Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I'd like to state, for the record, that I'm not on here much anymore. Mostly because 99% of the discs I get have wonderful transfers and I feel no need to come on here and take part in discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it.

But when it comes to something like this, I come on here because, yes, I think this is a problematic transfer.

I don't "complain about every release", etc. Because a disc doesn't have to be quote "reference quality". It just has to be faithful to it's source. If that means, for a digital film, that's it's razor sharp and squeaky clean, great. If that means it's an old film with a sub-par source, but faithfully presented without too much digital tinkering, great. So forth and so on.

But I am NOT on board when a film is tinkered with with the intention of turning it into something that it is NOT - which is what we have here.

And I'm not on here "just to complain for the sake of complaining". This is one of my favorite films of all time, and I wanted to see a faithful presentation of it on 4K. This isn't that.

But unfortunately, it seems like the higher profile a release, the higher the chances are of tinkering.

Lots of charges of on here of some of us not accepting something less than perfect. I guess that depends on what your definition of perfect is. 99% of the releases I buy, I consider perfect, because they are true to their source. And it really isn't hard to deliver that.

[mastafishere]

I don't understand the people complaining about the criticisms of the transfer. That's what these forums are for. This is literally a site all about picking apart home releases of movies and in the 4K realm, video quality is a crucial element. Personally, I love the transfer and love the way the movie looks and I'm super happy with it, but I still come on here to read and inform myself of the very legit criticisms that videophiles are picking out.

I just think it's patently stupid to complain about other people being unhappy with the transfer. It literally costs you nothing to ignore those comments and continue to enjoy the movie.

It's a good thing that there is a forum for us to voice our criticisms and to document them, however nitpicky they may seem because, frankly, such places are disappearing from the internet. I love finding an old movie and checking out the discussions about its release on here years and years later, sometimes even continuing the conversation!

Rant over.

[DigitalDeluge24]

I rewatched the disc more carefully today and I changed my mind. There are obvious issues here. For one I've never seen a more heavy-handed application of unsharp masking (sharpening). There are visible halos everywhere I look. Thankfully, the sharpening has been applied after the DNR, which ensures that it does not aggravate the grain.

Speaking of DNR, the beautiful grain in that world-class 4K scan has been tampered with. Not gone, but weirdly muted and blurred, resembling 2K grain. It sometimes freezes, and sticks to moving parts of the image, not unlike Home Alone 4K, another Fox film. The use of power windows to apply different levels of processing to parts of the frame is also very obvious and adds to the artificiality of this whole affair.

Overall, it's a very unsightly and video-like presentation, that in now way resembles 35mm, but also lacks the clarity of a digital cinematography (if that was the goal).

[Spooked]

Interesting update from Bill Hunt including remastering details direct from Lightstorm: https://thedigitalbits.com/item/tita...5thle-uhd-2023

[Rich Pure Doom]

Is anybody here going to mention another issue with this disc? How about the very milky black levels? I swear, in Dolby Vision on a perfectly calibrated OLED, they are downright grey most of the time. How is nobody mentioning this?

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

I rewatched the disc more carefully today and I changed my mind. There are obvious issues here. For one I've never seen a more heavy-handed application of unsharp masking (sharpening). There are visible halos everywhere I look. Thankfully, the sharpening has been applied after the DNR, which ensures that it does not aggravate the grain.

Come on. "Visible halos" everywhere you look? That might be cause for alarm.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Is anybody here going to mention another issue with this disc? How about the very milky black levels? I swear, in Dolby Vision on a perfectly calibrated OLED, they are downright grey most of the time. How is nobody mentioning this?

Because I had the opposite experience. The blacks were not at all grey on my setup. They were black. It even struck me how they were as black as the black bars.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

Because I had the opposite experience. The blacks were not at all grey on my setup. They were black. It even struck me how they were as black as the black bars.

Sometimes they were, and sometimes they aren't. It seemed wildly inconsistent.

[Rich Pure Doom]

I'd also like to add that on the whole, this is probably the slightly preferable viewing experience than the blu-ray. I'm not saying it's an outright bad looking disc. I'm merely reacting to reviews and users claiming it as perfection or flawless, which it's far from to my eyes.

[bbwiscfan]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

I'd like to state, for the record, that I'm not on here much anymore. Mostly because 99% of the discs I get have wonderful transfers and I feel no need to come on here and take part in discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it.

But when it comes to something like this, I come on here because, yes, I think this is a problematic transfer.

I don't "complain about every release", etc. Because a disc doesn't have to be quote "reference quality". It just has to be faithful to it's source. If that means, for a digital film, that's it's razor sharp and squeaky clean, great. If that means it's an old film with a sub-par source, but faithfully presented without too much digital tinkering, great. So forth and so on.

But I am NOT on board when a film is tinkered with with the intention of turning it into something that it is NOT - which is what we have here.

