Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Originally Posted by videopat

I think that “low grain and high sharpness” was clearly Cameron’s intended original look of the film, and he’s continued to digitally push the movie further in that direction over the years with subsequent re-releases and home video formats.

I agree. I will say that of his transgressions tho' (i'm looking at you Terminator 2) this edition of Titanic is less egregious.

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Originally Posted by videopat

I think that “low grain and high sharpness” was clearly Cameron’s intended original look of the film, and he’s continued to digitally push the movie further in that direction over the years with subsequent re-releases and home video formats.

And I will add given the option of looking like Titanic vs Terminator 2
I will take The Abyss looking like the Titanic every day of the week.

[Riddhi2011]

Grain discussions aside, just check how much skin detail has simply vanished from the UHD versus the 35mm print. This is not just about the duping process adding more grain. The skin and hair detail captured by the negative is still visible on a four generation removed film print from 1997, but not visible on a brand new 4K remaster "approved" by Cameron.

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Titanic Old Rose through water 35mm vs 4K master.jpg

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Grain discussions aside, just check how much skin detail has simply vanished from the UHD versus the 35mm print. This is not just about the duping process adding more grain. The skin and hair detail captured by the negative is still visible on a four generation removed film print from 1997, but not visible on a brand new 4K remaster "approved" by Cameron.

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Attachment 297841

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

I know which one I like better and it's not the one Cameron likes.

[videopat]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

That bottom image is a nightmare.

[rocknblues81]

I think I need to reconsider this. Maybe I should not drop 30 bucks on this.

[Daunty]

Cancelled my UK order. Going to watch my friend's copy first before paying more than €30 for this. I hate sharpening and DNR. Some of these images just don't look good. Aliens is my favorite movie of all time so I'm preparing myself for dissapointment when the digital release hits in a couple of days.

[LSK]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Grain discussions aside, just check how much skin detail has simply vanished from the UHD versus the 35mm print. This is not just about the duping process adding more grain. The skin and hair detail captured by the negative is still visible on a four generation removed film print from 1997, but not visible on a brand new 4K remaster "approved" by Cameron.

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Attachment 297841

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

The 2012 BD looks very much like the upper picture. It had a lot of detail, especially in the numerous closeups throughout the film.

[caqu91]

How does the Disney disc compare to the Paramount one?
Are there any differences?

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Gross...

Please, JC, don't "remaster" T1, at least. Leave T1 out of this.

[Trekkie313]

T1 already has a teal overcast.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Grain discussions aside, just check how much skin detail has simply vanished from the UHD versus the 35mm print. This is not just about the duping process adding more grain. The skin and hair detail captured by the negative is still visible on a four generation removed film print from 1997, but not visible on a brand new 4K remaster "approved" by Cameron.

[Show spoiler]

Top: 35mm
Bottom: UHD

Attachment 297841

Apparently the image at the bottom is what Cameron likes.

Jeez... She looks like a rubber replica.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by LSK

The 2012 BD looks very much like the upper picture. It had a lot of detail, especially in the numerous closeups throughout the film.

The 2012 Blu-ray was somewhat better, yes, as you can see here, but -

Top: 35mm print
Bottom: 2012 BD

[Show spoiler]Titanic Old Rose through water 35mm vs 2012 master.jpg

The 35mm print still beats the Blu-ray in terms of skin detail and a more organic look. Those details are still somewhat smoothed out in the Blu-ray, owing to the invasive Lowry remastering approach which treats grain as unwanted noise.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by stevenpaulalejandro

I have trouble spotting a heavy grain structure in the Oppenheimer 4K, but I saw that in 15 perf 70MM Imax I had the same trouble spotting grain in the theatrical viewing.

Oppenheimer's image area is 6x (normal scenes) and 13x bigger (IMAX scenes) than Titanic... LOL

You are comparing a large format 65mm movie to a little strip of 35mm film as almost 50% of the image is thrown away using Super 35...

What you actually "see" for Titanic is basically 2-perf 35mm, just a little wider...

[cybersoga]

Don't care about the "print" as I don't have a 35mm projector

What I want to know is if this has been digitally ruined just like T2, and whether the old blu-ray is actually better. I won't get my copy for another week.

I thought Lord of the Rings 4K was an improvement over the blu-ray despite not being perfect.
T2 4K was worse than the blu-ray.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

Don't care about the "print" as I don't have a 35mm projector

What I want to know is if this has been digitally ruined just like T2, and whether the old blu-ray is actually better. I won't get my copy for another week.

I thought Lord of the Rings 4K was an improvement over the blu-ray despite not being perfect.
T2 4K was worse than the blu-ray.

Just open those pictures in separate windows and switch back and forth between them. Regarding skin detail, the UHD managed to make things worse than the blu-ray, which was already not ideal. WTF.

[cybersoga]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

Just open those pictures in separate windows and switch back and forth between them. Regarding skin detail, the UHD managed to make things worse than the blu-ray, which was already not ideal. WTF.

I'm withholding my judgement until i've seen it for myself. Screenshots can be misleading.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

What I want to know is if this has been digitally ruined just like T2, and whether the old blu-ray is actually better. I won't get my copy for another week.

It depends on whether you like a DNR'd, re-grained and artificially sharpened picture or an image with some organic grain and natural detail left intact.

[LordoftheRings]

She looks younger @ the bottom ^

[Fjodor2000]

T is the new T2