X-Men: Apocalypse 3D Blu-ray (2016) [Region Locked / Free]

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jbug

Zivouhr, to be honest I don't remember noticing the effect in 3D. I do know that the 3D blu ray will look better than the theater presentation.

Thanks. I got to see it and the ending looks very good in 3D, along with the scene with the big tan cloud of dust.

[EVERRET]

We went to see this on Friday and had a great time . The theater was packed but the crowd was totally into the movie , it helped make it the most fun we have had at the movies since Star Wars.

The movie was much better than I expected and the 3D was above average to strong throughout with great depth and pop outs here and there. It's only May , but this will jump to the top of my overall list for 3D movies this year.

It's pretty rare to have most of audience applaud after a movie , but this was one of those times and i was glad to be a part of it.

It helps that we watched this at a Cinemark XD Theater with a 75 foot screen that was very bright and very loud , The only thing that comes close to this is IMAX screens.

Don't read this next article if you have not seen the movie - spoilers -
It covers most of the reasons... that i can think of... why this movie is so good.

8 Reasons Why X-Men: Apocalypse Is The Best Instalment In The Franchise To Date - http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/8...chise-to-date/

[levcore]

I haven't seen an X-Men movie in cinemas since X-Men 2. I'll buy this on 3D blu ray day one for the 3D and the action but I really think this franchise is pretty awful. All of the movies are mediocre, although The Wolverine was ok. I hated Days of Future Past, so boring. Here's hoping that Apocalypse has at least more action than that one.

[Zivouhr]

Thanks Everett for the 3D info. Glad you enjoyed it. I agree that the mostly filmed 3D was very good.

Originally Posted by levcore

I haven't seen an X-Men movie in cinemas since X-Men 2. I'll buy this on 3D blu ray day one for the 3D and the action but I really think this franchise is pretty awful. All of the movies are mediocre, although The Wolverine was ok. I hated Days of Future Past, so boring. Here's hoping that Apocalypse has at least more action than that one.

Levcore, if you go in not wanting action but story first, it's a good movie, but otherwise, you'll be very disappointed if you're looking for more action in Apocalypse, as there is hardly any combat action other than Wolverine for about a minute. The rest is mostly situational, event action using their powers to provoke or prevent something. There are a couple brief fights to swat away the enemy for a second, but nothing very sustained. On the other hand, I think you might enjoy the 3D if you liked it in Days of Future Past. Good comparison.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks Everett for the 3D info. Glad you enjoyed it. I agree that the mostly filmed 3D was very good.



Levcore, if you go in not wanting action but story first, it's a good movie, but otherwise, you'll be very disappointed if you're looking for more action in Apocalypse, as there is hardly any combat action other than Wolverine for about a minute. The rest is mostly situational, event action using their powers to provoke or prevent something. There are a couple brief fights to swat away the enemy for a second, but nothing very sustained. On the other hand, I think you might enjoy the 3D if you liked it in Days of Future Past. Good comparison.

Thanks Zivouhr. The only parts I liked in DOFP were the Quicksilver sequence (best scene in the movie) and parts of the finale, although to be honest DOFP felt VERY light on action. Like I said i'll buy Apocalypse on 3D blu day one to support 3D blu ray sales but I have very low expectations for the movie based on the previous entries and the director involed.

[Jay Ellis]

Yeah DOFP was very plot heavy with little action. That's one of the few criticisms I have of that movie (although I still rank it as one of the best of the series, along with First Class).

[dogofwar]

This was pretty terrific, the movie was fun and the use of 3D was great. There were some breath taking scenes, tremendous use of 3D. Add this with Captain and hopefully Marvel is stepping it up with their 3D.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

Yeah DOFP was very plot heavy with little action. That's one of the few criticisms I have of that movie (although I still rank it as one of the best of the series, along with First Class).

Originally Posted by levcore

Thanks Zivouhr. The only parts I liked in DOFP were the Quicksilver sequence (best scene in the movie) and parts of the finale, although to be honest DOFP felt VERY light on action. Like I said i'll buy Apocalypse on 3D blu day one to support 3D blu ray sales but I have very low expectations for the movie based on the previous entries and the director involed.

