Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by wright96d

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

Not really.
The Equalizer audio producer/mixer used Penteo to make Atmos mixes for The Equalizer.
There's even his testimonial on the Penteo product page.

You would think that plugins that costs $700/$2000 are not used in a professional studio?

I can only speak about my experience from meeting/networking with Surround Sound producers over the years.
And all they told me that sometimes they use plugins to upmix music/movies soundtracks.

[Geoff D]

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.

As someone said: It is on a green screen, but not from reshoots. The 'set' that they're in was constructed as a miniature as they didn't have the money to do it full size (yes, even on a mega budget show like Titanic), so they filmed the actors and composited them in. Wonky shot is wonky, I'm not worried about how it'll look on UHD.

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

This reminds me of HD-era masters, where they had to lay on contrast and sharpening to give the illusion of detail that simply wasn't there. But with 4K there is no need for this, so it's baffling that they chose to do it now. Perhaps it's because the master was prepared for a theatrical re-release. Projectors are naturally softer, so maybe they were compensating for that.

Yeah, I had the same thought in the Avatar 3D thread re: the outrageously sharpened 'remaster' of that one. It's like everything is geared for that theatrical workflow/output. Speaking of which:

Originally Posted by fkid

Riddhi, you really should calm down, way too many posts per minute at this rate. This thread is for discussing the UHD 4K release of this film only, stop polluting it for attention.

Something nobody has mentioned yet is the Dolby Vision metadata is garbage, just a static brightness lift, with no dynamic per-shot L1 or trims, same as Avatar had with similar HDR grade (200-nits cap), which also seemed to use similar DNR/AI sharpening tinkering. Doesn't happen with most Paramount releases, so I wonder who is responsible for this when it does happen? Maybe Cameron lets his nephew do the Dolby Vision at home... /s

DoVi plot vs HDR plot

Btw, I hope everyone is ready for The Abyss release to also be disappointing to some extent based on Avatar and now Titanic, even the 4K announce trailer seems to hint strongly at DNR. Sigh...

Haven't we already discussed the idea (and indeed the reality) of some colourists having deliberately static (or near enough) DV plots because the actual content simply doesn't do a lot, or that they prefer their content to be set to just one maximum/minimum? Yes, your HDR plot has a lot more ups and downs but it's still exceedingly restricted at source, for something that doesn't exceed a few hundred nits then it doesn't need any heavy lifting IMO. As you said, no need to blame Paramount as their DV is usually very lively, if Avatar's is similar then it doesn't take rocket surgery to work out the culprit.

I still think Cameron is working from a theatrical-style mindset here, that as theatrical Dolby Cinema has no dynamic metadata at all then why should the home version require it - tho in order to still have 'Dolby Vision' on a home release he needs to have this static data as a minimum.

Did you ever do a plot of the UHD of Battle Angel Alita? Can't see one on the google docs. If that's another static one then that as good as confirms Cameron's Dobly methodology.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

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.



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.

I just posted a screenshot of a black image which is supposed to be a shot of the iceberg. That's not accurate at all. And yet you're using that print to measure accuracy. I don't get it.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

Seems the disc has leaked (it was to be expected as soon as ''reviewers'' start getting the discs)

About time.
Might probably get a copy of It, then, considering that my set will be shipped no earlier than December 13, and for regional reasons I cannot access the iTunes stream with my legit digital code.

Like they say: download, watch and delete.

[Jowiko96]

Is the iTunes version glitching for everyone else? I had the 4K upgrade for a few days, but now it’s back to HD on my end. It’s been going back and forth a lot recently.

It was in my “Watch In HDR” as of last week, but not it won’t appear and when looking at the iTunes Store, it’s listed as this.

Yet, the film is still listed under the 4K sale atm.

IMG_7268.jpg

[bluisblu]

What is the chance that Disney's UHD blu-ray will look better than Paramount one?

[fkid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...Haven't we already discussed the idea (and indeed the reality) of some colourists having deliberately static (or near enough) DV plots because the actual content simply doesn't do a lot, or that they prefer their content to be set to just one maximum/minimum? Yes, your HDR plot has a lot more ups and downs but it's still exceedingly restricted at source, for something that doesn't exceed a few hundred nits then it doesn't need any heavy lifting IMO. As you said, no need to blame Paramount as their DV is usually very lively, if Avatar's is similar then it doesn't take rocket surgery to work out the culprit.

I still think Cameron is working from a theatrical-style mindset here, that as theatrical Dolby Cinema has no dynamic metadata at all then why should the home version require it - tho in order to still have 'Dolby Vision' on a home release he needs to have this static data as a minimum.

Did you ever do a plot of the UHD of Battle Angel Alita? Can't see one on the google docs. If that's another static one then that as good as confirms Cameron's Dobly methodology.

