Watched this last night on a Sony BDP-S1. At the start I thought the quality was good but by the middle of the film I started questioning the the quality quite a bit. There is noticeable film grain and is generally flat looking. At times I kept thinking this looks like a good DVD which is bad news for a BD title. The rich color and incredible depth normally associated with good HD transfers is just not here... :confused:

I used a Sony Ruby and was outputting 1080p 60Hz using HDMI.

I thought it looked great. I remember a close up of Charles about midway which was pretty awesome.

The entire movie has a very dark, gritty, grey look to it. It's supposed to fit the mood of the film.

What about the sound? Should I expect better audio from this movie over digital optical SPDIF than I would get from the same connection using a DVD? Aren't the bit rates higher even if not using the HD-audio options?

very very good release, I would say reference ;) a perfect example of film :)

Ratner is a favorite director of mine because he uses true Panavision Scope for his movies and they look phenmoninal to me, something I can't say very often for todays films and these "TV commercial" super35 hackjob directors

-Gary

I didn't care for it...

I didn't care for it...

I had problems with the PQ the first time I watched the BD, but on subsequent viewings it actually looks much better.

OK. So I guess my next question is this: How does it sound compared to standard DVD?

I did not care for X3 PQ. I don't remember it being much better then the upconverted SD version. Audio was great though.

Watched this last night on a Sony BDP-S1. At the start I thought the quality was good but by the middle of the film....

I thought that player wasn't out yet. IMO, the film is uneven because of varying amounts of processing. It does go up and down in quality. I think that's inevitable. I'm pretty satidfied with the BD. I've seen the DVD and it's grungy.

I did not care for X3 PQ. I don't remember it being much better then the upconverted SD version. Audio was great though.

The sd dvd is not even in the same area code as this great looking BD...and the theatrical release was at least twice as grainy as the BD....because it was intended to look that way.
This is a reference title.....plain and simple....you just prefer the ultra clean looking films.

I like both...as long as the movies decent.

I dont think this is a reference title by any means. I personally would not rank this as the best of BD, but I consider it good quality.

This is all very subjective and I don't like films that have a stylistic look to begin with. While "X-3 The Last Stand" does not employ this technique liberally it just does not appeal to me and it is rather lack luster on my setup.

How many can spot compression artifacts on X-3? I thought with BD's high bit rate compression artifacts would be a thing of the past.

I just watched this on a 1080p LCD monitor with PS3 as my player and it looked they used every pixel to the fullest in this transfer. I could pause any action sequence, walk up to the screen, and see every pixel filled with unique color infomation. Very sharply transfered movie. Definately better quality then Talladega Nights which comes free with the PS3.

OK I'm eating crow on this one. After a full day of watching different films on the BDP-S1, I have revisited X-Men today and can appreciate this film and what other's have stated about it being a reference disk. As Rachel has stated the quality varies but for the most part it is quite good.

I just watched this on a 1080p LCD monitor with PS3 as my player and it looked they used every pixel to the fullest in this transfer. I could pause any action sequence, walk up to the screen, and see every pixel filled with unique color infomation. Very sharply transfered movie. Definately better quality then Talladega Nights which comes free with the PS3.

VHS would of looked good after watching Talladega Nights. ;)

This is all very subjective and I don't like films that have a stylistic look to begin with. While "X-3 The Last Stand" does not employ this technique liberally it just does not appeal to me and it is rather lack luster on my setup.

How many can spot compression artifacts on X-3? I thought with BD's high bit rate compression artifacts would be a thing of the past.

I personally wish 3 looked like 1-2 with the cleaner look.....and I don't see were the grain was needed in this one.....but I also try and not hold the intended look against the transfers overall quality.

2 on D-vhs was absolutely clean and stellar looking....and 1 was close to it.

Can't wait for those two. :)

Yeah the DVD looked amazing at parts and some parts didn't look too great, but the movie was dark in the first place, so I can understand why it looks grainy sometimes.

Well, after asking ignorant questions, I finally got my hands on my new 60GB PS3 today. All that persistence paid off. X3 looks fantastic. Even the sound over SPDIF is greatly increased over standard DVD.

Awesome!