He's here again and it's an equally good 3D scene.
I would also like to see more action in the series to balance out the dialog but Singer or the writers are against it.

Originally Posted by dogofwar

This was pretty terrific, the movie was fun and the use of 3D was great. There were some breath taking scenes, tremendous use of 3D. Add this with Captain and hopefully Marvel is stepping it up with their 3D.

The camera work was great, I agree, and a compliment to the 3D in many shots.

[TravelSteveR]

I enjoyed it very much. After reading some not-very-promising reviews, I was worried, but as it turns out, it was a good film. I loved the Ancient Egypt opening (and the travel through time credits), and the 3D was good--especially during the Quicksilver sequence (a high-point of the film for me). The beginning reminded me of Stargate, one of my favorite films (and one I wish would be remade in 3D. I've liked the X-Men films better than some of the other Marvel entries (Sorry, but I hated Avengers: Age of Ultron (too much action in that one from the very beginning--for me it became overkill). This one has more action than Days of Future Past. I'll get it on 3D Blu-ray when it comes out.

Steve

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

As far as Paul W.S. Anderson, Bryan Singer, and Ridley Scott's 3D in their films (which I didn't lump them all into only "mild 3D")

[Show spoiler]

, they push the 3D more during the action scenes, but tend to reduce the 3D effect during many of the dialog scenes to be more specific, which back in the earlier days of 3D, most of the film has consistently strong 3D instead of just saving it for the action parts. On that topic:

Mseeley, I know you tend to see the positive in most 3D that you see, but would you agree on the following?
This difference between 3D layers: || (mild 3D layering)
Can't compare to this difference: |_____| (strong 3D layering)
Agree, disagree? I'll give specific 3D shots in the films if you want.
Have you seen the strong filmed 3D of Creature from the Black Lagoon?

[Show spoiler]
No big deal, but to keep things in perspective about what mild vs strong 3D looks like, compare Hugo's filmed 3D from Scorsese or Flying Swords of Dragon Gate's filmed 3D and then watch Pompeii's filmed 3D or X-Men Days of Future Past' filmed 3D. There is room for improvement in many 3D shots of the latter two and the 3D could be much more exciting if the stereographer was more daring with the 3D as they were during the action scenes. The Bubble has consistently strong filmed 3D and is a vintage 3D film for example. Watch that one, then watch Pompeii's 3D. Most of Pompeii's 3D up until the grand finale' is mild in comparison to the stronger 3D of The Bubble. If not, then we're not watching the same movies.

Mild 3D is preventing new 3D fans from getting excited about 3D in general. The more stronger 3D films we push for and demand, the better the reception to 3D can be. That's why those comparisons are important.

Strong 3D Layering: (quick examples)
Turtle's Tale 2/Thunder and the House of Magic: Strong 3D
Pacific Rim: Strong 3D
Legend of Hercules: Mostly strong 3D
Jurassic Park 3D: Mostly strong 3D till the final act, then medium.
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate: Mostly strong 3D.
Hugo: Mostly strong 3D.
Kung Fu Panda 3: Mostly strong 3D with some medium 3D layers.
Creature from the Black Lagoon: Strong 3D.
The Bubble: Strong 3D.
3-D Rarities: Mostly strong 3D, some medium 3D.
Gog 3D: Mostly strong 3D
House of Wax: Mostly strong 3D, some medium 3D layering.
Madagascar 3 3D: Mostly strong 3D.
Journey to the Center of the Earth: Mostly strong 3D layering. Some med.
Open Season: Strong 3D
Avatar: Mostly strong 3D but a lot of medium and some mild 3D to be fair.
Drive Angry: Strong 3D.

vs

Mild 3D Layering:
Amazing Spider-Man 3D (mostly mild 3D and action had stronger 3D)
Pompeii 3D (mostly mild, then medium and some stronger 3D by the end)
Ratchet & Clank: Mostly mild 3D with some low medium 3D.
Tron Legacy: Mild 3D
Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows 2: Mild 3D
Green Lantern: Mild 3D
Underworld Awakening: Mild 3D mostly.
Clash of the Titans 3D: Mild 3D and poor conversion.
Predator 3D: Mild 3D.
Hotel Transylvania: Mild 3D.
Monster House 3D: Mostly mild, but some medium 3D.

