Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Medality]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Really hoping the Disney encode is able to pull out more detail.

Why would anyone think it will be that different? The disc is already nearly maxed out, and there are only two foreign tracks.
Most probably Disney will put even more tracks in there, and maybe even lose DoVi.
Also, we haven't even seen the Paramount encode, and we should hope for a better one from Disney? Come on, guys.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Medality

Why would anyone think it will be that different? The disc is already nearly maxed out, and there are only two foreign tracks.
Most probably Disney will put even more tracks in there, and maybe even lose DoVi.
Also, we haven't even seen the Paramount encode, and we should hope for a better one from Disney? Come on, guys.

Paramount uses shitty encoders, regardless of bitrate. Disney does not. Also it will have DV.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Medality

Most probably Disney will put even more tracks in there, and maybe even lose DoVi.

Hi.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

The 35mm scan wasn't made professionally.

I was talking about the grain and on the 35mm, the grain is not fake. It looks organic. And yes, the 35mm scan has some problems, namely light levels and colour. I did not compare those aspects.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The print also looks soft as balls. Go with what you like.

Again, I was only talking about the grain structure, which looks natural on the 35mm and fake on the UHD. I never said Titanic should look soft. And Geoff, I don't know if you are defending this UHD release. It ain't The Mummy UHD levels good. Not even close. on the other hand, the organic grain and contrast on the 35mm does remind me of The Mummy UHD, very much. Again, that's just my perception.

Originally Posted by wright96d

It's a mother****ing release print. If you want to make claims of fake grain, compare to the BD. So many people make claims of fake grain, even the great RAH himself, when it's simply the original grain structure with every molecule of chroma grain obliterated, giving the remaining luma grain a strange appearance.

Don't use such abrasive language! And FYI, the release print IS the original look of the film, NOT the O-Neg, NOT the Interpositive!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I was talking about the grain and on the 35mm, the grain is not fake. It looks organic. And yes, the 35mm scan has some problems, namely light levels and colour. I did not compare those aspects.

Again, I was only talking about the grain structure, which looks natural on the 35mm and fake on the UHD.

Titanic: Cateracts Edition

[matbezlima]

I think the grain in those screenshots is not that well encoded. Hence why it looks weird, not fully natural, though it will look better in motion.

I wonder if Disney will use a different video encode than Paramount. I hope Disney does, their encoding is miles better than Paramount. With Disney, even bad transfers are well-encoded.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I was talking about the grain and on the 35mm, the grain is not fake. It looks organic. And yes, the 35mm scan has some problems, namely light levels and colour. I did not compare those aspects.



Again, I was only talking about the grain structure, which looks natural on the 35mm and fake on the UHD. I never said Titanic should look soft.



Don't use such abrasive language! And FYI, the release print IS the original look of the film, NOT the O-Neg, NOT the Interpositive!

Yeah, about that - 35mm prints can be hit or miss. I know, I used to deal with them a lot. If they're not stored properly, the color fades. They're already at least three generations old. We don't know the source of the print. Also, if you look at 70mm scans vs. 35mm you'll see that 35mm prints can sometimes be hideous.

[J-Mart]

Originally Posted by bluhunter

iTunes updated the previous listing with the latest cover art and 4K remaster. As far as I can see the iTunes Extras were NOT updated.
Can anyone confirm?

I thought I remembered someone here stating that their extras have updated, but mine haven’t. Still only have deleted scenes

[Mierzwiak]

There's not even a caps-a-holic comparison and we're already in the middle of screenshots analysis craze

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Yeah, about that - 35mm prints can be hit or miss. I know, I used to deal with them a lot. If they're not stored properly, the color fades. They're already at least three generations old. We don't know the source of the print. Also, if you look at 70mm scans vs. 35mm you'll see that 35mm prints can sometimes be hideous.

Prints since early 1990s were all made on No-fade ESTAR stock. So, the colour fading shouldn't be excessive. To some degree, yes, the 35mm scan does look yellowish; as if the other colours have faded. But, my point was primarily about the grain, which looks natural and gorgeous on the 35mm but artificially applied above the 4K UHD's DNrd cleaner image.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Titanic: Cateracts Edition

Get a surgery Geoff, as soon as possible. Maybe hold off spending money on the UHD so you can pay for a Cataract surgery. Don't ignore your eye health.
I can see plenty of fine detail and every pore of the skin is visible, thank you.

vlcsnap-2023-11-27-21h35m17s114.jpg

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Get a surgery Geoff, as soon as possible. Maybe hold off spending money on the UHD so you ca pay for a Cataract surgery. Don't ignore your eye health.
I can see plenty of fine detail and every pore of the skin is visible, thank you.