And I'm not on here "just to complain for the sake of complaining". This is one of my favorite films of all time, and I wanted to see a faithful presentation of it on 4K. This isn't that.

But unfortunately, it seems like the higher profile a release, the higher the chances are of tinkering.

Lots of charges of on here of some of us not accepting something less than perfect. I guess that depends on what your definition of perfect is. 99% of the releases I buy, I consider perfect, because they are true to their source. And it really isn't hard to deliver that.

The problem is, and this isn’t directed at you, is that others who do post negative opinions about it continue to do so, harping on it over and over and over again and to the point they call out others who do enjoy the transfer and call them out as wrong, your set up sucks, you don’t know what you’re talking about, flat out name calling and belittling because they want to drive down their point across because only they are right. If you don’t like it fine, post your opinion and move on. Don’t keep at it ad nauseam.

And this is what Cameron wants it to look like. They aren’t going to do anything to change it which people should also know ( I know you know that but you get my point). This is the definitive release. That’s it.

[Marcos1408]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Is anybody here going to mention another issue with this disc? How about the very milky black levels? I swear, in Dolby Vision on a perfectly calibrated OLED, they are downright grey most of the time. How is nobody mentioning this?

Yeah, I believe that the original blu-ray suffers from the same issue with the black levels

[blakninja]

Titanic was shot on 35 mm photochemical film (specifically Eastman EXR 50D 5245 and Kodak Vision 500T 5279) in Super 35 format by cinematographer Russell Carpenter (True Lies, Avatar: The Way of Water) using Arriflex 35 III, Panavision Panaflex Gold II, and Panavision Panaflex Platinum cameras, with Panavision Primo spherical lenses, and it was finished on film at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio for its initial theatrical release back in 1997 (which included 35 mm anamorphic release prints, as well as 70 mm blow-ups).

I’ve recently had the chance to speak with Lightstorm’s SVP of Production Services & Technology, Geoff Burdick, about the process involved in bringing this film to the 4K Ultra HD format, and have confirmed that the new Titanic UHD remaster is built upon the 2K digital intermediate work done in 2012 for the theatrical 3D release, which began with native 4K scans of original camera negative and the best available VFX footage (including interpositive material were available and useful). At the time however, Stereo-D could only work in 2K resolution. So the important thing to understand here is that work on this film has essentially been ongoing in the years since, with the overall goal always to bring the image up to the current ‘state of the art’ using the latest available mastering technology.

A new 4K digital intermediate has since been built using the original scan data. And VFX footage was never simply ‘uprezed’ or completely redone, but new details were often added (back in 2012) to enhance the shots at Cameron’s direction. An example is the scene where Cal looks out the window of his First Class private promenade deck—as originally filmed, the view outside was just a painted blue card. A little bit of detail, movement, and specularity has been added to the ocean’s surface. Another example involves the night sky as seen at the end of the film, when Rose is awaiting rescue—the stars above are now ‘correct’ for that date and time in history (thus fixing an infamous error pointed out previously by a popular online science communicator).

More recently, Lightstorm has worked with Peter Jackson’s Park Road Post to optimize the 4K image in a hands-on and closely-supervised process that involved remastering the film scene by scene, and shot by shot—sometimes working on different areas within the same frame—to ensure that every bit of detail in the negative is visible, while managing but never eliminating organic grain (which, it should be noted, was intended to be very fine given the film stocks used).

The specific techniques applied were different for each shot, but involve propriety deep-learning algorithms developed by Park Road. The point is, shot-by-shot throughout the film, the Lightstorm and Park Road teams have worked together to maximize the film’s 4K image quality to Cameron’s specific standards and preferences, which includes a new high dynamic range color grade that’s available on this disc in Dolby Vision format (with the usual HDR10 base layer). And the resulting image was directly approved by Cameron and producer Jon Landau.

Interesting, but I'm a bit confused.

This 4K disc is based on the 2012 2K digital intermediate or the new 4K digital intermediate?

Also, can we put the 2.39:1 vs 2.35:1 debate to rest?

[Sidney Prescott]

Originally Posted by mastafishere

I don't understand the people complaining about the criticisms of the transfer. That's what these forums are for. This is literally a site all about picking apart home releases of movies and in the 4K realm, video quality is a crucial element. Personally, I love the transfer and love the way the movie looks and I'm super happy with it, but I still come on here to read and inform myself of the very legit criticisms that videophiles are picking out.

I just think it's patently stupid to complain about other people being unhappy with the transfer. It literally costs you nothing to ignore those comments and continue to enjoy the movie.

It's a good thing that there is a forum for us to voice our criticisms and to document them, however nitpicky they may seem because, frankly, such places are disappearing from the internet. I love finding an old movie and checking out the discussions about its release on here years and years later, sometimes even continuing the conversation!