Mostly mild 3D movies have their moments, but can't compare to the more consistently strong 3D of Pacific Rim or Turtle's Tale 2 for example. Comparing them to other current 3D movies is where you'll see the differences when being realistic about strong, medium and mild 3D ranges.

I never meant to lump you personally into the camp of people that complain about mild 3d, and If I came across as harsh or insulting it was not my intent and I apologize.


I agree that mild 3d can't compare to strong 3d and that strong 3d for all movies should be the end goal of the industry. However, isn't it disingenuous to to say that medium range 3d movies appear as mild 3d in comparison to vintage 3d movies? Vintage 3d movies after all were made with a go for broke mentality in regards to interaxials and parallax due to less control from film based 3d cameras that had a strong chance of not working properly. So in that sense, directors didn't truly have full control over how they wanted their films to look in 3d, so the format was never fully allowed to mature as an artistic tool like we have today.

And granted I haven't seen the Bubble or much vintage 3d, but obviously Pompeii is going to look like mild 3d in comparison compared to the vintage 3d image. I just don't think it's accurate or fair saying a medium range 3d film has mild looking 3d when compared to vintage 3d movie. I definitely would notice the depth difference if I was going to compare both vintage and medium 3d, but I would never say the medium range 3d movie looks mild in comparison.

And people get their torches and pitchforks ready when they hear the words "artistic 3d" or "I dialed down the 3d for audience comfort" and I have to say both are completely valid ways to create and present a film in 3d. I love strong 3d like everyone else and believe it should be the end goal in the creation process, but the truth of the matter is not everyone can handle strong 3d and we need these other expressions of 3d in order to provide presentational variety along with a chance for audiences not accustomed to watching alot of 3d films to get acclimated to the format. I've always loved 3d, but even I had to acclimate myself to the format by watching more and more 3d movies in succession in order to train my eyes. By doing that, I did start to pay more attention to depth levels and how the 3d was being used both artistically and also in terms of the effectiveness of its presentation. I also was able to eliminate mild eye strain for the most part by training my eyes in this way. Now to be fair I've never gotten sick from 3d, but I'm sensitive about audience comfort because my wife can't always enjoy strong 3d movies like I can without it straining her eyes for a bit. She's getting more used to 3d and we're starting to be able to communicate more about how we see 3d and what is or isn't effective, but my overall point is I had to get her used to it with time and we need different 3d depth levels in movies in order to get everybody on the bandwagon with stronger level 3d movies. And I also believe the industry is listening to the demand for more and more high quality 3d experiences as the 3d post conversions of late have become truly exceptional quickly over the course of 6 years, which is an amazing pace considering how badly Prime Focus got screwed over with having to rush Clash of the Titans.

And I do agree with most of your strong 3d ratings for movies you've listed and I've seen a pretty large amount of them. I disagree with the mild ratings for Underworld and Pompeii. Last time I watched Underworld I remember it had very pleasant and pleasing 3d that had a good range of medium to strong shots from what I remember with my own eyes (The fight with the Super-Lycant in the vampire stronghold had great high medium to strong 3d in my opinion). Pompeii was mostly medium all the way through for me and the 3d did get stronger for the finale and looked amazing.


Tron: Legacy I'm not even gonna try and argue about anymore since my opinion on the 3d in that movie is already known and is a viewpoint that doesn't have much traction here anyway.

So yeah, I do see 3d differently, but I don't blindly dismiss mild 3d either when it does occur. Case in point, I watched Man of Steel in 3d in prep for Batman v. Superman and the 3d in that movie didn't look as good as I remember it when I saw it in Imax 3d on opening weekend and I will readily admit that Batman v. Superman is a very noticeable and eye-popping improvement. MoS's 3d depth tended to be more mild but it wasn't completely paper flat which is what I would qualify as mild 3d in my book. I hope what I'm saying makes sense and isn't coming across as rude.


