Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Poya]

Ok, I'm back!

The UHD has the new features but is missing Breaking New Ground, 1912 newsreel, and Construction Lapse from the Special Collector's Edition DVD, and the Final Word doc from the BD. As for the HBO special? That's on the UK 4-Disc set, which maybe a bit hard to find. One can hope it eventually finds itself on good ole YouTube.

You might as well keep all 3.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

about the only thing it doesn't have is Dolby Cinema, and that may be because Dolby is a *****. But either way, I hear Dolby Cinema screens are 1:90, so I'd rather not get it if it has to be at the loss of the full big screen. Considering my theater has those Chrys-something projects, laser projection and 4K screenings, I assume it should be capable for Dolby Cinema.

Dolby Cinema is a partnership between Dolby and AMC Theaters. So there's exclusivity contracts.

Some Dolby Cinema screens are 2.39, like here in Orange, CA.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Poya

The UK version, correct? Because I surmise the BD has the same features as the US version. I may have to use DVDCompare to confirm.

That's right.
The UK version has some stuff the American version doesn't.
I still keep it for the special features that weren't ported over to the Blu-Ray.

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Dolby Cinema is a partnership between Dolby and AMC Theaters. So there's exclusivity contracts.

Some Dolby Cinema screens are 2.39, like here in Orange, CA.

So then it's like I said, Dolby being a b*tch. I know my cinema is probably more than capable of handling Dolby Cinema. What are the requeriments for it?

In Spain I think there's only like ONE Dolby Cinema screens. Hoping one day Dolby strikes a deal with Odeon Multicines. (Not the UK Odeon.)

My chain likes to invest in quality. I mean, check this out

https://www.boxofficepro.com/lg-odeo...-atmos-madrid/

My cinema has one of these!

https://www.boxofficepro.com/odeon-m...cinema-system/

[ghostsofjoy]

I know that every time I pop in here, I am guaranteed something off-the-wall entertaining!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

So then it's like I said, Dolby being a b*tch. I know my cinema is probably more than capable of handling Dolby Cinema. What are the requeriments for it?

In Spain I think there's only like ONE Dolby Cinema screens. Hoping one day Dolby strikes a deal with Odeon Multicines. (Not the UK Odeon.)

My chain likes to invest in quality. I mean, check this out

https://www.boxofficepro.com/lg-odeo...-atmos-madrid/

My cinema has one of these!

https://www.boxofficepro.com/odeon-m...cinema-system/

Looks like AMC is USA specific. In Spain looks like Cinesa has the deal.
I don't know how far it is from you but there's a Dolby Cinema at the Cinesa La Maquinista in Barcelona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Cinema
The article lists some basic specs.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by teddyballgame

if you're in a pinch you can manually adjust your system clock to a time before expiration. I had to re-register the beta key afterwards but it worked

consider supporting the developer when you get a chance

True that you can do this in a pinch, but it might also mess with some PC apps that integrate with calendar, dates, etc. - personally I don't like to do that. I do wish there wasn't that several day gap in-between new keys, but I do appreciate the perpetual beta test keys.

[stvn1974]

So...I will buy "that guy" and ask if this will be sold instore at Best Buy. Will this be sold instore at Best Buy?

[Chad Rouch]

This thread is such a trainwreck that I think Richard Kimble might have escaped from it. It's glorious.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Looks like AMC is USA specific. In Spain looks like Cinesa has the deal.
I don't know how far it is from you but there's a Dolby Cinema at the Cinesa La Maquinista in Barcelona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Cinema
The article lists some basic specs.

Pretty far.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Bolty

In 3 days folks will start getting these in their hands and things will get better.

No, it won’t. See The Naked Gun and Enter The Dragon.

[Bolty]

Well some folks will get the disc and like it and won't need to hear other folks' opinions about whether it's any good.

And I'm sure some folks will get it and come here and moan about how bad it is. Once I have it and if I like it, I will check this thread a whole lot less.

I'm mostly curious as to when the Movies Unlimited discs arrive in people's hands.

[GrouchoFan]

I'm mostly looking forward to the complaints about how shoddy the Collector's Edition packaging is!

[GrouchoFan]

Dammit, I want my schadenfraude! I NEED my schadenfreude!!

[mastafishere]

Has anyone’s order from Movies Unlimited shipped out yet? They had a great promotion with 25% off but I’m starting to wonder if the trade off is a leisurely shipping time.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Considering the amount of digital touch-up work needed to make the film work in 1.78:1 due to the amount of goofs seen just outside the 2.35:1 ratio, I'd hate to imagine how much more work would be required to make it presentable in an even taller ratio.

Why use Super 35? There are a number of reasons (look them up) but the most obvious reason and the most relevant one to this conversation would be so the film could easily be reformatted for other displays such as 4:3 CRTs without being anywhere near as compromised as typical pan and scan jobs.

