Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) Blu-ray 3D [Region Free]

[DavidGQ]

I saw this in the theater and like it a lot. Wish the price is lower though. Maybe I will wait out.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by MovieFanatic2010

The review is up and the 3D got a 4.5 of 5....

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jack-.../68087/#Review

I pre-ordered this one and can't wait to check it out.

When do I get my copy Dave?? You got me one right? Right?


Picking this one up tomorrow......got a $25 BB card for Fathers Day yesterday so this will take the sting out of this flicks high price 3D blu debut.

[palmeiro]

I didn't hate this movie and 3D in theater so preordered it at Amazon and received the copy today.

I can no longer be a lazy bum and get Sunday paper, check the prices of 3D movies at Best Buy/Target/Walmart then determine whether to buy in store or buy from Amazon... then go online and cancel the order from Amazon. After realizing price is $27.99 at Target, I went online to see if Amazon lowered it to $27.99 or I should cancel it and noticed it was already in the process of shipping. At least price was $27.99 like it should be. I guess Amazon realized people like to cancel on Sunday so they now start the shipping process on Sunday instead of Monday morning. Oh well, I guess I should do a bit more work and check prices on Wednesday or so at sites that lists Sunday ads earlier in the week.

I am looking forward to watching it at home.

[Jay Ellis]

I saw Jack the Giant Slayer at the theatre in 3d. On 3d bluray, the movie is gorgeous. The picture is pristine with great clarity and detail. The 3d is very good with impressive depth and scale befitting a movie shot in native 3d. I'd rank the quality of the 3d as better than Hansel and Gretel and almost as good as The Hobbit. Like the Hobbit, the 3d is not in your face as much as a feature that adds to the immersive feel of the visual presentation. Oh yeah, and the bluray comes with a cool lenticular slipcover!!!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Jay Ellis

I saw Jack the Giant Slayer at the theatre in 3d. On 3d bluray, the movie is gorgeous. The picture is pristine with great clarity and detail. The 3d is very good with impressive depth and scale befitting a movie shot in native 3d. I'd rank the quality of the 3d as better than Hansel and Gretel and almost as good as The Hobbit. Like the Hobbit, the 3d is not in your face as much as a feature that adds to the immersive feel of the visual presentation. Oh yeah, and the bluray comes with a cool lenticular slipcover!!!

Agreed! Some scenes seem to surpass the Hobbit in that stereo Left and Right cameras are separated farther apart in some scenes to make the people look tiny in stereo compared to the Giants. Excellent affect!

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Agreed! Some scenes seem to surpass the Hobbit in that stereo Left and Right cameras are separated farther apart in some scenes to make the people look tiny in stereo compared to the Giants. Excellent affect!

Cant wait to get this one, any good deals out there?

[usckid]

Originally Posted by Big3dfan

Cant wait to get this one, any good deals out there?

If you're still looking, a seller on half.com has it new for $17.20 + $2.99 shipping.

still $30 and up on Best Buy, Amazon, etc

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by usckid

If you're still looking, a seller on half.com has it new for $17.20 + $2.99 shipping.

still $30 and up on Best Buy, Amazon, etc

Thanks for posting. I snagged that one.

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thanks for posting. I snagged that one.

Darn!

Next time please kindly PM me instead

[BleedOrange11]

This movie was pretty fun. The plot is simply an expanded, more elaborate version of "Jack and Beanstalk." It's a very straightforward quest adventure with a princess/pauper romance. Nothing too extraordinary, but solid fun.

The native 3D is gorgeous. It has that pristine, clean look that you just don't get from conversions. Depth, and particularly roundness, looks very impressive. The stereographers did an excellent job.

Creatively, the 3D is framed nicely and used to benefit the impact story moments. Rainstorms are very immersive, and there is lots of exploding debris and shooting beanstalks. One of my favorite effects was using hyperstereo to simulate the giants' viewpoints (with increased interocular distance) when looking down at the humans. The finale action sequence also has a great pop-out. Overall, it's a very satisfying presentation and one of the better 3D experiences of 2013.

Movie - 3.5/5
Depth Strength - 4/5
Roundness - 4.5/5
3D Creativity - 4/5

[BleedOrange11]

Just for fun, ranking the native 3D in the 2013 live features so far:

1. The Great Gatsby
2. Oz: The Great and Powerful (Close 2nd. Might've been 1st if the story was better.)
3. Jack the Giant Slayer
4. Texas Chainsaw
5. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (Last due to lack of effort by not bringing the 3D cameras into the woods!)

