Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

There are so many. So many. Casablanca, Raging Bull, Psycho, Taxi Driver, the list goes on and on!

Thanks!! Gonna check those out!

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Chad Rouch

Because no matter how many old prints are scanned or screenshots from other formats are produced, no one here knows to any degree of certainty how the film was originally intended to look or what the image on the negatives/interpositives really looks like.

That's the X factor anyone here has to admit. They can make very smart, educated guesses from a wellspring of knowledge, but unless they have direct access to the original source and/or direct knowledge of Cameron's artistic thinking, they don't know what it's supposed to look like. Outside of a couple shots where the VFX was changed, no one can say it is definitively revisionism and not a much better presentation of the original source.

But wouldn't an old print from 1997 be what Cameron artistically intended in 1997?

[Riddhi2011]

My observations after having gone through the Titanic 4K online streaming version (2023):

In majority of the closeups, the skin looks rubbery, dry and has a sort of plastic laminated, reflective quality about them. The sharpness in closeups is unnaturally high, to the point that it felt strenuous to my eyes. Most of it looks overly synthetic and excessively processed.

The organic qualities of 35mm film are not apparent anymore. It's like some fan took the master copy and used Topaz to upscale it. The grain looks frozen in many places, like the scene when J.J. Astor talks with Jack during the dinner. All in all, a weird and artificial-looking image that does not feel like professional work to me, especially given how great some 4K restorations have been.

The Blu-ray looks far more pleasing to my eyes in terms of sharpness and detail, even though the colours are overly yellow and green on that one, unlike the original 35mm look that was more balanced and had better colour separation.

Given that Cameron has said "we shouldn't have to do it again," and that a higher resolution release will reveal "the grain more clearly," which he thinks we wouldn't want to see, then it's safe to say [in Cameron's own words] "this is it."

I don't think we will ever get a proper restoration of Titanic, ever again, in our lifetime. Maybe, a 100 years later, if the negative survives and if physical media survives till then. I also think, most people will like this, since it looks cleaner and shinier. The overwhelming positive response among reviewers will encourage Cameron to further damage his past photochemical films.

I feel Titanic deserved a much, much better restoration on home video than what Cameron did to it. If this was in the hands of Criterion, it would have looked glorious.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I feel Titanic deserved a much, much better restoration on home video than what Cameron did to it. If this was in the hands of Criterion, it would have looked glorious.

It would look the same, except with shittier compression. Cameron has to approve the transfer. This is what he wants the film to look like and it's clear he spent a lot of time tuning it to his desires.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The overwhelming positive response among reviewers will encourage Cameron to further damage his past photochemical films.

Considering how all the work on 4K remasters of Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies is already finished - it doesn't really matter. And I don't think he even cares about the reviews.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I feel Titanic deserved a much, much better restoration on home video than what Cameron did to it. If this was in the hands of Criterion, it would have looked glorious.

I don't need my UHDs to be badly encoded, thanks, but Titanic from Sony or Arrow would be great (of course without any Jim's involvment)

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

It would look the same, except with shittier compression. Cameron has to approve the transfer. This is what he wants the film to look like and it's clear he spent a lot of time tuning it to his desires.

No. The grain would have been retained, the picture wouldn't have been over-sharpened and the colours would have been closer to the 1997 look. A proper restoration and disc release should not have poor compression. Spending a lot of time in something is no guarantee that the end result will be for the best. Cameron's pro-digital and anti-grain sensibilities is to the detriment of his past films shot on celluloid film. That is what I feel about the matter.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Considering how all the work on 4K remasters of Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies is already finished - it doesn't really matter. And I don't think he even cares about the reviews.

Yes, it does not matter anymore. Those "remasters" are done. The Terminator (1984) and Aliens (1986) will be interesting case studies when released on UHD; especially given that they have very good, grainy Blu-ray releases.

