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

[BleedOrange11]

It's strange that they're so horrified of having too much depth/roundness, but not bothered in the slightest by too little.

[jscoggins]

Large pic of the Best Buy US MetalPak

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

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.

A small gerbil. That was funny, thanks.

And brings up a good point that yes, stereographers can take the point of view of a person's eyes in every shot, but what if we had a movie where every shot was a distance shot of a far off mountain? That would result in a very mild 3D film, so at times, creative decisions have to be made to give us an artificial but necessary sense of 3D from the point of view of an Elephant or a Blue Whale, if they could see in 3D (not sure since their eyes are mostly on the sides of their heads), compared to that of a human or small animal or insect. Otherwise, the point of presenting it in 3D would be defeated in that case as an extreme example.

I can't judge the 3D of film for myself till I see it, but Apes 2 was a very good movie and took its time developing the conflicted characters (Koba especially which was well done about why he felt threatened based on what he saw, and the anger he felt against his enemies), having seen it this week in 2D based on the reviews overall here.

[murbella7]

Not quite, but almost Yawn of the Apes. I am a big fan of all the Apes movies, but I was just a little disappointed with the latest.

The 3D was nice but not eye-gouging, which is the modern way and probably a good thing.

The biggest issue I had was with the CG. The ape bodies were all seemingly badly proportioned. Chimpanzee legs were too short, fur was either too short, too rough or just looked fake. The orangutans were a bit hyper, over the top, floppy, sloppy and mostly just grunted, although their fur looked the best.

I will still buy it on 3D BD, but won't be rushing in to get it until the discounts appear.

[Jay Ellis]

Saw this today. The 3d is fine. Is it the strongest out there? No, but neither is it the weakest I've seen either. The 3d complemented the viewing experience nicely. There were quite a few medium 3d shots in this actually. The cgi was awesome as was the acting and story. This is movie of the year for me so far. I can't wait for the 3d blu-ray release!

[Deciazulado]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D Blu-ray

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D Blu-ray

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D Blu-ray Bust

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by murbella7

Not quite, but almost Yawn of the Apes. I am a big fan of all the Apes movies, but I was just a little disappointed with the latest.

The 3D was nice but not eye-gouging, which is the modern way and probably a good thing.

The biggest issue I had was with the CG. The ape bodies were all seemingly badly proportioned. Chimpanzee legs were too short, fur was either too short, too rough or just looked fake. The orangutans were a bit hyper, over the top, floppy, sloppy and mostly just grunted, although their fur looked the best.

I will still buy it on 3D BD, but won't be rushing in to get it until the discounts appear.

I felt the look of the apes, considering they were standing up and acting more human, was pretty convincing in motion capture and appearance. The first hour took awhile to build up; agreed, though I did like the development of the Kojak ape (spelling, forget his name).

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

Saw this today. The 3d is fine. Is it the strongest out there? No, but neither is it the weakest I've seen either. The 3d complemented the viewing experience nicely. There were quite a few medium 3d shots in this actually. The cgi was awesome as was the acting and story. This is movie of the year for me so far. I can't wait for the 3d blu-ray release!

Glad you liked it. I liked this one better than the first one since we're already underway with the apes' development, plus the world is mostly abandoned by humans.

Originally Posted by Tarek

I am buying some of this summers blockbusters I.E. Amazing spiderman 2/Godzilla and Rise of the Planet Of The Apes for less than 10 bucs all thams to shopkick app http://app.shopkick.com/wr2/3R21J3D-50NLNUO this app is awesome all u have to do is walk in to select stores and scan different products and your earning points towards gift cards

Good deal.

[mredman]

i can now talk about the 3D on this movie. In one word it is BAD very bad. Its one of the worst 3D i have seen. The movie is good. The 3D in this is one of the reasons 3D is not as big as it was like in Avatar days. If 3D only was like Guardians, Edge of Tomorrow,TMNT,TF4 then 3D viewing would be back in the glory days.

[TransAM]

I agree !! This was very disappointing .. I had hoped that 3D would add to the movie but it instead made it much worse..

[Majin Blu]

So, any official word anywhere or guess as to when this is coming out in the U.S.?

[benderal]

Originally Posted by reelgeek

so, any official word anywhere or guess as to when this is coming out in the u.s.?

12/9/14.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by TransAM

I agree !! This was very disappointing .. I had hoped that 3D would add to the movie but it instead made it much worse..

Originally Posted by mredman

i can now talk about the 3D on this movie. In one word it is BAD very bad. Its one of the worst 3D i have seen. The movie is good. The 3D in this is one of the reasons 3D is not as big as it was like in Avatar days. If 3D only was like Guardians, Edge of Tomorrow,TMNT,TF4 then 3D viewing would be back in the glory days.

Hopefully...the 3D blu release will improve your opinions. At least...I'm hoping the 3D presentation on blu will fare better than what people are saying about the theatrical 3d presentation.