In terms of the thread topic, I did get around to seeing X-Men: Apocalypse and the 3d looked wonderful. Definitely high-medium to strong throughout and the movie was absolutely worth watching in the format. The movie itself, I felt mixed, underwhelmed, and disappointed at the same time. I honestly feel like I missed something, so I believe I need a do-over.

[Show spoiler]Plus it still annoys me that Wolverine just pops up at Alkali Lake already having undergone the Weapon X procedure, which creates a giant plot hole that doesn't connect to the ending of Days of Future Past at all. Now I get that the time travel theory of Days of Future Past was that time is like a river and that ripples can be made but course-correct themselves over time, which would partially explain Wolvie's predicament in Apocalyspe. I still don't get why they just glossed over the ending of DoFP and didn't provide an explanation for it unless you read interviews or listen to director's commentary (my friend let me know that basically Mystique rescued Wolverine instead of enacting the Weapon X procedure as explained by Bryan Singer in one of the commentary tracks

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by dogofwar

This was pretty terrific, the movie was fun and the use of 3D was great. There were some breath taking scenes, tremendous use of 3D. Add this with Captain and hopefully Marvel is stepping it up with their 3D.

technically every Marvel film ... and I'm pointing the finger at the Disney ones, should strive to this - excellent 3D conversion and a Dolby Atmos mix that is sonically impressive.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by mseeley

3d depth ... wasn't completely paper flat which is what I would qualify as mild 3d in my book.

Completely paper flat is what I would qualify as 2D in my book...

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Completely paper flat is what I would qualify as 2D in my book...

Right. I guess what I meant was when the image looks almost 2D is when I would call it mild 3d. My bad

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I never meant to lump you personally into the camp of people that complain about mild 3d, and If I came across as harsh or insulting it was not my intent and I apologize.


I agree that mild 3d can't compare to strong 3d and that strong 3d for all movies should be the end goal of the industry. However, isn't it disingenuous to to say that medium range 3d movies appear as mild 3d in comparison to vintage 3d movies? Vintage 3d movies after all were made with a go for broke mentality in regards to interaxials and parallax due to less control from film based 3d cameras that had a strong chance of not working properly. So in that sense, directors didn't truly have full control over how they wanted their films to look in 3d, so the format was never fully allowed to mature as an artistic tool like we have today.

[Show spoiler]
And granted I haven't seen the Bubble or much vintage 3d, but obviously Pompeii is going to look like mild 3d in comparison compared to the vintage 3d image. I just don't think it's accurate or fair saying a medium range 3d film has mild looking 3d when compared to vintage 3d movie. I definitely would notice the depth difference if I was going to compare both vintage and medium 3d, but I would never say the medium range 3d movie looks mild in comparison.

And people get their torches and pitchforks ready when they hear the words "artistic 3d" or "I dialed down the 3d for audience comfort" and I have to say both are completely valid ways to create and present a film in 3d. I love strong 3d like everyone else and believe it should be the end goal in the creation process, but the truth of the matter is not everyone can handle strong 3d and we need these other expressions of 3d in order to provide presentational variety along with a chance for audiences not accustomed to watching alot of 3d films to get acclimated to the format. I've always loved 3d, but even I had to acclimate myself to the format by watching more and more 3d movies in succession in order to train my eyes. By doing that, I did start to pay more attention to depth levels and how the 3d was being used both artistically and also in terms of the effectiveness of its presentation. I also was able to eliminate mild eye strain for the most part by training my eyes in this way. Now to be fair I've never gotten sick from 3d, but I'm sensitive about audience comfort because my wife can't always enjoy strong 3d movies like I can without it straining her eyes for a bit. She's getting more used to 3d and we're starting to be able to communicate more about how we see 3d and what is or isn't effective, but my overall point is I had to get her used to it with time and we need different 3d depth levels in movies in order to get everybody on the bandwagon with stronger level 3d movies. And I also believe the industry is listening to the demand for more and more high quality 3d experiences as the 3d post conversions of late have become truly exceptional quickly over the course of 6 years, which is an amazing pace considering how badly Prime Focus got screwed over with having to rush Clash of the Titans.