I will be watching Talledega Nights, but only because it was free. And I'll watch it with a poor transfer in mind. I don't really like Will Ferrall all that much anyway.

Finally got to watch this last night

Audio track was excellent!
Picture quality although good and clear had many problems and will just say it is lacking and not reference material

I will be watching Talledega Nights, but only because it was free. And I'll watch it with a poor transfer in mind. I don't really like Will Ferrall all that much anyway.

" Sha-aa-ke 'n Ba-aa-ke" ;)

All I can say is what is up with this consistant use of Super35 and/or high speed/high grain film stock in today's filmmaking? Did cinematographic IQ's drop suddenly, or are DP's at the complete whim of home video sales, or are the IP's being used for these home video transfers on subpar film stock?

When DP's are going for a certain "look" I can see the need, but how about using from time to time Panavision scope lenses and low grain, high grade film stock?

Dan

This movie looks like it's plagued with digital noise to me, not film grain... :confused:

I hated this movie so much, it made me want to puke!!! Not even DTS-HD MA could save this movie. Pure trash.

I hated this movie so much, it made me want to puke!!! Not even DTS-HD MA could save this movie. Pure trash.

Boy - you sure don't mince words... :eek:

It was a travesty. A pure slap in the face to comic book lovers. Here's my thoughts on the movie from my blog:

Granted I am only 23, but I still grew up with the X-men comics and the animated series. Now most of you know that none of the recent comic book movies have been ANYTHING like the comics, and were just made to make money. But nothing says “**** you” to the fan more than X-Men 3. Honestly, I was actually excited to see this movie when I first saw the trailer a few months prior. Then it finally came out and I heard from a friend of mine who went to go see it the previous day. She told me a few points of the movie, all of which were bad, but I still had high hopes for this movie. So I finally went to see it Saturday night, and came out wanting to demand my money back.
I can’t believe they can actually call this an X-Men movie, besides using the names. The so-called story they used, NEVER took place in the Marvel Universe. They didn’t even try to use any of the story from the comic book at all, instead they decided to use this “Cure” thing for the main plot, and then thought of the bright idea to make this “cure” as a weapon against mutants. Here’s my list of complaints against the movie, in numerical order:
1. The Phoenix was a part ofJean’s subconscious?!?! WTF??? The Phoenix came from space.
2. They killed Scott (Cyclops) within the first 20 minutes of the movie, and then killed Xavier 15 minutes later (yeah I know he’s not dead), and finally killing Jean at the very end.
3. Since when is Trask black?!?!?!
4. The weaponized “cure” is used by the military to use against the mutants, how gay is that?
5. When “Phoenix/Jean Grey” is “burning” Wolverine at the end, his skin starts to peel away, revealing Logan’s Adamantium. Now if they knew anything about the X-men, they’d realize that it’s ONLY Logan’s skeleton that’s fused with Adamantium, NOT his muscles.
6. Why the **** wasn’t Colosus Russian??? And since when can he project his powers onto other people???
7. The chick that “senses” mutant powers apparently is Callisto, who is the leader of the morlocks, but she doesn’t look like that, NOR does she even have that mutant power, let alone super speed.
8. Angel, who was supposed to have a BIG role in this movie, had two little gay scenes, lame.
9. Since when does Rogue lose her powers? Who ****ed up on that one?
10. The lame attempt to market the “Juggernaut Bitch” meme, seriously, wtf was up with that???
11. Psylocke was neither evil, NOR has EVER joined the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
12. Kelsey Grammar as the Beast?!?!? WTF!!!
13. Kid Omega doesn’t have those powers, NOR is he Asian.
14. The Juggernaut does NOT have any mutant powers, he only has his powers from the Crimson Ruby of Cyttorak.
15. Leech is green, NOT white!!!
I could think of more, but I haven’t the time. All in all, this was a HUGE slap in the face to X-Men fans, and a mediocre movie in general. i give this 1 1/2 *’s.

Sorry, but all comic book movies suck, as they're too Hollywood.

You know what I mean...

While film grain is definitely noticable, I thought this transfer looked quite good. Many scenes exhibit excellent contrast and look striking. Now, bring on the first two movies!

6. Why the **** wasn’t Colosus Russian??? And since when can he project his powers onto other people???
I thought he was touching Rogue at the time.