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

[levcore]

In the UK we don't get this till 10 November! The wait is painful as i missed this in the cinema so i'm getting pretty hyped to see it.

[alexuts2oo4]

Originally Posted by levcore

In the UK we don't get this till 10 November! The wait is painful as i missed this in the cinema so i'm getting pretty hyped to see it.

Why don't you order it from Amazon Germany?

[levcore]

A good suggestion but i'm waiting for the HMV exclusive Steelbook. Something i can only pick up instore in the UK.

[alexuts2oo4]

Oh, ok.

[Taygan315]

Hey.....did anyone get the metalpak from Target. I think the cashier made a mistake, in my favor, ringing it up. Came to $19.20 and I saved $7!!!! I was surprised but elated with that!!!

[bears_t2]

I believe that the metal pack is 17.99 at target but I'm glad ya got it. I'm gonna get my reserved 3D at Best Buy but today.

[Sankar28]

After watching DFP I don't understand why there aren't more directors filming in native 3d...now I have conversions that looked really good (pacific rim) and I still feel the depth perception when filmed in native is fantastic...oh and someone said in this thread that they couldn't get their mind off of the preview for exodus ...I totally agree that preview alone is demo worthy 3d glory...looks great

[Impossible]

My problem with native titles as proved by both X-men and particularly the Exodus preview (and Prometheus for that matter) is the flat faces. They have shape and volume in profile shots, but I don't get why straight/face on shots when it's native, the faces are always flat and yet in good conversions, Edge of Tomorrow for example, all the faces are nice and rounded.

Any experts here have any ideas why this always seems to happen with native titles?

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Someone needs to put the Exodus 3D trailer on youtube 3D. The region B release didn't seem to get it on the X-Men 3D Blu-Ray.

It's on my Italian disc when the disc loads up, but you can't go to it anywhere else on the disc. It's weird!

[thatscifiguy]

This translated great to 3D TV viewing. Loved the same sequences I thought looked good in the theater, plus picked up new appreciation for others thanks to the different scale.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Impossible

My problem with native titles as proved by both X-men and particularly the Exodus preview (and Prometheus for that matter) is the flat faces. They have shape and volume in profile shots, but I don't get why straight/face on shots when it's native, the faces are always flat and yet in good conversions, Edge of Tomorrow for example, all the faces are nice and rounded.

Any experts here have any ideas why this always seems to happen with native titles?

I find the opposite to be true. In some conversions it becomes to much and their is an unnatural space between different parts of the face without enough layers.

If you want to see stronger native 3d on faces check out something like Inferno. Personally I think that is pushing 3d to far but you may like it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Impossible

My problem with native titles as proved by both X-men and particularly the Exodus preview (and Prometheus for that matter) is the flat faces. They have shape and volume in profile shots, but I don't get why straight/face on shots when it's native, the faces are always flat and yet in good conversions, Edge of Tomorrow for example, all the faces are nice and rounded.

Any experts here have any ideas why this always seems to happen with native titles?

At a guess, I'd say it's because you can only converge the cameras so much when shooting, i.e. there are physical limitations to how much depth you can pull with someone's face only a few feet from the lens, especially if you're not looking for a vast amount of depth to begin with (which seems to be the way that people shoot native 3D these days, unlike those ultra-deep dual-strip classics from yesteryear).

And that's what's great IMO about a superb conversion like EoT, they're not hamstrung by what was originally shot and they can develop the depth on the faces (like on those HUGE closeups of Tom Crooze) to an excellent degree. That said, a lot of massaging happens in post with native 3D titles anyway, they don't just shoot it and stick it into the movie, but it seems like the 'flat faces' in DOFP weren't a big concern for the filmmakers.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

At a guess, I'd say it's because you can only converge the cameras so much when shooting, i.e. there are physical limitations to how much depth you can pull with someone's face only a few feet from the lens, especially if you're not looking for a vast amount of depth to begin with (which seems to be the way that people shoot native 3D these days, unlike those ultra-deep dual-strip classics from yesteryear).

And that's what's great IMO about a superb conversion like EoT, they're not hamstrung by what was originally shot and they can develop the depth on the faces (like on those HUGE closeups of Tom Crooze) to an excellent degree. That said, a lot of massaging happens in post with native 3D titles anyway, they don't just shoot it and stick it into the movie, but it seems like the 'flat faces' in DOFP weren't a big concern for the filmmakers.

Looks at Inferno, proceeds to disagree. They can do it, they just choose to not overdo the distance between the layers. Another example of native 3d with pronounced facial features is in Silent Hill Revelation in some parts (in particular the zoom up on young Alessa before she turns into older Alessa). I personally think overdoing the distance between layers on the face is more of a distraction then anything unless it is being used to highlight something or similar.

[Geoff D]

As I said: "UNLIKE those ultra-deep dual-strip classics from yesteryear".

