so reviews are worthless when it comes to 3D anyways. If you're interested, see it in 3D and judge for yourself. IMO, it's nowhere close to the 50's films, but most films aren't these days. It's still a capable conversion and has what I consider decent depth. I consider the 3D a benefit to the film. They did play it safe and there are better 3D films out there. My Bloody Valentine is better and that is one of the earlier 3D films to come out in the new generation of 3D films.

[Breakspear]

Just finished rewatching the film in 3D. Felt just like I did after seeing it in 3D theatrically - nothing amazing but worth watching in the format. Definitely had the potential to push it more.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by nycomet

Hey there Zivouhr,

I would rate the 3D quality in The Force Awakens as noticeably better than in Rogue One. The Force Awakens also offers a brighter, cleaner image quality with consistently better contrast than Rogue One. Rogue One seems a little "murky" in a few scenes, especially in the first third of the movie. The image gets much better (just as does the 3D intensity) as the movie progresses.

As much as I was blown away by The Force Awakens, I was equally blown away by Rogue One. But that might be because I am a huge Star Wars fan. I was a little disappointed by the prequel trilogy, so The Force Awakens was a huge step up after episodes I, II and III. For me, even Rogue One is more satisfying than the prequel trilogy.

At the end of Rogue One it would have been better had

[Show spoiler]Princess Leia not smirked

when her face was revealed.

I watched a bunch of Rogue One special features. Good stuff -- not to be missed.

Thanks a lot NY Comet. I agree and the special features are great too, yes.
I'm a life long Star Wars fan also, so to see Star Wars make a big return onscreen is great. Definitely enjoyed Rogue One and Force Awakens for their stories and the 3D as well. Can't wait to see what happens with Luke's story in VIII.

Really great we got a 3D release in April instead of mid November this time!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by gafool

3D was meh, but movie was good! turned off the 3D half way cause it was as the review said boring, but nonetheless good movie

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I passed on the 3D version as well. I think 3D is fantastic for movies that really utilize it creatively, like Dr. Strange. But even if people are saying the 3D really "isn't that bad," to me if the film doesn't feel like it was shot with 3D in mind, or the conversion feels like kind of an after-thought, then I'd just assume watch it in 2D, as I feel like this is the intended way to see the film.

Watching Rogue One 3D's 2.39:1 ratio on an OLED 65" 3D passive UHD is a very satisfying 3D experience.
The movie resolves full high definition detail with extremely comfortable eye-focus in viewing object spacial separation and terrestrial distances.
No complaints here.

[bud_brigman]

I watched the two Vader sequences because I didn't have enough time to watch the film, but the 3D seemed better than I remember in the theater.

The only thing was on Mustafar, when Vader's back is to the viewer and he's in the foreground his cloak seemed to be a "pop out." I think it was just a trick of the eyes, because of the letter boxing bars also being black. It was weird though. I'll need to watch it again.

[Frank@Chicago]

I'm about 40 minutes in, PQ and 3D are great so far. I don't get all the negativity.

They're not pushing​ pop-outs, but other than that everything looks great.

FA 3D wasn't​ perfect either.

[dartfrog298]

I watched last night on my 60UH8500 without HDR and the 3D was not that bad. In fact I found it pretty decent. My only complaint was the "Murky" look of the PQ. Also I did not care for the backgrounds being out of focus for most the movie. And as far as the movie itself, I was very disappointed. It just did not hold my interest. It just didn't seem like a Star Wars movie to me. I will watch it again in a month or so on my 65UH8500 with HDR and see if maybe I have a different opinion.

[Frank@Chicago]

OK, just finished. No complaints about PQ or 3D. Movie was pretty good.

CG characters looked very fake, surprised they couldn't have done better.

IMAX 3D scenes would have been amazing, still a good 3D movie though.