Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Disagree. Modern restorations don't ever go for that 4-step process of O-Neg-IP-IN-RP. They scan the O-Neg, invert it digitally and the grade it based on a projected print. They don't spend money on striking new answer prints. The only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print. And the reason is because that's what people saw all over the world during the original release. They didn't see an answer print, they didn't see the IP or the Internegative. They saw a release print. In fact, T2's 4K UHD, despite the heavy DNR, has colours that are mostly quite faithful to the 35mm release prints, though not a 100 percent match. The older T2 DVD and Blu-rays had the wrong colour grading.

Huh???

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that modern restorations use the same photochemical process of creating a theatrical print (they OBVIOUSLY don't lol - nobody does this), I'm saying they don't use a theatrical print as a REFERENCE because it's too many steps removed from the OCN so it isn't accurate at all. They were never accurate. THAT. IS. PRECISELY. THE. POINT. It doesn't matter what people saw back in the day, what they saw was a shitty inaccurate theatrical print that was several steps removed from the OCN because at the time that was the only way to mass produce prints for theatrical exhibition without destroying the negative.

And "the only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print" isn't even remotely true. You think they're gonna use a theatrical print to restore a movie from the '50s? You can't be serious. And people aren't out here creating answer prints to do restorations - that's also not what I said at all - those would've been created back when the film was made (during post-production). That answer print (if it exists) or even a well preserved IP would be a much better representation of how said film was supposed to look, not a bloody theatrical print.

Using a theatrical print for a restoration is a last resort kind of deal. Like what Shout Factory had to do with their BDs of Hell Night and The Final Terror because sadly those are the only elements that exist.

[Narp]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

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

you legit cannot count the stubble there. that shot looks horrible. look at the sweat on his nose.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Tired of saying that I never called the 35mm scan of Titanic accurate. I was merely pointing out the grain structure ONLY. The grain, not the rest of the attributes. I too agree it looks different and has black crush plus pervading darkness in the night scenes unlike the projected print which clearly showed the iceberg and other details.

So you're agreeing that the scan is flawed, yet using said flawed scan to prove a point about the image which can't be verified because of said flawed scan?

I'm really trying to understand your logic here because if the scan is flawed, EVERYTHING about it should be inaccurate.

[Moviola]

Originally Posted by omgitsgodzilla

This just doesn't look like as good a UHD as the Blu-ray was a Blu-ray.

Yes, that could end up being quite a good appraisal. Again though, I'd like to see it in motion. In the worst case, I at least get the 2012 Blu packaged with the UK UHD.

It's not so much the star on the cap in the frame you highlight for me, but the whole face. Again it's not too far removed from the aggressive sharpening visible in Avatar that reduces a lot of background actors faces to pure mush. The software is just too eager to define any kind of edges that it can recognise be it a line in the skin, or a cheekbone...etc, and yet I'm not seeing that whole weird blanket of sharpening that plagues entire frames in Avatar.

[Dark_Vader]

Originally Posted by NoFro

I love this forum. It's the same story every time:

Initial nervousness and cynicism.

First reactions in: IT'S THE BEST THING EVER.

Pixel peeping then begins: IT'S THE WORST THING EVER.

Can't believe how many times we've been through this cycle

This used to literally suck the enjoyment of this hobby.

That is why now I take it with a grain of salt.

I'm never swayed by overreaction and never, ever by screenshots.

[PonyoBellanote]

You guys do realize movies are meant to be watched in movement and not through ultra augmented stills, right?

[omgitsgodzilla]

Originally Posted by Moviola

Yes, that could end up being quite a good appraisal. Again though, I'd like to see it in motion. In the worst case, I at least get the 2012 Blu packaged with the UK UHD.

It's not so much the star on the cap in the frame you highlight for me, but the whole face. Again it's not too far removed from the aggressive sharpening visible in Avatar that reduces a lot of background actors faces to pure mush. The software is just too eager to define any kind of edges that it can recognise be it a line in the skin, or a cheekbone...etc, and yet I'm not seeing that whole weird blanket of sharpening that plagues entire frames in Avatar.

