Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

He just doesn't look like Leo.

[Mierzwiak]

What the hell?

That area looks wonky as hell on the screenshot from the 3D Blu-ray (set #6 on the comparison), but it looks like on the UHD that part of the spiral cord was totally erased.

[Riddhi2011]

DNR WAX FEST -

What I can see from the Titanic Blu-Ray Vs UHD comparison - the UHD looks Terminator 2 levels bad in the details. The beard, hair of the characters are totally smeared into indistinct blob, with fake film grain and over sharpening applied on top of it to mitigate the DNR's effects. this looks really bad. Take a look below -

[Show spoiler]Titanic UHD DNR.jpg

Source - https://slow.pics/c/MZqizBr7

As to why the grain was applied of the DNR base image. I'd say the plan was to originally release the cleaner image on UHD, but with the overwhelming number of complaints against the T2 UHD, they panicked and slapped fake grain above the denoised image. But that cannot hide how smeared the details like hair and beard look in the base image. It's a travesty. And that spiral chord disappearing mid-air, that's just hilarious. Heck the chord is more visible in the 3D Blu-ray, which is supposed to be more DNR's, but looks more grainy up close (look at the foreheads) than the UHD.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

What the hell?

That area looks wonky as hell on the screenshot from the 3D Blu-ray (set #6 on the comparison), but it looks like on the UHD that part of the spiral cord was totally erased.

That's bizarre.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

What the hell?

That area looks wonky as hell on the screenshot from the 3D Blu-ray (set #6 on the comparison), but it looks like on the UHD that part of the spiral cord was totally erased.

If you step through this scene you can see that the cord fades in and out multiple times while it swings around. Perhaps dust removal software run amok (it looks for thin structures that are only visible in a single frame, which can have false positives if you have fast moving objects that cannot be tracked properly).

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

DNR WAX FEST -

What I can see from the Titanic Blu-Ray Vs UHD comparison - the UHD looks Terminator 2 levels bad in the details

Source - https://slow.pics/c/MZqizBr7

You're overreacting imo, T2 is its own category of a disaster, although this is frightening:



The more I look at these screenshots, the more I like how it looks overall, but when you start looking at the details, there's definitely something strange going on here, at least partially.

And these letters on Paxton's jacket remind me a little bit of our favorite AI upscaling:

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

At this point I suspect you are intentionally being obtuse.

No, I'm trying to ground the conversation. What happens on this forum is that someone makes a statement and everyone uses it as gospel until something comes along to put it in the proper perspective (if ever). So, I used the black frame as an example of that fact that the scan is problematic and shouldn't be used for ANY reference at all - color, grain, etc.

[BNex99]

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.

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.

One thing about home video transfers for James Cameron's films is that (the T2 UHD notwithstanding), they're usually state-of-the-art for their time and built to last (which is good since he takes so long to approve new ones).

For example, the 1995 THX LD of ALIENS looked almost as good as the DVDs, and it was only when that standard HD transfer of THE ABYSS started making the rounds about 10 years ago that the old non-anamorphic DVD started to look dated to me. And the 20-year-old HD transfer of T2 used on all pre-2017 BDs is still perfectly watchable as long as you get one of the releases without the excessive DNR.

As an experiment, I took the 2005 UK DVD of TITANIC and upscaled it to 720p in Avid, pulled the frame rate down to 23.98, and synced it up with the 5.1 track from the 1999 US DVD. Played on an OLED 4K TV (which handles the rest of the upscaling itself), it almost looks like an early Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

If you step through this scene you can see that the cord fades in and out multiple times while it swings around. Perhaps dust removal software run amok (it looks for thin structures that are only visible in a single frame, which can have false positives if you have fast moving objects that cannot be tracked properly).

Dat Lowry difference

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

What the hell?

That area looks wonky as hell on the screenshot from the 3D Blu-ray (set #6 on the comparison), but it looks like on the UHD that part of the spiral cord was totally erased.

I checked the DVD. It looks like the phone cord is moving so much that it blurs.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You're overreacting imo, T2 is its own category of a disaster, although this is frightening:



The more I look at these screenshots, the more I like how it looks overall, but when you start looking at the details, there's definitely something strange going on here, at least partially.

And these letters on Paxton's jacket remind me a little bit of our favorite AI upscaling:

Overreacting? Not like T2? Well, look at the crops below and tell me the beard and the hair on those actors don't look smeared as crap, just like T2 and Predator UHE. Everything looks like it was paint brushed over. The only difference I see between Titanic UHD and T2 UHD is that the former has a fake layer of grain to hide the smearing while the latter does not and hence appears more "exposed."

