3D Jaws 3-D blu-ray delayed (?) (1 Viewer)

[StephenDH]

I've never noticed the one side darker until today on a dodgy download and because I was looking for it.
I have an LG LED Passive 3D TV and LG 3D Blu-ray player.
TBH I can't see it making much difference when the views are combined. I just wondered if it had been done intentionally, either when the film was shot or when the disc was mastered.

 

[StephenDH]

And I never noticed that, so I guess we'll chalk it up to our own monitors' quirks.

Could be. I'm red/green colourblind so my opinion on colour accuracy is bound to be a bit off.

 

[pinknik]

Interesting! I rarely, if ever, expereince a source where "one eye is darker than the other" on my 65" LG passive UHD OLED.
It is very possible and think I'm conditioned to see the difference using discrete 3D HMD technology for the last six years.

What kind of LG passive 3D display are you describing? LED or OLED, 1080P or UHD, and what 3D Blu-ray player?

LED, 1080p, PS3 and LG player. It just occurred to me that I should check an animated disc, as there's no way the eyes would be any different.

 

[Harry-N]

I popped my JAWS 3 disc in yesterday just to check it out. I'm not a big 3-D aficionado but ended up with both a 3-D capable Blu-ray player and a 3-D capable TV - both from Sony. The TV uses passive glasses. For novelty, we've gotten GRAVITY, THE MARTIAN, and THE POLAR EXPRESS in 3-D and have enjoyed them all.

JAWS 3 certainly wasn't a favorite movie when we saw it on HBO in a chopped-off 4:3 showing years ago, and I've never sought to watch it again in any format, so my memory is hazy at best about the film. And I ordered it for the fun-factor of a 3-D movie that wasn't very expensive.

The first thing I noticed was the extreme depth that the picture had in 3-D. The credits seemed to start way back in the picture and straight out to somewhere in my neighbor's house! I'm exaggerating, but so were these credits!

Cycling quickly through the chapter stops, I saw a number of images that were very grainy looking, and at one point I closed one eye and then the other, and I could have sworn that the left-eye image was the darker an slightly fuzzier one of the two.

I also thought that the extreme depth might make for a headache-inducing experience when we do sit down to watch the film.

By the way, the 2-D version looks pretty bad too with a fuzziness on the extreme left and right edges of most shots. The center is the only part of the picture that's in "good" focus.

Harry

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

The left eye view is the default when turning off a 3D-glasses feature on most displays. Think that the majority of classic features released in 2D, originally filmed in 3D would also have the left eye view for a 2D source. Past restorations and remastering would likely also be done only to that view.

Maybe having one restored eye view looked better as a 3D experience than the two original images with different artifact distinctions?

 

[Matt Hough]

My disc arrived from Amazon late this morning, and I watched it this afternoon.

While I admit the constantly changing level and thickness of grain throughout was irksome and at times a little distracting, I have to say that on my plasma active set (using PS3 as the 3D Blu-ray player), I was generally VERY impressed with the 3D. There is a generous amount of pop-out (the opening has a fish head floating WAY out from the screen followed by those fantastic 3D main titles all of which extend outwards), and while focus occasionally lapses (some of that is just BAD cinematography), when things are clear, the sense of depth can be quite impressive. There was only minor crosstalk in a couple of places, and overall I had a thousand times more entertaining experience with Jaws 3D on my home rig than I did when I saw in in the theater all those years ago when I felt it was mostly out of focus and with very mediocre 3D. I would not call the 3D mediocre at all with this home release.

Thank you, Universal!

 

[Tino]

Btw the 3D IS excellent on this release. Tons of pop out and depth. That's not the issue. It's the "grain" issue and the actual transfer that's in question.

 

[WillG]

My disc arrived from Amazon late this morning, and I watched it this afternoon.

While I admit the constantly changing level and thickness of grain throughout was irksome and at times a little distracting, I have to say that on my plasma active set (using PS3 as the 3D Blu-ray player), I was generally VERY impressed with the 3D. There is a generous amount of pop-out (the opening has a fish head floating WAY out from the screen followed by those fantastic 3D main titles all of which extend outwards), and while focus occasionally lapses (some of that is just BAD cinematography), when things are clear, the sense of depth can be quite impressive. There was only minor crosstalk in a couple of places, and overall I had a thousand times more entertaining experience with Jaws 3D on my home rig than I did when I saw in in the theater all those years ago when I felt it was mostly out of focus and with very mediocre 3D. I would not call the 3D mediocre at all with this home release.

Thank you, Universal!

I watched about 20 minutes today and I'll echo this statement. Yes there was enough to grain in some shots to where it looked like it was snowing at sea world, but there were shots that looked quiet nice as well (the containment gate at sunset). I like how Universal fully committed to th 3D version (the 3D Universal logo and the theatrical "Jaws 3-D" title). I didn't really detect any inconsistencies regarding darkness with the left/right eye test. I see some misalignment in some shots but maybe it was the angle I was sitting at or that some of the pop-out was so profound that it was inevitable. But man, so far it's been a pisser seeing the disembodied fish head, the 3D titles and the severed arm practically right in you face. For my money, this seems to be a reference disc for "fun" 3D even though the PQ is erratic.

Thanks Universal.

 

[Bryan^H]

The 3D is a lot of fun, it isn't often I see a disc with so much "pop". That is as far as it goes with me though. Watching in 2D, there is really nothing to see except a bad transfer that looks like it would be more suitable for a public domain title rather than from a major studio.