Right, I didn't point out the star because it's the main/only problem, but it jumped right out at me as a case where the algorithm or whatever obviously just gets the shape of something wrong.

Also, looking at some of the later comparisons in the same gallery, I'm noticing instances where the angle looks different, which normally I'd assume was because the uploaded didn't get the exact same frames, but nothing in the shot seems to actually move between the two images. Is the UHD based on the 3D conversion and pulling certain shots from the wrong eye?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Huh???

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that modern restorations use the same photochemical process of creating a theatrical print (they OBVIOUSLY don't lol - nobody does this), I'm saying they don't use a theatrical print as a REFERENCE because it's too many steps removed from the OCN so it isn't accurate at all. They were never accurate. THAT. IS. PRECISELY. THE. POINT. It doesn't matter what people saw back in the day, what they saw was a shitty inaccurate theatrical print that was several steps removed from the OCN because at the time that was the only way to mass produce prints for theatrical exhibition without destroying the negative.

And "the only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print" isn't even remotely true. You think they're gonna use a theatrical print to restore a movie from the '50s? You can't be serious. And people aren't out here creating answer prints to do restorations - that's also not what I said at all - those would've been created back when the film was made (during post-production). That answer print (if it exists) or even a well preserved IP would be a much better representation of how said film was supposed to look, not a bloody theatrical print.

Using a theatrical print for a restoration is a last resort kind of deal. Like what Shout Factory had to do with their BDs of Hell Night and The Final Terror because sadly those are the only elements that exist.

There's some miscommunication going on here. Maybe I wasn't able to properly explain my stand. Let me make this clear. When they restore films nowadays, they use the O-neg scan and edit it in the computer to make the Blu-ray (except Nolan), I agree. But neither the O-Neg, nor the IP have the accurate colour timing to represent what the film should look like. Before Digital Grading was introduced, films were timed based on how a print would look projected. The filmmakers were concerned with the final release print as that would be what everyone will see on the big screen. So, in order to re-create that theatrical look, that people remember, a restorer needs to project a film print to see how it looked more or less during the original release. The said print need not be rented from a theatre. I wasn't suggesting they were using some torn, scratched prints from a downtown cinema. Studios have their own prints that they can project and watch to determine the intended colour. This is how they can match the look of the release prints which too have gone through the same processing. If you think I am suggesting that they actually scan a release print and put it on the disk, then no, I wasn't suggesting that at all. They use their own prints kept at the vault to check the colour, contrast, white balance, grain and framing and recreate that look on the computer using editing tools.

Also, an IP is very low contrast and has poor density. It can never be a reference for how the final look is supposed to be because the viewer is not supposed to look at an IP. It is an unprocessed positive image. An IP does not dictate the final look. In case of Nolan's films, he scans the IPs because he doesn't want to touch the O-Neg. However, the IP is then further colour graded to match the photochemically timed prints that represent how people are supposed to watch the movie, more or less.

[Moviola]

Originally Posted by omgitsgodzilla

Also, looking at some of the later comparisons in the same gallery, I'm noticing instances where the angle looks different, which normally I'd assume was because the uploaded didn't get the exact same frames, but nothing in the shot seems to actually move between the two images. Is the UHD based on the 3D conversion and pulling certain shots from the wrong eye?

The Blu-ray is the 3D, no? (hence the frames being open matte)

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

There's some cognitive dissonance going on here. Let me make this clear.

Now you're insulting people?

[omgitsgodzilla]

Originally Posted by Moviola

The Blu-ray is the 3D, no? (hence the frames being open matte)

I didn't realize the 3D Blu-ray was open matte; that would explain it!