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I don't need my UHDs to be badly encoded, thanks, but Titanic from Sony or Arrow would be great (of course without any Jim's involvment)

I didn't know Criterion encodes their discs poorly. That's interesting. I really loved Satyajit Ray's Apu trilogy, other Ray films, Tarkovsky's Stalker and Wim Wenders' Until the End of the World. Yes, Sony's work on Spider-Man 2 is exemplary. That's how restorations should be done from film.

[blakninja]

Poor encode can be fixed, poor restoration, no.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I feel Titanic deserved a much, much better restoration on home video than what Cameron did to it. If this was in the hands of Criterion, it would have looked glorious.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No. The grain would have been retained, the picture wouldn't have been over-sharpened and the colours would have been closer to the 1997 look. A proper restoration and disc release should not have poor compression. Spending a lot of time in something is no guarantee that the end result will be for the best. Cameron's pro-digital and anti-grain sensibilities is to the detriment of his past films shot on celluloid film. That is what I feel about the matter.

Criterion uses filmmaker approved masters, it would look the same regardless of who is distributing it.

This was not a Paramount or a 20th restoration, it was done by a third party with Cameron supervising. Criterion does not even do every restoration. Wall-E has an “updated” 4K master provided by Disney. Sony and Warner provide the masters with the added provision by Sony that these can not be altered.

You keep pushing for something that was never going to happen and never will. This is how Cameron wants it to look and that is filmmaker approved. Just as Criterion would do.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

One of the strangest things in this release is seeing Rose's hands dry as ice when she's all entwined with Jack inside the car. Everything inside the car is steaming like a boiling kettle, but thanks to James Cameron's "restoration" her hand looks perfectly blow dried.

You are trying SO hard.

Her hand has always exhibited perspiration in every other version? Or your issue is there is now so much detail in her hand that it can't be left to your imagination?

And when we're zooming in on her hand....

I guess it's time for someone to dig out the comparison shots of this hand in previous versions. I can't wait.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by blakninja

But wouldn't an old print from 1997 be what Cameron artistically intended in 1997?

No, it's a dupe of a dupe of a dupe that was run through a projector a few hundred times and then faded over time. It's not the source.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

One of the strangest things in this release is seeing Rose's hands dry as ice when she's all entwined with Jack inside the car. Everything inside the car is steaming like a boiling kettle, but thanks to James Cameron's "restoration" her hand looks perfectly blow dried.

Are you suggesting that the fact actors' bodies were not moisturized on the set to look sweaty is a matter of sharpening?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Criterion uses filmmaker approved masters, it would look the same regardless of who is distributing it.

This was not a Paramount or a 20th restoration, it was done by a third party with Cameron supervising. Criterion does not even do every restoration. Wall-E has an “updated” 4K master provided by Disney. Sony and Warner provide the masters with the added provision by Sony that these can not be altered.

You keep pushing for something that was never going to happen and never will. This is how Cameron wants it to look and that is filmmaker approved. Just as Criterion would do.

Alright. In that case, I stand corrected. What I should have said is a proper restoration without tampering the source like Cameron did.

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Are you suggesting that the fact actors' bodies were not moisturized on the set to look sweaty is a matter of sharpening?

I just found it odd looking, especially due to the added sharpness. It looks less noticeable on the Blu-ray and sort of blends in.

Blu-ray -

Titanic Blu-ray Rose's hand.jpg

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No. The grain would have been retained, the picture wouldn't have been over-sharpened and the colours would have been closer to the 1997 look. A proper restoration and disc release should not have poor compression. Spending a lot of time in something is no guarantee that the end result will be for the best. Cameron's pro-digital and anti-grain sensibilities is to the detriment of his past films shot on celluloid film. That is what I feel about the matter.

Cameron. Has. To. Approve. The. Transfer.

[Academyratio]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I don't think we will ever get a proper restoration of Titanic, ever again, in our lifetime. Maybe, a 100 years later, if the negative survives and if physical media survives till then. I also think, most people will like this, since it looks cleaner and shinier. The overwhelming positive response among reviewers will encourage Cameron to further damage his past photochemical films.

