Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I’m just glad that 3D is no longer a thing, the films inherently are compromised in terms of shot composition and other visual aspects.

Everything you said here is wrong. 3D stereoscopic movies have been around for over 100 years. There were 3D movies filmed in every decade. Long before the modern 3D Real-D got popular, IMAX was playing specialty 3D content. 3D isn't gone. Stop perpetuating this nonsense. 3D movies are still a thing. 3D film Archive is still releasing remastered classics all the time on 3D blu-ray. I saw a new Jaws (1975) 3D remaster last year and the audience was having a blast.

VR headsets and gaming commonly use 3D now. Stereoscopic imaging is used in the medical field.

Just because Disney and some other short-sighted execs decided to back off pushing 3D because they want to move on to pushing HDR and High Framerate doesn't mean a century of 3D technology is suddenly being put to an end.

And no, 3D movies are not compromised by shot composition in 3D films. Watch Hugo and tell me that film is compromised by it being shot in 3D.

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Everything you said here is wrong. 3D stereoscopic movies have been around for over 100 years. There were 3D movies filmed in every decade. Long before the modern 3D Real-D got popular, IMAX was playing specialty 3D content. 3D isn't gone. Stop perpetuating this nonsense. 3D movies are still a thing. 3D film Archive is still releasing remastered classics all the time on 3D blu-ray. I saw a new Jaws (1975) 3D remaster last year and the audience was having a blast.

VR headsets and gaming commonly use 3D now. Stereoscopic imaging is used in the medical field.

Just because Disney and some other short-sighted execs decided to back off pushing 3D because they want to move on to pushing HDR and High Framerate doesn't mean a century of 3D technology is suddenly being put to an end.

And no, 3D movies are not compromised by shot composition in 3D films. Watch Hugo and tell me that film is compromised by it being shot in 3D.

What I hate is when I’m watching a movie and there is a shot quite obviously framed purely for the 3D element. Edge of Tomorrow does this a few times, when Cruise is tasered near the start, the bolt gets shot right into the lens of the camera. Now that shot is purely in there for the 3D and it looks janky as fook in 2D (which is how I choose to watch my films).

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

What I hate is when I’m watching a movie and there is a shot quite obviously framed purely for the 3D element. Edge of Tomorrow does this a few times, when Cruise is tasered near the start, the bolt gets shot right into the lens of the camera. Now that shot is purely in there for the 3D and it looks janky as fook in 2D (which is how I choose to watch my films).

Fair enough on that point. Many 50's-80's 3D films did that for the "fun" gimmick, and it is indeed sometimes fun in 3D. In 2D, not so much. But that's kept to a minimum these days with modern 3D films. Modern films tend not to just poke things out at you too often. Sometimes you can still tell it's framed with 3D in mind or a specific effect may be obviously intended for 3D but that's just part of the aesthetic of the film imo.

I look at those older films with their "gimmick" shots as just part of their charm.

[admccroan]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Everything you said here is wrong. 3D stereoscopic movies have been around for over 100 years. There were 3D movies filmed in every decade. Long before the modern 3D Real-D got popular, IMAX was playing specialty 3D content. 3D isn't gone. Stop perpetuating this nonsense. 3D movies are still a thing. 3D film Archive is still releasing remastered classics all the time on 3D blu-ray. I saw a new Jaws (1975) 3D remaster last year and the audience was having a blast.

VR headsets and gaming commonly use 3D now. Stereoscopic imaging is used in the medical field.

Just because Disney and some other short-sighted execs decided to back off pushing 3D because they want to move on to pushing HDR and High Framerate doesn't mean a century of 3D technology is suddenly being put to an end.

And no, 3D movies are not compromised by shot composition in 3D films. Watch Hugo and tell me that film is compromised by it being shot in 3D.

[Filmmaker]

I’m the king of the Bull Moose world!

https://www.bullmoose.com/p/36694946...4k-uhd-digital

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

I don't think HFR has a place in narrative films, only for stuff like Koyaanisqatsi, or the recent Aronofsky 18K movie Postcard Of Earth.

That said, the HFR implementation in Avatar 2 couldn't have been worse. It honestly makes me doubt the idea that James Cameron is actually a perfectionist. There was no rhyme or reason for when the HFR was used! It was random!

The only good thing I can say about the HFR in Avatar 2 is that it looked great in underwater scenes. That was the one consistent use of HFR, and it looked beautiful, ethereal, other-worldly almost. I can't exactly put my finger on why HFR in narrative films doesn't seem jarring in underwater scenes.

I was able to watch a HFR screening of Avatar 2 (though it was not advertized as such anywhere here in Brazil, I wonder how many people in the theater might have thought that something looked off, but they couldn't quite put their finger on what or why, so they just shrugged it off, because the public doesn't really know about frame rates).