Anyway, the film was composed for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, that's the ratio it will look best in unless you think "more image automatically = better" and don't understand framing/composition. The other ratios were an afterthought (hence why so much digital work needed to be done to erase mics and other equipment/goofs in the 1.78:1 3D presentation). I have no interest in seeing what every film would look like completely opened up. I've seen enough open matte presentations of numerous films to know that any film opened up that much from the original intended aspect ratio is just going to show lots more dead space, goofs (unless they've been digitally erased) and of course the intended composition will be impacted.

Personally I think Titanic looks better in 16:9 in the 3D presentation, and it's not because I think "more image automatically = better". I feel the 16:9 framing works far better for this particular film. The sets are glorious and you lose so much of it in the original ratio. The 3D 16:9 is far more immersive between the opened up image and the 3D. You're on the Titanic.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

I thought that we were past the point of arguing about letterboxing...

With our modern big TVs, letterboxing is not an issue. Even the tiniest modern TV will easily dwarf CRTs (the small size of those TVs was why Cameron did what he did!). There is no reason for letterboxing to not be the standard. 16:9 was chosen as an aspect ratio that would be a compromise to best fit all of them with minimal loss of screen space.

And I hope that someone here doesn't come saying they would want Ben-Hur to fill their screens. It would destroy those beautiful ultrawide compositions.

IMO there's nothing wrong with viewers having a certain preference for aspect ratios, just like some directors have a preference for certain aspect ratios. Too many people in here allow for zero wiggle room outside of their own opinions. I find it amazing that despite the internet opening up conversations to millions of people everywhere, people seem less tolerant than ever of anybody else's opinion.

Riddhi2011 being banned is a prime example. I feel some were being way too harsh on him. He wasn't a troll imo. He just felt strongly about his opinions, just as others in here do. He was clearly frustrated that he felt he was being bullied. Yet he's banned as a troll just for sticking to his opinions, just as other in here do all the time. I'm assuming he got banned due to defending his unpopular opinions. These days, having an unpopular opinion = troll. I can relate to how he feels because I feel dogpiled on sometimes in here, and it's frustrating.

Myself, I always respect the original aspect ratio, as that's the fimmaker's choice. Yet in a case like Titanic, even Cameron waffled back and forth on aspect ratios for different formats. When I watch vintage TV shows, my preference is always the original 4:3, as it was shot and aired. Yet I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be interested in watching a couple series in widescreen once through, just for a different experience. That doesn't mean I think the 4:3 is inferior or that it should be erased. I enjoyed the original Galactica series in widescreen on blu-ray, even though my preference is still the 4:3 blu-rays which is my go-to version.

And then there's cases like V:The original miniseries, which was shot for TV and aired in 4:3, yet the director has decided his preferred ratio is 16:9. I feel it's too cropped and it's certainly not how it was originally seen by millions back when it aired. Or Duel, shot for TV, but released later in an expanded theatrical version in widescreen. Lots of films have been released in multiple aspect ratios over the years.

IMAX ratio films are very popular, and we even have switching aspect ratios on some blu-rays. Often new films are released in different aspect ratios depending on which theatre format it's playing in.

All this is just to point out that aspect ratios aren't always as set in stone as it seems. Some films do work in two different ratios, and that's okay.

And since none of us are shooting films, why does it even matter? If somebody in here claims they prefer open matte for every release (I sure don't, but I do find them fascinating sometimes) why does it matter? It's just a personal preference, and has no effect on anything.

For Titanic, I just find the opened-up 16:9 3D version to be so much more immersive and effective, and I love seeing more of those gorgeous sets. I think it works better for this partiuclar films. I I do feel that some films these days tend to be a bit tighter than I like, with lots of close-ups that cut off too much of the subject. I don't like feeling cramped in a film.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by escvnte

That's right.
The UK version has some stuff the American version doesn't.
I still keep it for the special features that weren't ported over to the Blu-Ray.

I'm sure a lot of people know this already, but I'll post it for clarity.

When they did the Titanic Collector's Edition DVD in 2005, it was designed as 4 discs.

Disc 1 - Movie (Part 1)
Disc 2 - Movie (Part 2)
Disc 3 - Deleted scenes and Special features
Disc 4 - Feature-length making-of documentary and special features.

However, fairly late in the day, the feature-length making-of doc was cancelled.

The DVD sets were already designed by that point.

In the US and Canada, Paramount made the choice to redesign the packaging for three discs and drop disc 4 entirely, losing the trailers and some bonus features

Outside the US and Canada, Fox made the decision to keep the existing packaging design and keep disc 4, even though it was now virtually empty.

Presumably, Paramount thought they were saving money on discs, while Fox thought they were saving money on packaging design.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

I think it makes sense that cinematographers would be far more protective of the look of the movies than directors. It must suck seeing a director changing all your hard work on a whim. You want to preserve and protect all the work you did.

In fairness though, on movies with directors who have the clout of Cameron, the DPs are hired hands.

On Titanic, for example, Cameron fired the first DP after they finished the Halifax shoot.

In the end, directors at this level have complete artistic control of the film, and the DP has to do what they say, or be fired (cough, Panic Room, cough, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).