Also from this genre, looking forward to the upcoming:

• Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
• The Young and Prodigious Spivet
• Doctor Who: 50th Anniversary Special (Hopefully native?)
• The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
• 47 Ronin
• Stalingrad (Hopefully a good story)

[BleedOrange11]

I thought the 3D in the first three on my list was pretty good to excellent. As far as story goes, I didn't really care for Oz, but I loved Gatsby and had fun with Jack the Giant Slayer.

Bummer. Didn't realize Sin City: A Dame to Kill For was delayed. It used to have an October 2013 date.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

ranking the native 3D in the 2013 live features so far:

1. The Great Gatsby
2. Oz: The Great and Powerful (Close 2nd. Might've been 1st if the story was better.)
3. Jack the Giant Slayer

I thought the 3D in the first three on my list was pretty good to excellent. As far as story goes, I didn't really care for Oz, but I loved Gatsby and had fun with Jack the Giant Slayer.

Bummer. Didn't realize Sin City: A Dame to Kill For was delayed. It used to have an October 2013 date.

Agreed! All of the above movies have IMO, the potential for excellent 3D presentations when viewed on proficient, capable and accurate performing setups!

[BleedOrange11]

I don't think any of these movies really needed parallax as strong as Sammy's Adventures or The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl. Sure, that kind of 3D is fun and makes for better roundness for a home-sofa presentation, and you could probably pick out shots here and there than need to be stronger. However, their stereo settings were chosen because they're made to be seen from theatrical distances. Two out of those top three were even presented in IMAX theaters. I'm not sure what kind of setup you used to watch these films, but you have to cut them some slack if you're just watching from 6-8 feet away. Kind of like Pixar movies--semi-flat at home, beautiful in theaters (although still lacking in creativity).

And it's not like we're dealing with Amazing Spider-Man or Harold and Kumar levels of flat here either. For those three, I wouldn't call it negligence or inexperience. Just comfortable 3D, tuned for a theater, visual story-telling experience.

3D flat-screen TVs are really poor equipment to replicate the scale of a theater 3D image due to the relationship of viewing distance to perceived depth. And on top of that, you can add the decrease in magnification from shrinking a 2.39:1 image to fit a 16:9 screen.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I don't think any of these movies really needed parallax as strong as Sammy's Adventures or The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl. Sure, that kind of 3D is fun and makes for better roundness for a home-sofa presentation, and you could probably pick out shots here and there than need to be stronger. However, their stereo settings were chosen because they're made to be seen from theatrical distances. Two out of those top three were even presented in IMAX theaters. I'm not sure what kind of setup you used to watch these films, but you have to cut them some slack if you're just watching from 6-8 feet away. Kind of like Pixar movies--semi-flat at home, beautiful in theaters (although still lacking in creativity).

And it's not like we're dealing with Amazing Spider-Man or Harold and Kumar levels of flat here either. For those three, I wouldn't call it negligence or inexperience. Just comfortable 3D, tuned for a theater story-telling experience.

3D flat-screen TVs are really poor equipment to replicate the scale of a theater 3D image due to the relationship of viewing distance to perceived depth. And on top of that, you can add the decrease in magnification from shrinking a 2.39:1 image to fit a 16:9 screen.

You make a really good point about the distance each movie was intended to be viewed at. When editing 3D closer, it's best if viewed closer, while a stereographer creating the 3D for a theater distance will tend to sit further back when arranging the 3D.

I sat closer to Abraham Lincoln 3D at home and was disappointed, but sat further back and the difference was noticeable. I think the same would be true for Legends of the Guardians 3D, Owls. And a number of others. In the theater, the older display wasn't ideal so the 3D looked weaker.

Some movies look great close up or far away, like Open Season 3D or JourneyCEarth 3D or Avatar.

When Jack Slayer 3D is 20 bucks, I'll buy it. I thought the 3D was good, but could have been better. The movie was entertaining however, and Ewan Mcgregor was reliable as usual for his characterization. Heard he'll reappear as Obi Wan in the new Star Wars, which is great news IMO.