Rant over.

I think, for me anyway, the key difference is how people express their criticism, even if that does include nitpicking.

I frequent another physical media forum (not sure what this forum's stance is on cross promotion when it concerns other sites, so I'm going to refrain from naming...) where there's still plenty of discourse and, yes, even nitpicking. But people are still capable of having pleasant, healthy discussions, and they're more than willing to acknowledging the good just as much as they are the bad. The conversations feel genuine, mature, and friendly, no matter the disagreement. It feels like they love what they're discussing. It's a shame that community isn't nearly as active as this one is.

How many threads here, including this one, have snowballed into endless arguments where people even resort to petty name calling, judging a performer (usually an actress, let's be honest) by their physical looks (which shouldn't have anything to do with discussing a transfer), making fun of both casual and professional reviewers for having a different opinion, and, yes, outright claiming to see something unusual and then standing firm by that, despite almost everyone else saying the opposite. There's rarely a feeling that people are having fun with their discussions. Instead, people often resort to petty attacks and endless condescending sarcasm, which rarely contributes anything of value to the discussion at hand.

There's a difference between healthy disagreement and nitpicking, and toxic discussion, and an unfortunate number of users here often fall into the latter category. Again, this isn't something that only a few odd members are picking up on. The amount of legacy users who are also expressing discontent at this has been steadily rising, and for good reason.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by bbwiscfan

This is the definitive release. That’s it.

I know what you mean here, but the Blu-ray still exists, and is far preferable to me (I don’t have a large projector like many on here, just a “humble” 65” UHD TV.)

As I said, I’m more upset about the fate that awaits The Abyss and True Lies, for which there will be no alternative option.

[videopat]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

I know what you mean here, but the Blu-ray still exists, and is far preferable to me (I don’t have a large projector like many on here, just a “humble” 65” UHD TV.)

As I said, I’m more upset about the fate that awaits The Abyss and True Lies, for which there will be no alternative option.

I can tell you right now that THE ABYSS has been de-grained, although the presentation on the whole (in a Dolby theater) looked a bit more natural than what's going on with Titanic's 4K. I'm 99% sure that the restoration I saw is what will end up on the home video.

TRUE LIES and the new ALIENS remaster will likely get the same de-graining. Don't shoot the messenger.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

"More recently, Lightstorm has worked with Peter Jackson’s Park Road Post to optimize the 4K image in a hands-on and closely-supervised process that involved remastering the film scene by scene, and shot by shot—sometimes working on different areas within the same frame—to ensure that every bit of detail in the negative is visible, while managing but never eliminating organic grain (which, it should be noted, was intended to be very fine given the film stocks used)."

-LOL

"The specific techniques applied were different for each shot, but involve propriety deep-learning algorithms developed by Park Road."
DigitalBits

Well there it is, confirmation of AI processing, as some have noted.

So indeed, it ain't natural nor organic.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I never could understand how anybody could start a film but skip parts they don't approve of? That would totally ruin any film for me. Either watch it or don't.

I skip the party scene at the beginning of Cloverfield. It ruins nothing.

[mdhaus]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

I know what you mean here, but the Blu-ray still exists, and is far preferable to me (I don’t have a large projector like many on here, just a “humble” 65” UHD TV.)

As I said, I’m more upset about the fate that awaits The Abyss and True Lies, for which there will be no alternative option.

I don't know....For me, this release actually made me relax a bit about the upcoming releases of The Abyss, True Lies and Aliens. The way a lot of people talk about James Cameron on this website, you would think the guy has zero technical film knowledge and absolutely no clue on how to build a great-looking picture. But this film looks great to me. It is not remotely close to the "problematic" piece that so many are claiming it to be.

I also think that people need to step outside of themselves a bit and accept an unchangeable reality: At the end of the day, the director's vision is what counts the most in what we get or don't get on a home copy of a film. And when a film is remastered on a literal frame-by-frame basis by the actual director of the film...who is also then signing off on the final product...then the discussion really needs to move away from "this isn't how it was supposed to look." Because frankly, we're clearly wrong if we think that - It's what the director voluntarily chose for their vision.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Interesting, but I'm a bit confused.

This 4K disc is based on the 2012 2K digital intermediate or the new 4K digital intermediate?

It's literally explained in the same sentence, right after the part you chose to bold

A new 4K digital intermediate has since been built using the original scan data.

The original scan data was 4K from the very beginning and it was used to create the 2K DI in 2012. Again: it's in the article.

[mdhaus]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

I'm sorry, but if you are a professional reviewer and giving this disc a perfect score and calling it "flawless", either your setup is terrible or you have no business reviewing discs. This presentation is false looking from the first frame to the last. If it doesn't bother you then that's great but "flawless"? C'mon.

And your opinion is more valuable....why, exactly?