Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Farerb]

I received my copy from Amazon with a SLIPCOVER. That's all that matters

[KcMsterpce]

When I watched this on Friday, it was on my projector and it was pretty damned beautiful for almost the entire presentation, with only a few seconds every now and again looking too smooth and kinda uglyish.
I popped it in yesterday to watch on my OLED. Well, watching on my OLED from like 4 feet away (skimming through the movie, not watching the whole thing again, because I would rather play a game of "Would you Rather" than do that to myself), there was a noticeable uptick in the sharpness issues, but it was still pretty damned gorgeous. Not as good as when I first watched it, but it's still nice. It could have been SO much worse, and overall, I still think this is a nice transfer.

[Djt31]

TITANIC (1997) 4K ULTRA HD VS 2012 BLURAY COMPARISON - YouTube

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by Djt31

TITANIC (1997) 4K ULTRA HD VS 2012 BLURAY COMPARISON - YouTube

Thanks for reminding me never to trust random reviewers. Just because someone can point a camera to their mug an talk doesn't mean they should.

Titanic does NOT look like that on Blu-ray. It was never blurry nor did it have had crushed blacks and posterization artifacts. Also, why are these people still not doing fullscreen comparisons? If you're going to minimize the video, at least scale it down to quarter resolution instead of some random value. Clearly this pipeline introduces too many errors, as to bring into question everything else in this review and the channel as a whole.

But outside of the technical issues of the comparison, even the claims are laughable. Apparently the VFX have "always looked dodgy" and the 4K handles them much better (somehow).

[Djt31]

I can't wait for HD Numérique to do their own review, they're usually quite good and the comparisons between Bluray and 4K are often very good.

[Pieter V]

Unboxing Titanic 4K UltraHD Blu-ray Scandinavian release. - YouTube

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by bludarkknight

to think i once projected this , 35mm SR-D at all new warner 12 plex at bristol , 1998 , in one of four larger screens , by hand with another projectionist on premiere opening night as one of cards in the cake platter wind off motors had failed and no one in the audience had idea the film was actually been projected by hand " mostly " for over 3hrs 30 mins ...

Reminds me of my brother-in-law, who was a projectionist when this came out. They sent the movie on 15-minute reels, but to save the number of reels (money), each reel had 20 minutes of film. Thus, it had a bad habit of falling out of the edges after each reel change.
He had to personally sit through every showing each day, making sure the film didn't fall out of the reel for each change.
Not only that, the movie played for a whole year at that theater.
So he watched TITANIC 3+ times a day, 5+ days a week. For a year. He hates this movie!

I purchased the 4k UHD for him this Christmas, with a note that says:
"May the memories of the past always inspire your Heart to Go On. Merry Christmas!"
I'm sure he'll love it!

[EliWallou]

Originally Posted by Jowiko96

But, the transfer is not an abomination. It isn't as good as I hoped, but it doesn't ruin the film proper.

The name calling, the constant bickering, the complaining about James Cameron, its never ending i s2g. There is barely any interesting critique about the transfer past the usual talking points that have been said and even been dismissed.

I would much rather people have constructive & detailed criticism instead of repeating how Bill Hunt was wrong or how James Cameron is bad. lmao

Who's called this transfer an abomination? There'd be less bickering here without the constant straw man, adversarial and dismissal of numerous critics here that have been absolutely reasonable, constructive and detailed.

I don't know about you, but to me, an official review of a reference website stating

"The picture holds up to the tightest scrutiny. There is not a grain element astray, not a fiber out of place, not a spot or flaw to be found. The picture is beautifully filmic and organic, with grain very fine and satisfying in every shot."

and most reviews being absolutely positive about this 4K, when you yourself admit

Originally Posted by Jowiko96

The disc is not perfect and the manipulation is definitely evident.

is a much more serious issue, and raises more alarm bells, than randos on a message board being overly dramatic.
Message boards are going to have weird, excessively dramatic people and trolls. Dismiss those, and focus on the more pertinent posts.

Comparing previously released screenshots of the 4K scan with the result on this UHD seems pretty interesting to me.

Which one of these 2 shots displays the most beautifully and organic grain https://slow.pics/c/hIxs5Xsj ?

The one sharp enough, with beautifully soft contours, hairs, and visible grain in the background, or the one where the grain is noticeably reduced, seemingly not aligning with previous grain (which begs the question of what's been done here exactly? Is it still truthful to the original film grain or is it pure AI?), but artificially sharper, making skin and hair look strangely dry, creates edges in parts (look at the pattern of her cloth on her neck).

It's not an "abomination", or "ruining the film". But it's something which, I think, is fair to find somewhat bothering, annoying, disappointing. While this is very far from T2 or even some average DNR-ed transfers, it still seems excessive, displaying unnecessary levels of tinkering, except to satisfy people who are obsessed with, or easily impressed by, extreme sharpness on 4K, and particularly don't like visible grain.

From these 9 comparisons, not all are similarly problematic to me. There's nuance.
I can fully admit that in some cases the processing was applied reasonably and that there may have been good reason for it.

But the ability of reviewers and influencers to discern what is going on with movie restorations, to be able to recognize the use of algorithms, slight sharpening, fake grain, or new tools that are clearly much better and subtler than egregious or obvious DNR, but still produce noticeable, weird, or questionable results, altering the original filmic qualities, the ability to recognize and describe such things in order to produce objective, informative and reliable reviews for the larger audience, seems much more important to me, than policing the understandably annoying bickering here.

When there's admitted use of a deep-learning algorithm and people are noticing it. When you're seeing a number of new release that seem to tinker in new subtler but questionable ways with grain in 4K releases, such as Picnic at Hanging Rock or The Pianist, that have apparently been degrained and artificially regrained, there's reason to be somewhat concerned. Especially when, unlike previous DNR, these tricks seems to pass the eye test of many reviewers.