We have, I just think it's worth pointing out because it's VERY rare to see purely static L1 plots for retail UHD BD, and as such, I think it's maybe 50/50 whether it deliberate or not, and only the DV source truly knows. When it's deliberate for sure with "static"/global L1 value is when L2 trims are active and usually dynamic, indicating some manual adjustments scene-by-scene. Alita Battle Angel did have dynamic MEL DV, even with the similar low nits HDR grade, so something tells me it's the specific individual at studio or likely 3rd party that is doing DV that decides it's not "worth it" to do anything dynamic, maybe less so JC? I just think if you're going to leave static, why even add it to the retail disc, at least be honest like Nolan. Haha.

Overall, with such low nits, maybe it doesn't make a huge difference, but I prefer DV to be dynamic/accurate whenever possible.

[starmike]

Yup, iTunes is showing HD for me too now.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by escvnte

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.

That's because they redid the colour grading for the 2012 version and turned it slightly warm. The original 35mm prints are a bit more colder in day light scenes and very steel blue (like T2 on 35mm) at night. This is why I recently bought the original non-anamorphic DVD, which doesn't have the 2012 alterations Cameron made. This one below -

Titanic Excel DVD_Front lowres.jpg

The DVD is obviously low resolution NTSC, but it has the colder, colour grade. However, it's possible that the 2012 grading might be more faithful to the original look of the film than the DVD. This is because, more often than not, early DVD masters are known to have the wrong colour grading. Jurassic Park is a perfect example of this.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Did you ever do a plot of the UHD of Battle Angel Alita? Can't see one on the google docs. If that's another static one then that as good as confirms Cameron's Dobly methodology.

Not mine.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by TbeRw01

1080p BD vs 2160p BD (tonemapped):https://slow.pics/c/MZqizBr7

[MrSleep]

Looks like Apple/Paramount pulled the early 4k/HDR/Atmos release on iTunes?

Now it plays/streams the older HD/Dolby Digital version...

[Fiffy]

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.

[Show spoiler]

I think they did a face replacement on this shot. That's why she looks unnaturally frozen and then moves only very slowly. The process they had at the time was too primitive to handle more dynamic situations (see the terrible face replacements on the stunt people when they run away from the flooding water later).

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by MrSleep

Looks like Apple/Paramount pulled the early 4k/HDR/Atmos release on iTunes?

Now it plays/streams the older HD/Dolby Digital version...

It’s still the new master, as evidenced by the theatrical Paramount logo. Or at least, it is for me.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

I just posted a screenshot of a black image which is supposed to be a shot of the iceberg. That's not accurate at all. And yet you're using that print to measure accuracy. I don't get it.

At this point I suspect you are intentionally being obtuse. I NEVER said the Titanic print is accurate. I talked about the GRAIN, with a screenshot I shared and mentioned how compared to the UHD, the grain looks more organic on the 35mm scan. That's it. I even agreed with you that the particular 35mm has problems with light levels and maybe even colour. But how is it hard for you to see that the grain looks far more organic compared to the umpteen screenshots of the UHD we have seen until now. If you don't like the look of the grain on the 35mm then just say that. No point in dragging the iceberg screenshot into this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

I think they did a face replacement on this shot. That's why she looks unnaturally frozen and then moves only very slowly. The process they had at the time was too primitive to handle more dynamic situations (see the terrible face replacements on the stunt people when they run away from the flooding water later).

No. It's a VFX shot (actors comp'ed onto a miniature set) as explained above. And I still love those actual face replacements for what they are, given that it was mid-90s technology and they're having to deal with rapidly fluctuating lighting, lots of water spraying about AND it's in slow motion. The sheer brass balls to even attempt it, wow. Kate will always look weird in that shot but Leo's still looks pretty damned good to me.

[bbwiscfan]

and we still have 8 days left before the disc lol.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

At this point I suspect you are intentionally being obtuse. I NEVER said the Titanic print is accurate. I talked about the GRAIN, with a screenshot I shared and mentioned how compared to the UHD, the grain looks more organic on the 35mm scan. That's it. I even agreed with you that the particular 35mm has problems with light levels and maybe even colour. But how is it hard for you to see that the grain looks far more organic compared to the umpteen screenshots of the UHD we have seen until now. If you don't like the look of the grain on the 35mm then just say that. No point in dragging the iceberg screenshot into this.

And he says I'm the one being obtuse when I show how bad the scan is.

[starmike]

More screenshots added to this post:

https://www.highdefwatch.com/post/ca...ter-yes-it-can

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

And he says I'm the one being obtuse when I show how bad the scan is.

You are putting words into my mouth. Again, I repeat, I never talked about the scan, just the grain. I never praised that scan wholeheartedly. I even agreed with you how some some parts of it, like the iceberg citing, are too dark. It's clear your only intention is to prop yourself up and put me down. Very well, it's best we ignore each other. Let's not keep fighting.