Titanic UHD DNR crop.jpg

L O L!



As for the chord, it's still visible, even if faint, on the 35mm. See the screenshot below -

[Show spoiler]vlcsnap-2023-11-28-01h09m40s151.jpg

[Mierzwiak]

Now, to add fuel to Geoff's theory that it's not based on a new scan:

On the UHD (#13 in the comparison), on the boy's jacket, you can see the exact same white speck that was already on the 3D Blu-ray from 2012:

3D


UHD

[Farerb]

So it's basically an upscale of the previous Blu-ray with additional sharpening.

[Jowiko96]

I don’t understand why people are so bent out of shape and immediately go to James Cameron about T2 in particular.

It’s pretty clear that film in particular is out of his hands.

I will need to see the disc, but the transfer looks pretty stunning in particular moments. Much better than the dated 2012 master. The color timing is much more naturalistic this time around

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Farerb

So it's basically an upscale of the previous Blu-ray with additional sharpening.

YES, but with improved colour and contrast. Those are the only two good attributes about it. Other than that, it's just the 2012 DNRd master, with a fake film grain layer to hide the smearing and an artificially sharpened image. If you wish to get a better UHD, come back after a decade, maybe. Even then, I highly doubt it would look better than this. I also have serious doubts that they will simply re-scan the film and release a pristine UHD without any DNR or sharpening plus other tinkering.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

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.

Yeah I'm not talking about the scratches I was just saying that in response to the comment that the 35mm scan is "immaculate". It isn't. And regardless as to whether or not the print remains unchanged, it's still a theatrical print (aka not accurate to the way the film is supposed to look) because of the lack of consistency and the amount of generational loss you experience by the sheer nature of creating a theatrical print. The photochemical process just has too many steps involved. And a projected theatrical print is absolutely not the most authentic source for how a film should look. One could look drastically different than the next so who's to say this 35mm scan is even correct? And that's precisely the point.

And no respectable restoration is gonna use a shitty theatrical print as a reference (unless that's all that's available and, well, that's a whole other issue in and of itself). If the restoration is being done from the original camera negative, for example, the restoration team isn't going to reference a theatrical print when a better source, a PROPER source - like an answer print - is available. Being one step away from the OCN, an answer print would be a way better reference for how a film is supposed to look. Because from there they'd create an interpositive, and then from THERE they'd create an internegative (or dupe negative) and only from THERE would they strike the theatrical prints. You're so many steps removed from the OCN at that point that it would be a very bad idea to use a theatrical print as a reference to restore/grade a film. It's just not done that way.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Overreacting? Not like T2? Well, look at the crops below and tell me the beard and the hair on those actors don't look smeared as crap, just like T2 and Predator UHE. Everything looks like it was paint brushed over. The only difference I see between Titanic UHD and T2 UHD is that the former has a fake layer of grain to hide the smearing while the latter does not and hence appears more "exposed."

But then you also have shots like this one (from the same sequence), where you can count the stubbles:

[Jowiko96]

Originally Posted by Farerb

So it's basically an upscale of the previous Blu-ray with additional sharpening.

They had done a pretty thorough 4K scan for the 3D release. They seemed to have ironed out most of the kinks this time around.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

YES, but with improved colour and contrast. Those are the only two good attributes about it. Other than that, it's just the 2012 DNRd master, with a fake film grain layer to hide the smearing and an artificially sharpened image. If you wish to get a better UHD, come back after a decade, maybe. Even then, I highly doubt it would look better than this. I also have serious doubts that they will simply re-scan the film and release a pristine UHD without any DNR or sharpening plus other tinkering.

Wrong

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2308

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by BNex99

As an experiment, I took the 2005 UK DVD of TITANIC and upscaled it to 720p in Avid, pulled the frame rate down to 23.98, and synced it up with the 5.1 track from the 1999 US DVD. Played on an OLED 4K TV (which handles the rest of the upscaling itself), it almost looks like an early Blu-ray.

That is because PAL DVDs (UK, Australia, India, etc.) have higher resolution and progressive scan, leading to better image quality and more resolved fine detail than the NTSC counterparts. I have both PAL and NTSC DVDs of the same movies and more often than not, the PAL ones look very good and definitely watchable on high def TVs.