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Impossible

My problem with native titles as proved by both X-men and particularly the Exodus preview (and Prometheus for that matter) is the flat faces. They have shape and volume in profile shots, but I don't get why straight/face on shots when it's native, the faces are always flat and yet in good conversions, Edge of Tomorrow for example, all the faces are nice and rounded.

Any experts here have any ideas why this always seems to happen with native titles?

Feel your pain.
As an enthusiast, I'll tell you what I've learned and discovered, but experimentation with results still does not necessarily make an expert, nor should it. You are the only one who can satisfy your visual expectations.

The good news, for me at least, is that the encode on native 3D Blu-rays have all the information needed for a great satisfying natural 3D experience. Solid spherical rounded form subjects, excellent natural depth and pop-out that mimic the real-world; included. The bad news, and IMO why 3D is not viewed as the greatest improvement since color, is because it's going to cost today to get quality results.
There are several kinds of displays that give excellent 3D rendering, but I'm going to use my Panasonic 65" Plasma VT 25 3D display as a consumer example. It is connected to an Oppo 103 BD player for 3D media movies in my example.

The 3D images/picture on the Plasma are good and acceptable as-is but begs-for-more with native-3D encodes producing a flat comic-book effect.
What I found gave results for my money, satisfaction, making me very happy with what I consider stunning 3D results.
What it took for me to get that natural 3D look with active glasses and the clarity equivalent to 2D high-def images for 3D, took the equivalent of yesteryears cost for a 2D video processor. (Had both Lumegen and DVDO video processors in the past.)

Experimentation: First, "White-papers' describing formulas for"Depth-ques that enhance". This intrigued my interest. Patented algorithms. Enhancement at the individual-pixel-level affecting image depth. A 3 dimensional look described as enhancement for 2D images.

Since the Darblet works well with 3D, I decided to test additional units-in-chain at low level settings, staying away from noticeable artifacts.

To briefly explain a long experiment, it takes four Darblet's connected-in-chain, three calibrated @ 30 Hi-Def, & One, (closest to the display's HDMI input) @ 29 Hi-Def, to reveal the best most vivid natural real-world 3D scenes I've ever experienced. Natural rounded spherical figurations leading into real-world settings inwards and pop-out - out.
IMO, it looks to me that all the Darblet's do when connected in-chain is make present pixel information visible. It works so well, I now have invested in a second experimental set for my 3D headset.
The investment is rewarding to me but I know this will not catch-on until it can be created as an inexpensive chip for consumer displays. This is what IMO is needed for future quality auto-stereo glasses-less display pop-out issues!

[Geoff D]

Jesus Christ, I thought you had three Darblets, now it's four? It's great that you're getting the 3D experience that you want but this is exactly what I was getting at in my post above: how can your comments about whether a 3D movie is good/okay/crap have any bearing on a real-world consumer setup when you're enhancing the living shit out of everything you watch?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As I said: "UNLIKE those ultra-deep dual-strip classics from yesteryear".

What about the moment from Silent Hill Revelation? Do you actually like the effect? I personally find it a but much in films like Inferno.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jesus Christ, I thought you had three Darblets, now it's four? It's great that you're getting the 3D experience that you want but this is exactly what I was getting at in my post above: how can your comments about whether a 3D movie is good/okay/crap have any bearing on a real-world consumer setup when you're enhancing the living shit out of everything you watch?

One Dablet may be fine for subtly 'tweaking' the image. It isn't enhancing it though. Stringing more in a row or setting such a device beyond a very subtle change will only degrade the image completely into something that was not intended by the film makers. I mean if the person wants to do that they can, but it isn't an enhancement and it is no different to setting your tv mode to vivid with how much you will be manipulating the image.

[Geoff D]

Semantics, my man, semantics. I was using the word "enhancement" in a general manner, and if you took it to mean that I actually believe the Darblet "enhances" the image in the positive sense of the word then that was not my intention. I wouldn't touch a Darblet with a ten-meter cattle prod.

As for Silent Hill, never seen it.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Semantics, my man, semantics. I was using the word "enhancement" in a general manner, and if you took it to mean that I actually believe the Darblet "enhances" the image in the positive sense of the word then that was not my intention. I wouldn't touch a Darblet with a ten-meter cattle prod.

As for Silent Hill, never seen it.

Ohh, I was agreeing with you. I meant what I was saying more as an extension of what you where saying. The dablet (singular) is nice when used subtly (sub 30 range) like any video processor.

Regarding Silent Hill Revelation, don't bother. Some excellent 3d, but a horrifically bad film.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jesus Christ, I thought you had three Darblets, now it's four? It's great that you're getting the 3D experience that you want but this is exactly what I was getting at in my post above: how can your comments about whether a 3D movie is good/okay/crap have any bearing on a real-world consumer setup when you're enhancing the living shit out of everything you watch?

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.