People may like it, that it is fine. But this should at least be on the table for open discussion, without insecure accusations of "nitpicking", "negativity", "bias against Cameron" or whatever.

If people can't handle their purchases being picked apart by those who put more importance to the treatment of the film grain, or colors, or else, they shouldn't read through a thread about a UHD release. I want to know what quality of transfer I'm buying, and can handle buying imperfect ones. I could care less about slipcovers and would prefere not seeing numerous posts about them. But I understand it's part of threads about physical releases.

[mar3o]

Lol at anybody calling Leo's acting "pretty bad" in this.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Daredevil666

Still, no one to this day as solved the mystery of the Harry Knowles clone appearing in the film.
I want 40 pages of this.

The legendary director of House IV: The Repossession.

[Matt89]

Every time I check this thread there's like 3+ pages added lol.

[PatrynXX]

Sound is way better but vs the latest Blu ray for I don't see a difference. The laserdisc still looks great. And that has the second best sound.I'm an hour in and yawn. Great movie yes But I was disappointed in the video. And why Abyss was pushed back I would guess they were worried it would outsell Titanic. And probably would since we have no blu ray.... I wanted that before Titanic anyway. But again don't notice anything major about the video but the sound is way better. Shrek now that one was a massiv Video upgrade with bit rates up near 100. Ahh but old reel dot com had that fun VHS case. Wish I'd kept that...

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Every time I check this thread there's like 3+ pages added lol.

It's the gift that keeps on giving. But it's not a gift anybody wants.

[PatrynXX]

Originally Posted by bludarkknight

i never was interested in buying this . .


to think i once projected this , 35mm SR-D at all new warner 12 plex at bristol , 1998 , in one of four larger screens , by hand with another projectionist on premiere opening night as one of cards in the cake platter wind off motors had failed and no one in the audience had idea the film was actually been projected by hand " mostly " for over 3hrs 30 mins , ads trailers , Dolby trailer , feature film

yes , disappointed the format specs are there but its the robbing studios that give the format a bad name , no never will buy this version on 4k ever , oh even if they fix the issue , and then use the poorest of excuses , otherwise 4k in general is scam , everyone here thinks of high numbers if bit and gb rate must be better

the dodgy colour on the abyss , no thanks i don't buy discs produced by colour blind technicians so i can fuel their pockets , shame on them

i watch this on , laserdisc AC-3 or dts laserdisc or maybe first pressing on region 1 dvd and so what low res , i projected it 35mm i think i know the difference

and yes the thread is sinking , members and children first , don't panic , get back i say , mr. lightoller lower them down

really ,

True when I say Shrek has High Bit rate numbers.. I say it's a major upgrade cause I can see that. Titanic not so much. 4K isn't a scam, but most releases give that a bad name. Fact is though 4K at 50 inch is the Min it should be in. 100 inch would be ideal But I don't have room for that. I had to smile on your laserdisc mention. Like yeah several years ago someone offered several brand new copies and that is usually a Faux Pas but really these did have any rot what so ever Sound is tops because as far as I know as I have the industrial laserdisc version from Pioneer the sound is uncompressed... That and I can get The Postman in Fullscreen since it's in Open Matte and see stuff that isn't on the widescreen. I wish we ould see the entire video of Open Matte..

[deeppurpleman]

Looks like another movie I'll stick with the Blu-ray unless I can get the UHD on sale.

[PatrynXX]

Originally Posted by Djt31

TITANIC (1997) 4K ULTRA HD VS 2012 BLURAY COMPARISON - YouTube

Looked at this confirmed what I know it's a mild upgrade. Having seen this on the biggest possible screen (old school ) imaginable in 1998 for $1 cause it was 4 months in and I didn't like it turned me into a major fan because I like Emotional films. . But is it worth buying for a tv under 50 inch. Big NO. And I have sharpness always turned all the way up on my TCL... Like yeah the color is better but I simply disagree with the review. If I wanna see pop and wound the video and sound on Deepwater Horizon just kills it. Although the colour only does so much. In darker scenes they are now darker. So really can't tell there. But it the brightly lit indoors again mild upgrade. The Abyss likely well be a massive upgrade since we didn't have blu ray.. I've relied on the laserdisc format in this area. Although the Abyss Directors 4:3 version is better .... Widescreen it must be open matte .... Cause things are cut off creating a pan and scan of the movie vertically . Not really bashing Titanic look but I just don't agree with the reviewer claiming it's perfect when it isn't perfect..

[tankryankr19]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Grain discussions aside, just check how much skin detail has simply vanished from the UHD versus the 35mm print. This is not just about the duping process adding more grain. The skin and hair detail captured by the negative is still visible on a four generation removed film print from 1997, but not visible on a brand new 4K remaster "approved" by Cameron.

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Attachment 297841

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

You definitely screwed that UHD Photo up, does not look like that whatsoever on my display

[punisher]

I f history of movies for home viewing has taught us anything, it's that none of them are perfect. No matter the format, it's hard to capture what you experience in the theaters seeing it on a huge screen and all that goes with it. There's no denying that the tinkering being done because of new technologies can make one scratch their head. Some movies just aren't meant to be 4K'd while others look fantastic. Titanic had me readjusting my settings on my projector to bring out the best of the disc. Then it looked damn good and provide a great night watching it. I think that if you are a fan of the movie, it's a must buy, especially for projector folks like myself. If you are a fussy/critique observer, well you might pass on this as well as the majority of 4K releases..lol. I was on the edge, but made the purchase and glad I did.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

Anyone actually watched it yet?

You watch your movies? What kind of sick freak are you?

[Farerb]

I can confirm that the Blu-ray bonus disc is region free.