I'd heard the T2 UHD was based on the 3D conversion and that was part of why the image was so scrubbed; I thought they might've done the same thing here given the general weirdness of the image.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

You guys do realize movies are meant to be watched in movement and not through ultra augmented stills, right?

YES! But the screenshots science allows you to see details that are easy to miss or even invisible in motion. It's almost like learning how sausages are made, things can get ugly

As for the motion argument, after recently watching great portions of it on D+, I have come to terms with how Avatar looks in 4K. Yes, it's oversharpened. Yes, the live-action stuff is mostly trash. But damn, I just love how colorful and contrasty all the Pandora stuff is.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Now you're insulting people?

I wanted to write "miscommunication" but due to confusion of posting both here and on another private chat platform where I was conversing about cognitive dissonance, I put it here. Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll edit it. Multitasking is problematic.

[bluhunter]

Originally Posted by J-Mart

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

Mine haven’t updated either. Just checking.

[SSF-1138]

Some screen caps being posted seem to be coming from lower quality sources.

Compare this shot from the HighDefWatch images probably taken from the projected disc with a similar shot from Slow.Pics from an unknown source. Slightly different angles but there's clearly a difference in quality.

It's best to wait for the discs, we don't know what we're seeing online.

HighDefWatch (probably projected disc, not directly captured)


Slow.Pics (unknown source)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by SSF-1138

Some screen caps being posted seem to be coming from lower quality sources.

Compare this shot from the HighDefWatch images probably taken from the projected disc with a similar shot from Slow.Pics from an unknown source. Slightly different angles but there's clearly a difference in quality.

HighDefWatch (probably projected disc, not directly captured)


Slow.Pics (unknown source)

The ones from that highdefwatch webshite are photos of a screen

[Matt89]

No there's no miscommunication, you're just wrong lol.

You're saying that when a film gets restored, the best representation of a film's look comes from a theatrical print and thus should be used as a reference. You could not be more wrong. Period end of story.

https://www.johndaro.com/blog/2021/5/5/restoring-classics-a7t2e

Specifically the section on "Grading":

"Grading restoration titles is a total sub-discipline from grading as a whole. New theatrical grading starts with references and look development to achieve a certain tone for the film. There is a ton of work that goes into this process. Restoration grading differs since the goal is staying true to that original intent. Not reimagining it. Much like new theatrical grading, a good reference will set you up for success. My preferred reference is a filmmaker-approved answer print. These were the master prints that best represented the filmmakers’ creative intent."

Again, proper restorations are not using a theatrical print for reference simply because they are NOT a good reference.

Jesus Christ.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by SSF-1138

Some screen caps being posted seem to be coming from lower quality sources.

Compare this shot from the HighDefWatch images probably taken from the projected disc with a similar shot from Slow.Pics from an unknown source. Slightly different angles but there's clearly a difference in quality.

It's best to wait for the discs, we don't know what we're seeing online.

HighDefWatch (probably projected disc, not directly captured)


Slow.Pics (unknown source)

Top image has better contrast and accentuated detail while bottom image looks low contrast and has a comparatively duller and flattened look. Both are from the same source. So, which is the correct look?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Huh???

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that modern restorations use the same photochemical process of creating a theatrical print (they OBVIOUSLY don't lol - nobody does this), I'm saying they don't use a theatrical print as a REFERENCE because it's too many steps removed from the OCN so it isn't accurate at all. They were never accurate. THAT. IS. PRECISELY. THE. POINT. It doesn't matter what people saw back in the day, what they saw was a shitty inaccurate theatrical print that was several steps removed from the OCN because at the time that was the only way to mass produce prints for theatrical exhibition without destroying the negative.

And "the only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print" isn't even remotely true. You think they're gonna use a theatrical print to restore a movie from the '50s? You can't be serious. And people aren't out here creating answer prints to do restorations - that's also not what I said at all - those would've been created back when the film was made (during post-production). That answer print (if it exists) or even a well preserved IP would be a much better representation of how said film was supposed to look, not a bloody theatrical print.