And I do agree with most of your strong 3d ratings for movies you've listed and I've seen a pretty large amount of them. I disagree with the mild ratings for Underworld and Pompeii. Last time I watched Underworld I remember it had very pleasant and pleasing 3d that had a good range of medium to strong shots from what I remember with my own eyes (The fight with the Super-Lycant in the vampire stronghold had great high medium to strong 3d in my opinion). Pompeii was mostly medium all the way through for me and the 3d did get stronger for the finale and looked amazing.


Tron: Legacy I'm not even gonna try and argue about anymore since my opinion on the 3d in that movie is already known and is a viewpoint that doesn't have much traction here anyway.

So yeah, I do see 3d differently, but I don't blindly dismiss mild 3d either when it does occur. Case in point, I watched Man of Steel in 3d in prep for Batman v. Superman and the 3d in that movie didn't look as good as I remember it when I saw it in Imax 3d on opening weekend and I will readily admit that Batman v. Superman is a very noticeable and eye-popping improvement. MoS's 3d depth tended to be more mild but it wasn't completely paper flat which is what I would qualify as mild 3d in my book. I hope what I'm saying makes sense and isn't coming across as rude.

In terms of the thread topic, I did get around to seeing X-Men: Apocalypse and the 3d looked wonderful. Definitely high-medium to strong throughout and the movie was absolutely worth watching in the format. The movie itself, I felt mixed, underwhelmed, and disappointed at the same time. I honestly feel like I missed something, so I believe I need a do-over.

[Show spoiler]Plus it still annoys me that Wolverine just pops up at Alkali Lake already having undergone the Weapon X procedure, which creates a giant plot hole that doesn't connect to the ending of Days of Future Past at all. Now I get that the time travel theory of Days of Future Past was that time is like a river and that ripples can be made but course-correct themselves over time, which would partially explain Wolvie's predicament in Apocalyspe. I still don't get why they just glossed over the ending of DoFP and didn't provide an explanation for it unless you read interviews or listen to director's commentary (my friend let me know that basically Mystique rescued Wolverine instead of enacting the Weapon X procedure as explained by Bryan Singer in one of the commentary tracks

The Wolverine scene was welcome since it was one of the rare action scenes, though I see what you're saying about how it connected to the story. The movie wasn't too exciting IMO, but I still liked it in general and was entertained. That's actually how I felt about Batman vs Superman.

3D:
Mseeley, no need to apologize as you have the right to your view. I don't get offended easily so it's cool. I actually enjoy a good debate as I tend to learn more.

As far as comparing any movie to strong 3D, whether made yesterday or 100 years ago, it's all comparable, since 3D can only get so strong before it enters the realm of extreme 3D. I see what you mean by a range to account for those new to 3D, though the eyes are faster to adapt if sitting farther back to reduce the degree to converge the two images into one.

The fact we've gotten a good number of strong modern 3D films proves today's 3D can be just as strong as vintage 3D, regardless of the 3D equipment and skill.

Mild 3D, like the lines on a measuring stick, is a measurement of 3D, though measuring it without accurate tools or options is where the opinions arise. What is it being compared to and how is it gauged in the theater?

Here is a 3D examples I put together to explain the ranges of mild, medium, strong and the rare extreme 3D.

3DrangetestanaglyphB2.jpg
Anaglyph 3D:
If you have red/cyan glasses, you can see the Flat 2D, mild 3D, medium 3D, strong 3D and extreme 3D. Extreme 3D is pushing 3D too far for most eyes.
These are just the main ranges, not counting very mild, mild, low medium, medium, high medium, strong, very strong 3D.
Here's a link to a lot more examples:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=278703

Should every 3D movie aim for strong 3D? Medium 3D is good, but imagine if every new movie ever made from this point forward had mild, barely there 3D? People would stop seeing 3D movies altogether if the effect was barely there.

On topic, again, I was pleased with the 3D in X-Men Apocalypse. Medium and some strong 3D. Hardly any mild 3D noticed. Medium and strong 3D are good things, and mild is fine during rare, distance scenery shots.
Mild 3D in much of Man of Steel on the other hand, or Tron Legacy, not the kind 3D I want to see too often.

