Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by starmike

I'm suggesting that the print was badly scanned, and different prints have different qualities. The same movie scanned in 35mm and 70mm show INSANELY different grain structure, implying that the 35mm version is garbage to begin with.

Uhm, no.
The project was actually funded by members and fans of a community.
They actually used 4k equipment to scan the 35mm print (which was in immaculate conditions, btw) and they didn't mess up with colors or anything.

Sure, colors might not be the same as the 1999 or 2005 DVDs. And different prints have different colors.
But it's still watchable, and i'm grateful that there are people who invest their time and resources to give fans of a movie options.

Have you watched the flying scene from the 35mm print, or even the daylight shots where Jack and Rose walk on the First Class deck?
Those shots are phenomenal in the 35mm print.

[Jonathan McLeod]

Originally Posted by wright96d

90 gigs

84.58GB actually, quite a substantial difference. Remember there are 1024 bytes in a KB, etc not 1000.

[Dr. T]

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by tankryankr19

Sounds promising, what is the file size on the BD-100 Disc?

84,58 Gigabyte.

[Medality]

Originally Posted by Jonathan McLeod

84.58GB actually, quite a substantial difference. Remember there are 1024 bytes in a KB, etc not 1000.

Your point being? Remember there are 100,000,000,000 bytes in a BD-100 disc (93 GiB). I find it much easier to keep comparing GB with GB (and not GiB, which you were referring to).

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bingo. Hence the Lowry credit remaining at the end of the film along with the new Park Road Post credits, they took the extant 4K master (which was verr naice) and applied some extra juju to it. I think PRP worked more on the 3D version tho, as that got uprezzed to 4K (the 3D having been finished out to 2K originally) and variable frame rate for the most recent theatrical re-release.

Hi Geoff! So the UHD used the same master as the 2012 bluray?

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by wright96d

What does eac3to read?

No bits info there on Dolby Atmos tracks. On DTS-HD MA tracks the tool does show the bits info.

[Matt89]

If this is the same 35mm scan that’s been floating around online for the past couple years I wouldn’t say it’s “immaculate”. I have it saved on an external and there’s tons of scratches that run vertically up the middle of the frame from about the third reel onwards. It’s actually quite distracting. It’s not faded or anything but you gotta take into account the amount of generational loss that exists on a theatrical print in addition to film being a moving target where a theatrical print could look quite different from one print to the next. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad the 35mm scan exists but it shouldn’t be used as a point of reference because of course the UHD isn’t going to look like a damn theatrical print. Lol.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by escvnte

I have 35mm prints of The Matrix, Jurassic Park (both Open-Matte and Super-Wide), TITANIC, Aliens and the original Star Wars Trilogy.

Prints or scans? Two very different things. I used to have 35mm projectors in my garage and scans don't hold a candle to real prints.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Titanic came out in 1997. It would make no sense to use the 5.1 as a starting point when the original protools session most certainly still exists.

The ProTools session might have the 5.1 master mix in 24-bit PCM files.
So they would had probably used that master mix.
No studio will ever go from lossy to lossless.
Any audio engineer/professional will tell you that converting anything from lossy to lossless it's just a waste.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure. They didn't say they started with a laserdisc AC3 rip or anything. The original sessions will be configured for 5.1 as that was the original discrete format for the film. They can then expand it horizontally and vertically from there.

Exactly.
With professional tools, like Penteo 16 Pro+, Spatial Audio Designer (which I own) or NUGEN's Halo Upmix, a standard 5.1 or 7.1 can be expanded to 3D/Atmos audio easily, without losing audio information and without adding any unnecessary delay/reverb effect.

TITANIC also had a SDDS 8-channel theater mix, btw.
But I highly doubt they still have stems of that mix.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by escvnte

Uhm, no.
The project was actually funded by members and fans of a community.
They actually used 4k equipment to scan the 35mm print (which was in immaculate conditions, btw) and they didn't mess up with colors or anything.