[BleedOrange11]

Thanks for the cool video! For that first shot, I calculated you would have to sit 51.2ft (15.6m) away to achieve a 1:1 roundness ratio. I think I see what you're saying although I wish I could test it better.

For anyone who's interested, I have attached a spreadsheet with the calculated, approximate optimum viewing distances for each shot in that video. Everything that needed 10ft and under looked pretty good. Above that, I couldn't test as well without moving my TV. The dimensions of my apartment are pretty limiting.

I don't believe Jack, Oz, or Gatsby had many shots that flat and unresponsive to changes in viewing distance like the first couple of shots in the YouTube video. That is more Amazing Spider-Man/Harold and Kumar type of roundness. I'm also thinking that Sammy and Sharkboy/Spy Kids 3 would look too overblown from the back of a cinema. They already look 1:1 or greater from 6ft away.

[BleedOrange11]

I link this test all the time. It's still one of my favorites for explaining the effect of viewing distance. It doesn't test theater distances though.

http://rathinagiri.in/kiwizone/3d/315roundness.html

[BleedOrange11]

Yeah, I can understand that. So basically, you are saying that I'm erroneously attributing the squash effect in those movies to sitting too close to the image, while you are attributing it to missing volume due to either small IAs or long subject distances?

My first impression, watching Oz and Jack, was to attribute most of the flatness to compressed volume. Watching Gatsby in theater, maybe 85-90% looked nice and round to me. I will have to study that YouTube video more and watch them again at home with that in mind to reassess. Is there an easy way to tell the difference between compressed volume and missing volume at close distance, or is it just familiarity with the look of 3D shot and viewed like that?

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

3D at the cinema can use so much more of the screen. The 3D in Jack and OZ were chosen the way they are for financial reasons and not artistic. Sammy and Sharkboy use perfectly fine % of positive space for cinemas.

Also would you explain this comment further? Do you mean that since Jack and Oz are features shot outside and make use of wider landscapes, they would need to record the foreground and background separately and then composite them together to achieve true-to-life depth with comfortable parallax?

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what good 3D is for viewing at the cinemas ect. Changing your viewing distance from 3D photography with low lens separation won't change the roundness to desirable standards. Volume is recorded on set and low separation (long lens factor as well) simply doesn't record visually discernible shape in objects at any distance. Increasing the viewing distance to make those movies look ok in 3D you would be sitting outside of the cinema, but still won't change what was recorded. 3D at the cinema can use so much more of the screen. The 3D in Jack and OZ were chosen the way they are for financial reasons and not artistic. Sammy and Sharkboy use perfectly fine % of positive space for cinemas.

Here is a video test someone did with different lenses about roundness (background isn't real) and the effect.

[Show spoiler]Stereo3D Beauty Shot Comparisons 1 'Cafe' - YouTube

No matter how far away you sit the roundness on some of those doesn't change. 3D has viewing distances built into the shot to see the best 3D possible within that shot, the volume detail simply compresses and uncompress a little when you change viewing distances. It can't add volume detail that wasn't recorded due to bad 3D photography.

Thanks for that info Tigermoth. What would you say is the best example of 3D that you've seen so far?

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thanks for the cool video! For that first shot, I calculated you would have to sit 51.2ft (15.6m) away to achieve a 1:1 roundness ratio. I think I see what you're saying although I wish I could test it better.

For anyone who's interested, I have attached a spreadsheet with the calculated, approximate optimum viewing distances for each shot in that video. Everything that needed 10ft and under looked pretty good. Above that, I couldn't test as well without moving my TV. The dimensions of my apartment are pretty limiting.

I don't believe Jack, Oz, or Gatsby had many shots that flat and unresponsive to changes in viewing distance like the first couple of shots in the YouTube video. That is more Amazing Spider-Man/Harold and Kumar type of roundness. I'm also thinking that Sammy and Sharkboy/Spy Kids 3 would look too overblown from the back of a cinema. They already look 1:1 or greater from 6ft away.

Thanks BleedOrange. I do believe viewing difference can make a difference on home 3DTVs, as some 3DTV sets even recommend for the best results, view at least 5 feet away from the screen, though that's somewhat related to why Abe Lincoln 3D looks better farther back.

To stay on topic, the giants in Jack the Giant Slayer were dimensional from a human point of view from what I remember. But the 3D is still very good.