[Show spoiler]
Tron Legacy may have nice depth going into the screen (easily achieved by converging/cropping any two flat duplicate film clips in a 3D editor), but the 3D layers are mostly mild for much of the film, with barely any separation compared to the strong 3D forest of Avatar for example.

Just imagine if they pushed the 3D to the 3D strength of the shot where the Tron Game Keeper walks up to each program and says "Games, games" before that guy jumps off into the pit in retaliation, as Sam learns his fate in the games. That was strong 3D in that shot, probably because the 3D camera was set at a mild 3D default (set it and forget it) and it was a close up shot, so the mild setting for most shots ended up looking stronger since the objects/characters were so close to the 3D eyes of the camera.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

The Wolverine scene was welcome since it was one of the rare action scenes, though I see what you're saying about how it connected to the story. The movie wasn't too exciting IMO, but I still liked it in general and was entertained. That's actually how I felt about Batman vs Superman.

3D:
Mseeley, no need to apologize as you have the right to your view. I don't get offended easily so it's cool. I actually enjoy a good debate as I tend to learn more.

As far as comparing any movie to strong 3D, whether made yesterday or 100 years ago, it's all comparable, since 3D can only get so strong before it enters the realm of extreme 3D. I see what you mean by a range to account for those new to 3D, though the eyes are faster to adapt if sitting farther back to reduce the degree to converge the two images into one.

The fact we've gotten a good number of strong modern 3D films proves today's 3D can be just as strong as vintage 3D, regardless of the 3D equipment and skill.

Mild 3D, like the lines on a measuring stick, is a measurement of 3D, though measuring it without accurate tools or options is where the opinions arise. What is it being compared to and how is it gauged in the theater?

Here is a 3D examples I put together to explain the ranges of mild, medium, strong and the rare extreme 3D.

Attachment 143966
Anaglyph 3D:
If you have red/cyan glasses, you can see the Flat 2D, mild 3D, medium 3D, strong 3D and extreme 3D. Extreme 3D is pushing 3D too far for most eyes.
These are just the main ranges, not counting very mild, mild, low medium, medium, high medium, strong, very strong 3D.
Here's a link to a lot more examples:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=278703

Should every 3D movie aim for strong 3D? Medium 3D is good, but imagine if every new movie ever made from this point forward had mild, barely there 3D? People would stop seeing 3D movies altogether if the effect was barely there.

On topic, again, I was pleased with the 3D in X-Men Apocalypse. Medium and some strong 3D. Hardly any mild 3D noticed. Medium and strong 3D are good things, and mild is fine during rare, distance scenery shots.
Mild 3D in much of Man of Steel on the other hand, or Tron Legacy, not the kind 3D I want to see too often.

[Show spoiler]
Tron Legacy may have nice depth going into the screen (easily achieved by converging/cropping any two flat duplicate film clips in a 3D editor), but the 3D layers are mostly mild for much of the film, with barely any separation compared to the strong 3D forest of Avatar for example.

Just imagine if they pushed the 3D to the 3D strength of the shot where the Tron Game Keeper walks up to each program and says "Games, games" before that guy jumps off into the pit in retaliation, as Sam learns his fate in the games. That was strong 3D in that shot, probably because the 3D camera was set at a mild 3D default (set it and forget it) and it was a close up shot, so the mild setting for most shots ended up looking stronger since the objects/characters were so close to the 3D eyes of the camera.

It's interesting that you mention the games keeper shot (which is definitely strong 3d like you mentioned) but that they may have had the mild 3d setting as default. Viewing that shot tonight while revisiting the movie in 3d makes me think otherwise. On one hand, I can see why the camera may have been set at default mild setting and still achieved a strong 3d effect. If that was the case, it would be very similar to the 3d camera of the Nintendo 3ds which gives you much stronger and voluminous 3d shots the closer your subject is the to foreground.

