Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[punisher]

One thing for sure is we are getting the movies we wanted on 4K but not the way we were expecting or hoping for. Producers are going back in and redoing their films using modern technology to change them for viewing on today's tv's. What we wanted was just a clean up/restoration of the original film as it was. Thus the love or hate and the arguments over it's good or bad. I found after attending several tv shootouts at VE that even calibrators are misled into thinking that the picture is perfect because of the readings on their"machines"..but in actuality..to the human eyes..it stinks..lol. They and some people here as well, forget to "Sully" viewing and reviewing and arguing...by "Sully" I 'am refering to adding the human element, as in the movie of the same name..

[Geoff D]

Hell of it is jvonl, I can tolerate dat Graffiti

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by bludarkknight

well least it has scratches , i like scratches

There’s a Shout Factory joke in there somewhere…

[LordoftheRings]

AI is with us for the remaining of our destiny; with the good and the bad...like it or not.
It's our money, not theirs...and they want it badly.

Jungle bells ... the holidays spirit.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

It's a shame James Cameron chose to enhance these films digitally rather than do a more minimal 4K release or scan the film negatives and do a proper restoration.

What he's done is a quick and cheap way to make more money.

He should've definitely go back and make a proper 4k scan of the original movie negatives, to give a proper 4k release that was similar to the 1997 theatrical release, in terms of color and details.

To think that even a movie like The Matrix managed to get, after many years of tinkering, a proper 4k release that's similar to the 35mm print that was shown in theaters, it's beyond absurd.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

It's not about restoring movies, it's about Jim and his digital fetish. Why spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on restorations for future generations when you can take your 13-year old 4K, 2K or whatever master and upscale, degrain, manage and enhance it using your newest digital toy?

Then you can sell your BS to interviewers and talk about the importance of physical media.

I'm glad that, at least, Nolan hasn't choosed the same path as Cameron.
Oppenheimer 4k definitely is a stunning presentation.
There's still hope, thankfully.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Yeah complaints. That will work Paramount just needs to hear from 250 obscure people on the internet they've never heard of who say this is as bad as Predator UHE. Make sure you say wax. A lot.

Then they'll consult Cameron. And he'll go.. "Who? I used my restoration team and I approved every frame. This is how I intended it to look on 4K. This thing looks amazing. The sales seem to be doing well... Do I have artist control over my movies?" and they'll go in their heads "Yeah we wanna work with Cameron more than we wanna placate the fringe viewpoints of these people who made a lot of noise."

I want you to do it. I want you to waste your time. It will tickle me pink.

This comes across as rather trollish and immature.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by escvnte

I'm glad that, at least, Nolan hasn't choosed the same path as Cameron.
Oppenheimer 4k definitely is a stunning presentation.
There's still hope, thankfully.

Titanik was filmed a quarter century before Oppenheimer, way before Blu-ray was invented.
...Just during the birth of DVD.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Titanik was filmed a quarter century before Oppenheimer, way before Blu-ray was invented.
...Just during the birth of DVD.

So?

Cameron has full access to the money and tools required to make a perfect 4K transfer of his movies...

He simply doesn't care or doesn't want to do it...

[Mierzwiak]

After jumping between the BD (I forgot how stunning that disc is!) and 4K (80 gigs "version", at least it's not streaming rip :P) I decided to cancel my order.

Now, I don't think it looks bad; it's sharp and detailed enough to trick you into thinking that you're watching a great 4K version, but at the same time it's much less filmic than the Blu-ray. I wouldn't say it became extremely digital now, no, but the combination of reduced grain and higher sharpness makes everything almost too good looking, too detailed. Some, if not most, of the close-ups are almost ridiculously sharp and even if I haven't noticed anything disturbing (those Aliens screenshots, Jesus!), there's something weird about them, as if that "layer" between the movie and reality was gone and you could reach your hand and touch the actors.

[I also checked some of the "problematic" screenshots (like old Rose looking at the drawing through the water) and they're OK in motion.]

Overall it's not that much of an upgrade to me, although it IS an upgrade, just not in a way I would like it to be.

Judging from what I've seen so far, I think Titanic is based on the 4K master, but Aliens and True Lies were upsc-AI-led from their 2K versions, that's why they look so much worse and aggressively enhanced. I don't know about The Abyss, I hope I could check it soon.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

After jumping between the BD (I forgot how stunning that disc is!) and 4K (80 gigs "version", at least it's not streaming rip :P) I decided to cancel my order.

Now, I don't think it looks bad; it's sharp and detailed enough to trick you into thinking that you're watching a great 4K version, but at the same time it's much less filmic than the Blu-ray. I wouldn't say it became extremely digital now, no, but the combination of reduced grain and higher sharpness makes everything almost too good looking, too detailed. Some, if not most, of the close-ups are almost ridiculously sharp and even if I haven't noticed anything disturbing (those Aliens screenshots, Jesus!), there's something weird about them, as if that "layer" between the movie and reality was gone and you could reach your hand and touch the actors.

[I also checked some of the "problematic" screenshots (like old Rose looking at the drawing through the water) and they're OK in motion.]

Overall it's not that much of an upgrade to me, although it IS an upgrade, just not in a way I would like it to be.

Judging from what I've seen so far, I think Titanic is based on the 4K master, but Aliens and True Lies were upsc-AI-led from their 2K versions, that's why they look so much worse and aggressively enhanced. I don't know about The Abyss, I hope I could check it soon.

Interesting. I was thinking about checking out the blu for comparison; now I will. I like the 4K generally, but even an idiot (no screencaps for me, thanks) like me noticed a couple of odd moments. I do remember finding the blu to be completely enthralling, so, yeah, I'll check it out. Thanks for the push..

[blakninja]

Since Titanic was filmed in 35mm, would a 70mm print be just blown up or do you really gain a LOT more details compared to a 35mm print?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Since Titanic was filmed in 35mm, would a 70mm print be just blown up or do you really gain a LOT more details compared to a 35mm print?

You gain nothing as the movie was still shot in Super 35 cropped to 2.20:1 instead of 2.40:1

With a 70mm print you have to enlarge less just because the enlargement is done optically going from Super 35->70mm at an earlier stage...

[Havenbull]

Anyone remember the Titanic mini-series that came out a few months before this movie, in '96, where Tim Curry rapes a girl in the shower while he's laughing?

Also has Catherine Zeta Jones and Peter Gallagher.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

AI is with us for the remaining of our destiny; with the good and the bad...like it or not.
It's our money, not theirs...and they want it badly.

Jungle bells ... the holidays spirit.

AI is just like any other tool, it's either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit, it's not our problem.

[Brian81]

How different is the grade on this UHD vs the prior BD?

Picked the UHD up, haven't opened it yet, not sure if I should.

[1924]

Do transfers supervised the cinematographer (like TheMatrix) instead of the director tend to be more faithful looking?

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by 1924

Do transfers supervised the cinematographer (like TheMatrix) instead of the director tend to be more faithful looking?

Well... I mean, they have hands on experience with the intent of the directors.

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by mar3o

This comes across as rather trollish and immature.

I thought it was hilarious!

[dalemc]

Originally Posted by Brian81

How different is the grade on this UHD vs the prior BD?

Picked the UHD up, haven't opened it yet, not sure if I should.

The color grading looks darn near exactly the same. If anything, the UHD is ever so slightly more yellow.
Overall, in motion, it looks good