Using a theatrical print for a restoration is a last resort kind of deal. Like what Shout Factory had to do with their BDs of Hell Night and The Final Terror because sadly those are the only elements that exist.

The original negative is not an indication though of how a film was supposed to look theatrically in terms of color.

A perfect example of this is day-for-night photography, which was used in lots of older TV shows and lower-budget films, especially horror. They would shoot footage during the day that's intended to be night shots, then during color timing later they would adjust those shots so they would be much darker, with the shadows from the sun passing as moonlit shadows. That's what would go out to theatres, not what was exactly on the negatives - which was the full-brightness daylight scenes as shot on the negatives.

Some DVD and blu-ray releases actually screw that up, because they scan the original negative, but don't realize there were day-for-night shots that were meant to be timed for night. So on DVD or blu-ray the production looks incompetent as it appears scenes change from night to day and back again depending on the shot, when really it was the label that didn't properly time it as it was originally intended. Usually that's due to them not being as familiar with the films as the fans, who know these things, and not having access to original notes that would instruct whoever was doing the timing to adjust those shots. Gerry' Anderson's UFO series has had this issue with a couple episodes on blu-ray from various regions, where the label didn't properly time the day-for-night shots so they appear to be in broad daylight despite it supposedly being nighttime. I saw this happen in a horror film too where they didn't time it right for the blu-ray, so at one point the daylight was pouring into a room but it was supposed to be night, so the actors were pretending to fumble around not seeing anything in the room, when we could clearly see the bright room with the light coming it. The whole scene looked ridiculous because the label didn't time the scene properly. A print would have been a good guide there. The DVD didn't have that issue because whoever timed the DVD knew about those shots. Same with the DVDs of UFO, which had the correct night timing.

This is just one example of how yes, prints can be used as a guide to some degree as to how the intended look of the film was. Obviously not a degraded, beat-up, faded print.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by mar3o

The original negative is not an indication though of how a film was supposed to look theatrically in terms of color.

A perfect example of this is day-for-night photography, which was used in lots of older TV shows and lower-budget films, especially horror. They would shoot footage during the day that's intended to be night shots, then during color timing later they would adjust those shots so they would be much darker, with the shadows from the sun passing as moonlit shadows. That's what would go out to theatres, not what was exactly on the negatives - which was the full-brightness daylight scenes as shot on the negatives.

Some DVD and blu-ray releases actually screw that up, because they scan the original negative, but don't realize there were day-for-night shots that were meant to be timed for night. So on DVD or blu-ray the production looks incompetent as it appears scenes change from night to day and back again depending on the shot, when really it was the label that didn't properly time it as it was originally intended. Usually that's due to them not being as familiar with the films as the fans, who know these things, and not having access to original notes that would instruct whoever was doing the timing to adjust those shots. Gerry' Anderson's UFO series has had this issue with a couple episodes on blu-ray from various regions, where the label didn't properly time the day-for-night shots so they appear to be in broad daylight despite it supposedly being nighttime. I saw this happen in a horror film too where they didn't time it right for the blu-ray, so at one point the daylight was pouring into a room but it was supposed to be night, so the actors were pretending to fumble around not seeing anything in the room, when we could clearly see the bright room with the light coming it. The whole scene looked ridiculous because the label didn't time the scene properly. A print would have been a good guide there. The DVD didn't have that issue because whoever timed the DVD knew about those shots. Same with the DVDs of UFO, which had the correct night timing.

This is just one example of how yes, prints can be used as a guide to some degree as to how the intended look of the film was. Obviously not a degraded, beat-up, faded print.

K well I never said that either. Are any of you reading my posts correctly? Of course the OCN isn't an indication of how a film is supposed to look in terms of colour. It's just raw footage. What I said is that when a movie is restored from the negatives, they're not using a theatrical print as a reference to grade the film because it's NOT a good reference as to how the film was supposed to look.