On the other hand I don't think the default 3d setting of the shot was mild, because as I kept looking further back into the screen the roundness and volume of characters in the background was still there. My 3ds camera at it's default setting could never give roundness to background elements like that unless it had stronger 3d settings or options like the native 3d fusion-pace rig must've had for Tron Legacy.

And I see what you're getting at with your 3d layer example chart, which does generally coincide with how I've perceived 3d layers at times, which makes this evaluation of Tron Legacy's 3D all the more tricky.

One of the best aspects of Tron Legacy 3D for me is an approach I rarely see in 3d movies that came out after it: Utilizing tracking shots of foreground elements like light cycles and other objects in motion in such a way as to enchance the depth of the background. I think the Light cycle grid battle has some fantastic examples of this with some viscerally immersive shots of light cycles flying behind the viewer into the foreground of the frame and zooming into the background which gives an immediate sensation of space. The film also makes aggressive use of "digital" lens flares more so than I remember and they are always protruding out the screen, so even if the the 3d shot isn't always strong, the flares still pull you into the 3d element imo. And the film also utilizes alot more popouts than the film gets credit for beyond the famous Disc Wars popout. On recent viewing I noticed a lot of debris flecks come out of the screen during the battle sequences especially during vehicle crashes or combatant deaths.

And this leads me to my final point: the film overall is what I'd classify as mixed 3d. There are mild shots, but then there are also a fair amount of shots that are at least lower medium to higher, and the jumbling of all these styles is why I think the 3d overall gets underlooked. I never once thought I should be watching the movie in 2D instead and I love how atmospheric the use of 3D and how well it marries to the setting of the Grid.

And in regards to the 3D Strength forum link, I agree with Interdimensional's comment that it's overly simplistic to judge 3d by image separation alone, mainly because there are 3d movies that I've seen that don't have much image separation when I take off the glasses, but when I put them back on I find more often than not that the 3d image is stronger than the separation suggests. And there are 3d shots too that I've seen that have strong image separation but that don't look completely round or 3d when I put the glasses on.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

[Show spoiler]It's interesting that you mention the games keeper shot (which is definitely strong 3d like you mentioned) but that they may have had the mild 3d setting as default. Viewing that shot tonight while revisiting the movie in 3d makes me think otherwise. On one hand, I can see why the camera may have been set at default mild setting and still achieved a strong 3d effect. If that was the case, it would be very similar to the 3d camera of the Nintendo 3ds which gives you much stronger and voluminous 3d shots the closer your subject is the to foreground.

On the other hand I don't think the default 3d setting of the shot was mild, because as I kept looking further back into the screen the roundness and volume of characters in the background was still there. My 3ds camera at it's default setting could never give roundness to background elements like that unless it had stronger 3d settings or options like the native 3d fusion-pace rig must've had for Tron Legacy.

And I see what you're getting at with your 3d layer example chart, which does generally coincide with how I've perceived 3d layers at times, which makes this evaluation of Tron Legacy's 3D all the more tricky.

One of the best aspects of Tron Legacy 3D for me is an approach I rarely see in 3d movies that came out after it: Utilizing tracking shots of foreground elements like light cycles and other objects in motion in such a way as to enchance the depth of the background. I think the Light cycle grid battle has some fantastic examples of this with some viscerally immersive shots of light cycles flying behind the viewer into the foreground of the frame and zooming into the background which gives an immediate sensation of space. The film also makes aggressive use of "digital" lens flares more so than I remember and they are always protruding out the screen, so even if the the 3d shot isn't always strong, the flares still pull you into the 3d element imo. And the film also utilizes alot more popouts than the film gets credit for beyond the famous Disc Wars popout. On recent viewing I noticed a lot of debris flecks come out of the screen during the battle sequences especially during vehicle crashes or combatant deaths.

And this leads me to my final point: the film overall is what I'd classify as mixed 3d. There are mild shots, but then there are also a fair amount of shots that are at least lower medium to higher, and the jumbling of all these styles is why I think the 3d overall gets underlooked. I never once thought I should be watching the movie in 2D instead and I love how atmospheric the use of 3D and how well it marries to the setting of the Grid.