Hmmm, as far as I'm concerned, "Proper" is for James Cameron to define, not you.

It's his film after all, not yours. Might as well get over it and move on with your life.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

One of the strangest things in this release is seeing Rose's hands dry as ice when she's all entwined with Jack inside the car. Everything inside the car is steaming like a boiling kettle, but thanks to James Cameron's "restoration" her hand looks perfectly blow dried.

Cringe.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Cameron. Has. To. Approve. The. Transfer.

Yeah, I got that.

Originally Posted by Academyratio

Hmmm, as far as I'm concerned, "Proper" is for James Cameron to define, not you.

I know that. thank you.

Originally Posted by Academyratio

It's his film after all, not yours. Might as well get over it and move on with your life.

Hmm. I'll consider it.

[PonyoBellanote]

I really can't help but to admire how a lot of people in this forum seem to know better as to how movies should look on home video, even more than directors, even more than people who know film..

Moreover, I think we, as mostly spectators, have been spoiled by amazing 4K restorations/remasters of very old, analogue filmic remasters, that we're expecting that a 26 year old movie from 1997, with lots of digital work on it, should look exactly as analogue as a 40 year old film.

There's no denying here that Cameron did touch up the movie and filter a bit, probably used AI a little, but the work here, is not as AWFUL as T2, no denying there's issues if you stop and pixel peep, but the final result is pretty decent and watchable if you just, you know, sit down and watch the movie instead of trying to nit pick every single frame..

Me? I also love the look of grain, analogue film remasters, but I'm not out here trying to scholar people on how all films should look based on my fetish for it nor expect movies from this era to look like movies from 50 years ago.

[jala12]

Originally Posted by I-C-Blue

PSA for Canadians purchasing the 4K UHD: If ordered from Amazon, which lists its media format including a Digital Copy, probably don't expect it. They're sending me a replacement without hesitation but I'm not holding my breath for a digital copy. I tried telling them it was pointless lol. Sucks though. I knew I should have purchased it for $6.99 on Black Friday. I share my apple TV library with my parents, who are not tech savvy enough to handle discs.

More importantly, Canada has been losing digital copy support over the years. I'm shocked a paramount release does not include one this time around.

Since you ordered your copy from I presume Amazon.ca, did you get a slipcover on your copy?

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

I really can't help but to admire how a lot of people in this forum seem to know better as to how movies should look on home video, even more than directors, even more than people who know film..

Moreover, I think we, as mostly spectators, have been spoiled by amazing 4K restorations/remasters of very old, analogue filmic remasters, that we're expecting that a 26 year old movie from 1997, with lots of digital work on it, should look exactly as analogue as a 40 year old film.

There's no denying here that Cameron did touch up the movie and filter a bit, probably used AI a little, but the work here, is not as AWFUL as T2, no denying there's issues if you stop and pixel peep, but the final result is pretty decent and watchable if you just, you know, sit down and watch the movie instead of trying to nit pick every single frame..

Me? I also love the look of grain, analogue film remasters, but I'm not out here trying to scholar people on how all films should look based on my fetish for it nor expect movies from this era to look like movies from 50 years ago.

You're 100% right.

BUT there's this: https://slow.pics/c/ctnJrVRD

There's really no reason why UHD looks slightly worse, less organic and filmic than these official 4K shots. A fetish? Yeah, but it's Cameron's, not ours

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You're 100% right.

BUT there's this: https://slow.pics/c/ctnJrVRD

There's really no reason why UHD looks slightly worse, less organic and filmic than these official 4K shots. A fetish? Yeah, but it's Cameron's, not ours

Well, yeah. I'm not blind enough to deny the master has issues but it's nowhere near as the f*k*ng disaster it's claiming to be here. At least it's still watchable. We've got plenty of other worse hackjobs to compare and prove that there can be worse..