Sure, colors might not be the same as the 1999 or 2005 DVDs. And different prints have different colors.
But it's still watchable, and I'm grateful that there are people who invest their time and resources to give fans of a movie options.

Have you watched the flying scene from the 35mm print, or even the daylight shots where Jack and Rose walk on the First Class deck?
Those shots are phenomenal in the 35mm print.

Thank you!

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

100% agreed. I too have those exact 35mm scans. I also have the Star Wars Trilogy, and many, many more I wish not to say here. Most of them are scanned perfectly and look very much like how 35mm prints look when projected in theatres.

Dear God in Heaven, no they don't. They're GOOD, but they don't look anything like an actual 35mm print should look in a theater. For one thing, you're looking at a digital representation of an analog format, and the film is supposed to be projected on a large screen, not displayed on your TV. So yes, it has the analog-type LOOK, but the end result isn't the same.

When you run prints in a large 40' auditorium yourself, let me know.

[Ben_UK]

Interesting… I thought someone said a few pages back that they will basically be the same discs in the US and across the pond, so now that isn’t the case?

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Interesting… I thought someone said a few pages back that they will basically be the same discs in the US and across the pond, so now that isn’t the case?

I think that's what was initially thought because at that point, Disney putting Dolby Vision seemed like a rarity, though, that's what the insiders affirmed as well.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by escvnte

The ProTools session might have the 5.1 master mix in 24-bit PCM files.
So they would had probably used that master mix.
No studio will ever go from lossy to lossless.
Any audio engineer/professional will tell you that converting anything from lossy to lossless it's just a waste.

The ProTools session just might also have hundreds of tracks of mixed audio to transfer to a new Atmos session. And who said anything about going from lossy to lossless?

Originally Posted by escvnte

Exactly.
With professional tools, like Penteo 16 Pro+, Spatial Audio Designer (which I own) or NUGEN's Halo Upmix, a standard 5.1 or 7.1 can be expanded to 3D/Atmos audio easily, without losing audio information and without adding any unnecessary delay/reverb effect.

TITANIC also had a SDDS 8-channel theater mix, btw.
But I highly doubt they still have stems of that mix.

Professional upmixes don't use upmixing plugins. That's not how this works.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Don’t get me wrong I’m glad the 35mm scan exists but it shouldn’t be used as a point of reference because of course the UHD isn’t going to look like a damn theatrical print. Lol.

Which print are you referring to? The Matrix or TITANIC?
Because the scan of TITANIC I have doesn't show any scratches.

Point of reference, no.
And in no way I said that the print look better than the UHD.
But it's still good to have options to watch your favorite movies in whichever format you prefer.

I don't mind playing the 1999 or the 2005 DVDs of TITANIC, sometimes.
I like the color palette better than the 2012 Blu-Ray.
And I wish they would've stuck with that color palette for the UHD.
But, we can't always have anything we want.

But, yeah.
As a movies collector, i'm glad that I can watch my favorite movies in whichever version/format I can get my hands on.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Prints or scans? Two very different things. I used to have 35mm projectors in my garage and scans don't hold a candle to real prints.

I myself own two 35mm prints of full length features and know how they look. And, as I said earlier, I have attended a few 35mm cinema screenings in the last six years, namely, Interstellar in 2018, Khandhar (Dir. Mrinal Sen) in 2019 and The Adversary (Dir. Satyajit Ray) in 2022.