And in regards to the 3D Strength forum link, I agree with Interdimensional's comment that it's overly simplistic to judge 3d by image separation alone, mainly because there are 3d movies that I've seen that don't have much image separation when I take off the glasses, but when I put them back on I find more often than not that the 3d image is stronger than the separation suggests.

And there are 3d shots too that I've seen that have strong image separation but that don't look completely round or 3d when I put the glasses on.

Thanks for the reply Mseeley.
When I'm on the main 3D menu screen, that is the kind of 3D I wish Tron Legacy 3D had throughout the whole movie. To me, that is closer to medium and strong 3D in contrast to the tamer 3D of much of the film. Unfortunately, the first person view of that light cycle going through the grid was made only for the menu and not the film itself.

One perfect example of mild 3D in my view, is when the Recognizers (flying machines with two legs) are flying past the screen into the distance shortly after Sam enters the grid. Would you say that was mild or strong 3D?

As far as measuring 3D layers by double image separation, that's just one of several methods mentioned, and the best way to judge it is by determining if the foreground object has very little separation (indicating the post editing of the 3D converged the 3D to push it back into the screen, otherwise by default, it may have been sticking out of the screen.
So if that foreground character was nearly flat with very limited double image separation, yet the mid and background had stronger double image separation, that's still an indication of strong 3D. ) That's just my point of view though, and it's perfectly fine to see it from yours at the same time, since it's not always easy to discuss and compare 3D without actual examples in front of us.

On topic, what was your favorite 3D shot in X-Men Apocalypse?

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks for the reply Mseeley.
When I'm on the main 3D menu screen, that is the kind of 3D I wish Tron Legacy 3D had throughout the whole movie. To me, that is closer to medium and strong 3D in contrast to the tamer 3D of much of the film. Unfortunately, the first person view of that light cycle going through the grid was made only for the menu and not the film itself.

One perfect example of mild 3D in my view, is when the Recognizers (flying machines with two legs) are flying past the screen into the distance shortly after Sam enters the grid. Would you say that was mild or strong 3D?

As far as measuring 3D layers by double image separation, that's just one of several methods mentioned, and the best way to judge it is by determining if the foreground object has very little separation (indicating the post editing of the 3D converged the 3D to push it back into the screen, otherwise by default, it may have been sticking out of the screen.
So if that foreground character was nearly flat with very limited double image separation, yet the mid and background had stronger double image separation, that's still an indication of strong 3D. ) That's just my point of view though, and it's perfectly fine to see it from yours at the same time, since it's not always easy to discuss and compare 3D without actual examples in front of us.

On topic, what was your favorite 3D shot in X-Men Apocalypse?

I agree that the 3d shot of the recognizers flying around in the air at the beginning towards the tower was mild 3d, but at the same time I know some filmmakers think it's more realistic to limit the parallax on flying shots or shots looking over a great distance, so I usually give it a pass on that front (even though I wish they would cheat reality and give us hyper-parallax during those shots which would still create an immersive form of 3d for me)

In terms of favorite 3d shot in Apocalypse, it's tough to say lol. The beginning credits like you have said have amazing 3d, but I might have to say the 3d during the final battle had moments I would probably qualify as favorite shots like the pop-out of Archangel's wing blades

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I agree that the 3d shot of the recognizers flying around in the air at the beginning towards the tower was mild 3d, but at the same time I know some filmmakers think it's more realistic to limit the parallax on flying shots or shots looking over a great distance, so I usually give it a pass on that front (even though I wish they would cheat reality and give us hyper-parallax during those shots which would still create an immersive form of 3d for me)

In terms of favorite 3d shot in Apocalypse, it's tough to say lol. The beginning credits like you have said have amazing 3d, but I might have to say the 3d during the final battle had moments I would probably qualify as favorite shots like the pop-out of Archangel's wing blades

Thanks.
Those were solid 3D scenes, I agree. The 3D in Apocalypse was really nicely done. That ending was really good in 3D too, with all of the wind and dust and stuff flying all over.

[Majin Blu]

Any rumors going around on a release date?

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by reelgeek

Any rumors going around on a release date?

Early September