This is a great video.

hmm I thought Avatar 2 was one of the few, just abou tonly, films that did HFR right

and for 3D.... the Avatar films almost need 3D, miles beyond miles better (one weird thing is the new re-release of the first Avatar, none of the floating jellyfish seemed to float out into the audience like they did in the initial release, that was so cool in the initial release, not sure what the deal was, did my seating position affect that so severely? IMAX film vs IMAX and DOlby laser? I sort of feel like he maybe re-did that scene to get rid of the last of the pop outs, a super shame, if so).

As for Titanic though, the 3D version is cool, but I still don't quite feel it as much as in the regular 2D version, for this one I do prefer the 2D.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I’m the king of the Bull Moose world!

https://www.bullmoose.com/p/36694946...4k-uhd-digital

BB has it for about the same. Not sure why Amazon has it for such a crazy beyond crazy price (even the $131 is kinda crazy since while cool it feels a stretch that it has >$100 extras in there).

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

hmm I thought Avatar 2 was one of the few, just abou tonly, films that did HFR right.

In the underwater sequences, yes, they looked wonderful for me.

[mattyn7]

What's the go with announcing the international versions (UK, Australia etc)? Same day still as USA or looking more like next year?
A month out until the USA version and the studios are very quiet on the rest of the world...

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by mattyn7

What's the go with announcing the international versions (UK, Australia etc)? Same day still as USA or looking more like next year?
A month out until the USA version and the studios are very quiet on the rest of the world...

Disney has stopped all DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K releases in Australia and Southeast Asia.

Only option for Aussies, New Zealanders, and those in Southeast Asia is importing from Europe, the Americas, or Japan.

[kevinquest]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

hmm I thought Avatar 2 was one of the few, just abou tonly, films that did HFR right

and for 3D.... the Avatar films almost need 3D, miles beyond miles better (one weird thing is the new re-release of the first Avatar, none of the floating jellyfish seemed to float out into the audience like they did in the initial release, that was so cool in the initial release, not sure what the deal was, did my seating position affect that so severely? IMAX film vs IMAX and DOlby laser? I sort of feel like he maybe re-did that scene to get rid of the last of the pop outs, a super shame, if so).

As for Titanic though, the 3D version is cool, but I still don't quite feel it as much as in the regular 2D version, for this one I do prefer the 2D.

Yeah Avatar is made for 3D it does not work in 2D at all. Gravity and Drive Angry too and i believe there are many more but those are the standouts. Also TITANIC in 3D is way better than in 2D it just comes to life in your home not to mention the opened up screen.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by kevinquest

Yeah Avatar is made for 3D it does not work in 2D at all.

I watch Avatar in 2D since 2009 and out of three times I saw The Way of Water two were in 2D. It works fine, it's a movie just like any other.

Originally Posted by kevinquest

Also TITANIC in 3D is way better than in 2D

Oh, so you're just one of those 3D maniacs. Okay.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by kevinquest

Yeah Avatar is made for 3D it does not work in 2D at all.

[SpacemanDoug]

I personally hate 3D, it darkens the picture and it strains my eyes

[admccroan]

Ghosts of the Abyss is $4.99 on iTunes right now. Definitely a made for 3D movie, but worth a watch if you’re a Titanic fan.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I watch Avatar in 2D since 2009 and out of three times I saw The Way of Water two were in 2D. It works fine, it's a movie just like any other.

Oh, so you're just one of those 3D maniacs. Okay.

Oh, so you're just one of those 3D haters. Okay.

Maybe that's just his preference. Titanic in 3D was very well-done. It was my preferred version until now. We'll see how the UHD compares.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Oh, so you're just one of those 3D haters. Okay.

No, I just don't treat it as if it was a cure for cancer

I simply don't care about it at home, but will always remember my IMAX 3D screenings of both Avatars, Gravity and Transformers 3 as a fantastic experiences.

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Disney has stopped all DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K releases in Australia and Southeast Asia.

Only option for Aussies, New Zealanders, and those in Southeast Asia is importing from Europe, the Americas, or Japan.

Sounds like the beginning of the end for physical media...

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

Sounds like the beginning of the end for physical media...

Not really. People in those countries don’t purchase physical media so it doesn’t make sense to operate in those markets. It would be like trying to sell cars to Eskimos. Many parts of Europe and a sizable enough portion of the US are still supporting physical so we’ll be OK. If you’re a collector and live in Australia importing is still an option.

[matbezlima]

You guys have an overly narrow perspective. What about the non-first world countries? In all South America countries, the UHD format never took off the ground to begin with, it's at best a niche for people who are rich. You could count on your hands how many UHDs have been released here. And old regular blu-ray is probably even rarer than UHD in first-world countries.

Why? Economical issues make importing too expensive. People don't have as much money to spend. And it also creates a culture of piracy (most people only bought pirate DVDs, and the format only became so popular because of DVD-R being dirt-cheap, same is true for CDs). The result is an unbreakable loop. Why sell physical media in a place where almost no one can or is even willing to buy it? What killed physical media here was internet piracy, pure and simple.