The 35mm scans are made by properly white balancing them and matching the lamberts of light based on the projected print. They don't just scan and throw hem at us without doing any work on them. The colour is also matched as much as possible. Sure, some poor scans may exist, but for the majority part, they are very faithful to the projected look of the prints. They cannot be 100% accurate as even the Blu-ray/4Ks are not a 100% accurate and more often than not are revisionist, like Lucas's Star Wars Trilogy, Cameron's films, Jurassic Park, Michael Mann's Heat and Wong Kar Wai's Fallen Angels to name a few. None of these films are faithful to the original look. So to expect 35mm scans from 20-30 years ago to magically look 100.00 % the SAME as the original is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Matt89

If this is the same 35mm scan that’s been floating around online for the past couple years I wouldn’t say it’s “immaculate”. I have it saved on an external and there’s tons of scratches that run vertically up the middle of the frame from about the third reel onwards. It’s actually quite distracting. It’s not faded or anything but you gotta take into account the amount of generational loss that exists on a theatrical print in addition to film being a moving target where a theatrical print could look quite different from one print to the next. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad the 35mm scan exists but it shouldn’t be used as a point of reference because of course the UHD isn’t going to look like a damn theatrical print. Lol.

Regardless of the scratches, the basic look of the print remains unchanged. And, a projected print IS the most authentic source for how a feature film should look. This is why in proper film restorations, the people involved project a release print to see how the colours, contrast and highlights or the grain, et all, looks. They then try to match that projected look on the home video counterpart. Fans who scan 35mm release prints try to do these things as much as possible, given their limited resources. But, again, speaking from personal experience of having attended many 35mm screenings, I would say they get it more or less right. Some differences are bound to happen and they happen on official releases on disc and streaming as well. Nothing in life is perfect.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Btw I still feel there is some sharpening and a touch of DNR. If one doesn't see it good for them. It's like the love and hate relationship with Peter Jackson's films on 4K.

Watched it the other day and there is definitely digital trickery going on. It's not old fashioned dumb sharpening or noise filtering though (e.g. it creates barely any halos). There are probably AI filters at work that selectively affect only some image elements. Faces in particular are sometimes unnaturally soft while clothing and sets look normal. Occasionally faces look almost cartoony for a moment (some screenshots have already been posted). In other shots fine details are overly emphasized.

I have to say these inconsistencies were distracting to a degree on the projector. The movie itself is still an experience though. The Atmos sound is pretty good.

[yetanotherone]

Originally Posted by starmike

Dear God in Heaven, no they don't. They're GOOD, but they don't look anything like an actual 35mm print should look in a theater. For one thing, you're looking at a digital representation of an analog format, and the film is supposed to be projected on a large screen, not displayed on your TV. So yes, it has the analog-type LOOK, but the end result isn't the same.

When you run prints in a large 40' auditorium yourself, let me know.

They are not GOOD necessarily either.

For one The Matrix shouldn't look yellow and True Lies shouldn't look dark blue. The Star Wars super fans that scan them may know what they are doing since that community is so big that they check each other and iterate all the time, but when it comes to other films.. I don't know. Because both releases I noted that look wrong came with notes about how no they are totally right and if you don't like them you have no idea what you are talking about.

[PonyoBellanote]

Seems the disc has leaked (it was to be expected as soon as ''reviewers'' start getting the discs) and, well, this thread is gonna be as much hell as it's always been, it seems. People have opinions, and some of them just go.. a bit mad and eccentric about it.

I'm gonna wait to see it with my own eyes in movement, whenever that is. I don't think this 4K is gonna look like one of those old films with pristine grain and filmic detail; I don't think it was meant to be, it's a studio movie of the end of the 90s, with CGI in a lot of parts.. I don't think it's meant to look like most of the 4K of organic movies we've seen. I just think as long as there's detail, some amount of grain in some parts, and it doesn't look smeary, too digital, should be fine. Those screens, some of them look a bit off but others look fine. And those are screencaps, mind you. What matters is the picture ON MOVEMENT.

Seems the master won't be pristine, but not definitely a T2 mess, nor a mess worth complainin

And please, please - let's stop using amateur 35mm scans, and arguing stupidly over it, and treating as how the movie should look, specially ones that look obviously overblown, probably from too many projections. Not even when the 35mm print was fresh and projected for the first time on your standard theater, the movie looked like it really should. Film has that effect of wearing out easy.