Is GENERATION LOSS, the most well known phenomenon in analog audiovisual processes a foreign concept to you?

[Medality]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

I wonder if Disney will use a different video encode than Paramount. I hope Disney does, their encoding is miles better than Paramount. With Disney, even bad transfers are well-encoded.

I agree with you on catalogue releases made by the B-team (and priced at such). But I don't think Titanic falls into that category. It's priced like a new release (even more than that, actually, here in Canada). And I think non-catalogue Paramount encodes are really nice. Look at Top Gun: Maverick, Mission: Impossible, D&D, BumbleBee, Transformers ROTB, etc.
Anyway, time will tell, as they say.

[starmike]

I'm just going to say this about that 35mm "scan" floating around...

The irony is that the scan is SO BAD that you can't even see the iceberg. Here's a literal screenshot from that scan.

[Farerb]

The 35mm is what a 90s film should look like, I don't understand why people want 90s films to look like they were made today.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Is GENERATION LOSS, the most well known phenomenon in analog audiovisual processes a foreign concept to you?

I know all about generation loss: O-Neg - Interpositive - Internegative - release Print. Filmmakers know it too. What you perhaps don't know is that no one can see the negative. You have to turn the image into a POSITIVE, to view it. And that is the IP. Unless you know, the IP is very low contrast and soft looking. The image only attains its HARDNESS or density when it passes the Internegative image and becomes a release print. The grain gets accentuated and makes the image appear sharper because of the heightened grain. Have you seen any 35mm film projected recently? Well, I have (in 2022); a 1970 first-run print to be exact. And it was highly detailed partly owing of the heightened grain of the release print.

Originally Posted by starmike

I'm just going to say this about that 35mm "scan" floating around...

The irony is that the scan is SO BAD that you can't even see the iceberg. Here's a literal screenshot from that scan.

You are absolutely correct and I agree, it's quite dark and not calibrated well at all. But, again, I was talking about grain primarily. If properly scanned, as many fanmade 35mm films have been, it would have looked stunning and all those details would have been visible. I never defended the 35mm scan in its entirety from the outset; just the grain structure, which I maintain, looks far more organic than the UHD. The light levels, colour on the 35mm scan look poor comparatively; particularly the nighttime shots. The scanner simply did not use adequate light.

[cybersoga]

I would like it to look like a fresh scan of the camera negatives. This isn't it, but i'll take whatever i can get.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I know all about generation loss: O-Neg - Interpositive - Internegative - release Print. Filmmakers know it too. What you perhaps don't know is that no one can see the negative. You have to turn the image into a POSITIVE, to view it. And that is the IP. Unless you know, the IP is very low contrast and soft looking. The image only attains its HARDNESS or density when it passes the Internegative image and becomes a release print. The grain gets accentuated and makes the image appear sharper because of the heightened grain. Have you seen any 35mm film projected recently? Well, I have (in 2022); a 1970 first-run print to be exact. And it was highly detailed partly owing of the heightened grain of the release print.

Is this Nolan's secret Blu-ray forum account?

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I wonder what this shot will look like on UHD; it's the worst one on Blu-ray, I believe it's from the reshoots and Kate shot it on a green screen.

This shot out stood out when I saw it in Dolby Cinema a few years ago.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Farerb

The 35mm is what a 90s film should look like, I don't understand why people want 90s films to look like they were made today.

Many people in this sub, from what I gather, just don't like the look of release prints. They want a shiny, clean video look for their ultra modern home theatre equipment. For me, the film print look is the most important and should be maintained on the home release. Ask GeoffD how I was overjoyed to see The Mummy's (1999) 4K transfer. It looked exactly like a pristine release print. that's not how this Titanic UHD looks like. It should have, given that Titanic was made only two years earlier, with the same photochemical colour timing process.

Originally Posted by wright96d

Is this Nolan's secret Blu-ray forum account?

Does Nolan live in India and would he, a Christian, go so far to take a Hindu name?

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You are absolutely correct and I agree, it's quite dark and not calibrated well at all. But, again, I was talking about grain primarily. If properly scanned, as many fanmade 35mm films have been, it would have looked stunning and all those details would have been visible. I never defended the 35mm scan in its entirety from the outset; just the grain structure, which I maintain, looks far more organic than the UHD. The light levels, colour on the 35mm scan look poor comparatively; particularly the nighttime shots. The scanner simply did not use adequate light.

How can you defend "grain structure" from a print that was amateurishly scanned, and scanned badly? There are so many good 35mm and 70mm scans that are done right. Titanic is not one of them. You can't use it as a basis for anything.