 

[StephenDH]

I'm amazed how bad some of the optical work is: the matte lines around the fish head, the awful blue screen of the submersible, the view through the control room window. The shark attack at the end when the film quality appears to drop several generations is terrible.
I suppose there were good reasons some of the key scenes were shot dry for wet but it doesn't seem to have helped them much.
Louis Gossett's wandering accent is still a hoot.

 

[Malcolm R]

This is from the trivia section at imdb.com which seems to explain some of the shoddy FX work:

The first major film to use FX shots composited on video equipment instead of via optical film printing. Originally this was to be used for all of the composite shots in the movie, and the vast majority of them were completed via this process by Private Stock Effects. This method proved much quicker and more flexible than traditional film printing. However, because the video system being used was of relatively low resolution, the resulting images looked soft. Because the FX shots were underwater, this was initially deemed acceptable. However, producer Alan Landsburg changed his mind at the last minute and ordered the work re-done in the traditional film process by Praxis Film Works. The time crunch meant over two-thirds of the planned composite shots were cut from the movie, many more were simplified to make them easier and quicker to complete via optical printing, and a handful of unfinished shots showing blank green screens were left in the finished film. Only three or four video-composited shots remain in the final cut.

So it sounds like many planned FX shots were cut from the film, and some unfinished FX are in the final film. It does sound like most of the FX shots were initially completed, but vetoed by the producer, and not used. Then only a fraction were redone optically.

 

[StephenDH]

This is from the trivia section at imdb.com which seems to explain some of the shoddy FX work:



So it sounds like many planned FX shots were cut from the film, and some unfinished FX are in the final film. It does sound like most of the FX shots were initially completed, but vetoed by the producer, and not used. Then only a fraction were redone optically.

IMDb is also very informative about the shambolic way the whole movie was shot.
The shoot started using Optimax and Stereovision cameras because the Arrivision camera wasn't ready. Most of the footage was subsequently rejected and reshot.
No wonder movies are so expensive.

 

[StephenDH]

Just finished watching the Jaws 3D Blu-ray which arrived today.
I see what everyone means about the graininess of many scenes. It seems as though the Blu-ray process is emphasising it, making it like watching the movie through either a chainlink fence or a plague of locusts at some points.
I've never seen a movie, 3D or otherwise, with so much chromatic aberration. If it were confined to the edges, where one might expect to see it, it might not be so bad but it isn't.
The pop-out objects often seem far too close to the lens and don't always resolve. Whether this is my aging eyes or incompetent cinematography is hard to tell.
The movie as a whole wasn't up to much in 1983 and time hasn't done it any favours, but even back then then the producers must have cringed at the picure quality of some of the scenes.
Some of the park sequences are nicely done, particularly the panicking skiers and there are some nice touches, such as the fish-shaped baby buggies but my favourite scene is the one in which Dennis Quaid holds his dog's ears back whilst it eats.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have to say that compared to the other 80s 3D Blu-rays that I have - Amityville 3D and Comin' At Ya - Jaws 3D was a delight to watch. Amityville 3D was so painful that I had to watch the movie in two sittings, my eyes needed at least an hour off before I could try to continue. I didn't have to turn off Comin' At Ya, but it was often excruciating as well. Both of those movies caused extreme discomfort to watch, in addition to the 3D not working very well through portions of both.

For Jaws 3-D, I could notice the grain issue that others wrote about, and some misalignment and other issues, but it was watchable. I never had to pause it, my eyes weren't in pain, I didn't get a headache. At its best, it worked really well, and at its worst, it was merely mediocre 3D. I'll keep my Amityville and Comin' At Ya discs and maybe try again in a few years, but Jaws 3D I know I'll actually watch again.

 

[WillG]

Some of the park sequences are nicely done, particularly the panicking skiers and there are some nice touches, such as the fish-shaped baby buggies but my favourite scene is the one in which Dennis Quaid holds his dog's ears back whilst it eats.

It's a bad movie to be sure, but one of the things that they did get right was a good cast. Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstorng have paired well together and managed to create a believable relationship with the guy who played Sean as well. It reminded me a little bit of me, my wife and my single, younger brother. Even Louis Gossett manages to avoid being a cheap carbon copy of Vaughn (even though he makes an uncharacteristically boneheaded decision for someone who is supposed to be a smart businessman). Also, I actually really did grow to like Simon McCorkandale as Fitz Royce. You get the impression that he's a narcissist, but the movie never beats you over the head with that characterization. And the character does rise above the usual stereotype for this type of movie. For example, Kay is attacked by the "baby" shark, he immediately drops his camera to help her. He rushes to help get people out of the water. He ultimately sacrifices his life to help rescue the trapped tourists. I know this type of character in these movies are supposed to be jerks, be he never actually comes off that way. I guess if Joe Alves learned anything from Spielberg in the direction department it was characterization.

 

[Jason_V]

By the way, the 2-D version looks pretty bad too with a fuzziness on the extreme left and right edges of most shots. The center is the only part of the picture that's in "good" focus.

Oh good...it wasn't just me! I kept looking into the corners and thought I was just tired because it didn't look quite right.

Just watched the 2D version tonight and, well, this is less than I remember it to be. The sharks (spoiler?) are incredibly fake, story one dimensional, characters paper thin and the action fairly uninvolving. Each scene seems somewhat disconnected from what came before and what comes after. Sean Brody has no reason to be in this story, since the movie forgets about him halfway through. Ya know, this could have been a great movie-the premise itself can be entertaining-but something/a lot went wrong.

 

[RolandL]

Movie poster with 3-D glasses.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

That is very cool! Never seen anything like that before