Quote:
Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote
I really can't help but to admire how a lot of people in this forum seem to know better as to how movies should look on home video, even more than directors, even more than people who know film..
Moreover, I think we, as mostly spectators, have been spoiled by amazing 4K restorations/remasters of very old, analogue filmic remasters, that we're expecting that a 26 year old movie from 1997, with lots of digital work on it, should look exactly as analogue as a 40 year old film.
There's no denying here that Cameron did touch up the movie and filter a bit, probably used AI a little, but the work here, is not as AWFUL as T2, no denying there's issues if you stop and pixel peep, but the final result is pretty decent and watchable if you just, you know, sit down and watch the movie instead of trying to nit pick every single frame..
Me? I also love the look of grain, analogue film remasters, but I'm not out here trying to scholar people on how all films should look based on my fetish for it nor expect movies from this era to look like movies from 50 years ago.
|
My perspective is that I don't understand why anyone would
prefer this sort of processed look over a more straightforward scan. I understand there will be limitations in terms of how consistent it might look, and there might be a need to "massage" the image a bit to account for that, but the blanket AI processing on display here seems unnecessary. If Cameron wanted a sharper look, why reuse the same decade-old scan? Titanic is one of the most beloved and profitable films of all time, and Cameron is obscenely rich. Between himself, Paramount, and Disney, surely a brand-new 4K or higher-res restoration could've been performed if the will was there. Combined with the HFR added to the latest theatrical release, it feels less like Cameron trying to present the film in its best possible light, and more like he's using it as a test bed for his new toys.