[Ray_Rogers]

Can't wait to buy this. Was an extremely awesome sequel and am highly anticipating the third film, which I'm hoping they'll be naming War of the Planet of the Apes.
Extemely worth it! I saw this in 2D in cinemas.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

Hopefully...the 3D blu release will improve your opinions. At least...I'm hoping the 3D presentation on blu will fare better than what people are saying about the theatrical 3d presentation.

I do wonder how much are perceptions rely on the contrast ratio. Contrast substantially increases the depth we perceive in 2d and 3d. I know when I have watched 3d films with mild 3d like Tron Legacy and even heavier 3d like Hugo the amount of 'pop' it has significantly decreases on the cheaper lcd tv's compared to what I am use to (vt60).

Given the best cinemas only have a contrast of around 2000 and many sit around the 500 mark along with poor brightness levels and I really do think mild 3d will suffer moreso then heavy 3d with less then 'capable' displays.

Thoughts?

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I do wonder how much are perceptions rely on the contrast ratio. Contrast substantially increases the depth we perceive in 2d and 3d. I know when I have watched 3d films with mild 3d like Tron Legacy and even heavier 3d like Hugo the amount of 'pop' it has significantly decreases on the cheaper lcd tv's compared to what I am use to (vt60).

Given the best cinemas only have a contrast of around 2000 and many sit around the 500 mark along with poor brightness levels and I really do think mild 3d will suffer moreso then heavy 3d with less then 'capable' displays.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't think there would be a difference between a cheap LCD and a more expensive telly(plasma?), if a pop out is 50 % it will do so on all TVs.

I own one of those "cheap" lcds as I paid just under a $1000 for my 55 inch, and it pops really well, I would stack it against any other expensive telly and I'm sure it would be its equal.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

I wouldn't think there would be a difference between a cheap LCD and a more expensive telly(plasma?), if a pop out is 50 % it will do so on all TVs.

I own one of those "cheap" lcds as I paid just under a $1000 for my 55 inch, and it pops really well, I would stack it against any other expensive telly and I'm sure it would be its equal.

I'm talking about our perception of it though. I'm not suggesting it changes the 3d, just our perception of it. We will perceive more depth with a higher contrast ratio (for both 2d and 3d) therefore it seems logical it would effect how we perceive the 3d presented. The degree of which is what I was interested in hearing others experiences.

Also by cheap I don't mean lcd or plasma. Whilst good plasmas did indeed kill most lcds in this area their are great and horrible tv's in both techs (though I must admit i'm not aware of a 3d ready lcd that compares to the mid or high end plasma contrast at the end of their life). Brightness is an area where lcd may have an advantage which could also help with ones perception of 3d as well.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I'm talking about our perception of it though. I'm not suggesting it changes the 3d, just our perception of it. We will perceive more depth with a higher contrast ratio (for both 2d and 3d) therefore it seems logical it would effect how we perceive the 3d presented. The degree of which is what I was interested in hearing others experiences.

Also by cheap I don't mean lcd or plasma. Whilst good plasmas did indeed kill most lcds in this area their are great and horrible tv's in both techs (though I must admit i'm not aware of a 3d ready lcd that compares to the mid or high end plasma contrast at the end of their life). Brightness is an area where lcd may have an advantage which could also help with ones perception of 3d as well.

Cool, I think I get what your saying.Perception is of course the key to our reality.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I do wonder how much are perceptions rely on the contrast ratio. Contrast substantially increases the depth we perceive in 2d and 3d. I know when I have watched 3d films with mild 3d like Tron Legacy and even heavier 3d like Hugo the amount of 'pop' it has significantly decreases on the cheaper lcd tv's compared to what I am use to (vt60).

Given the best cinemas only have a contrast of around 2000 and many sit around the 500 mark along with poor brightness levels and I really do think mild 3d will suffer moreso then heavy 3d with less then 'capable' displays.

Thoughts?

Higher brightness and contrast ratio would improve the depth perception we get from monocular cues but not binocular ones. Essentially, you would delineate lines and shapes better, but the stereo volume wouldn't change. You'd be able to see the stereo 3D better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_p...Monocular_cues

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Higher brightness and contrast ratio would improve the depth perception we get from monocular cues but not binocular ones. Essentially, you would delineate lines and shapes better, but the stereo volume wouldn't change. You'd be able to see the stereo 3D better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_p...Monocular_cues

Yep, I was more interested to hear peoples experiences and how it relates to more mild vs strong 3d films and if we enjoyed it or not. It probably deserves its own thread though.

I really can't wait to get my hands on this as whilst I didn't see the film in cinemas I did see 3d trailers for it in cinema and the 3d was brilliant (though they may have edited it to push the depth more for the trailers).

[timcat4843]

Saw the 2D version in the theater and thought it was the second best movie of the summer.
Right behind Captain America: The Winter Solider.

I will be picking up the 3D Blu-ray combo.