Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[cybersoga]

Thanks but i'm not deciding whether to buy this based on one screenshot, you can't see the difference that 10 bit HDR makes from a screenshot

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by stevenpaulalejandro

From the Kodak literature on the 500 speed stock:

'In VISION 500T Film, the measured granularity is very low.'

And on the 50D film stock

'EASTMAN EXR 50D Film 5245 and 7245 is a low-speed
daylight-balanced color negative camera film with
micro-fine grain, very high sharpness'


And that was my viewing experience. Some scenes have very very low levels of grain, but still grain visible to my naked eye. And some scenes certainly that seem near grain free, but if they used 500 for some and 50 for others that would make sense especially when reading Kodak's assessment of the film stock's properties ie, generally low grain and high sharpness

You keep focussing on the stock over and over and over but what you see on the 4K UHD is the specific result of degraining, AI sharpening and regraining. If you like it then you like it, no problem, but it has nothing to do with what was captured at the time.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You keep focussing on the stock over and over and over but what you see on the 4K UHD is the specific result of degraining, AI sharpening and regraining. If you like it then you like it, no problem, but it has nothing to do with what was captured at the time.

So can we expect Jimbo to give The Abyss and T1 the same treatment?

Does anyone know if anything been communicated in this regard with regards to what processing / production techniques will be used for those movies?

[Fjodor2000]

Pro-reviewers seems to be hailing the Titanic 4K BD as "masterwork" and handing out 5 star reviews like candy.

Here are some examples:

hd-report.com: "Grain is perfect. There is no noise reduction or sharpening done to this video image. And, while being digital still maintains its analog feel."

ultrahd.highdefdigest.com: "Facial complexions appear more natural and healthier with a lifelike peach-rosiness in the entire cast, revealing every pore, minuscule wrinkle and negligible blemish. Awash in a very fine layer of natural grain, the mega-blockbuster lands on the shores of UHD with phenomenal results." (98/100 rating for Video)

blu-ray.com: "There is not a grain element astray, not a fiber out of place, not a spot or flaw to be found. The picture is beautifully filmic and organic, with grain very fine and satisfying in every shot. It's evenly distributed and very flattering. Details are spectacular. Facial close-ups reveal a level of complexity that the old Blu-ray could not find, despite its excellence. It's a marvel to see with such clarity even the very finest hairs on Rose's face." (5/5 rating for Video)

Not sure what to make of this. The description in the reviews at least do not match with the screenshot comparisons posted in this thread.

But could it be that those screenshot comparisons are a rare exception, and not representative of the movie as a whole? Or are the pro-reviewers just talking complete BS (which has happened a lot of times before)?

I think we really needs some caps on caps-a-holic to make it possible to compare more screenshots from the BD vs 4K BD, in order to establish some ground truth.

[Geoff D]

Dude, just look at the "pro reviewer" reaction to the LOTR and Hobbitses on UHD, that tells you everything you need to know, expecially the latter with its DNR and mega sharpening applied by Park Road Post...who also tarted up Titanic and all of Cameron's other impending 4K movies.

They might as well be called 'The Populist Editions' because most people hate grain and love love LOVE exaggerated sharpness (case in point that fella on here who runs sharpness at like 85 on his TV anyway), and Cameron (and Jackson, and Lucas) are of the exact same mindset. Hell, it's not that I don't like a bit of pop music now and then, I got a feeling I'll quite like what's been done to Titanic (doesn't release until Dec 18 over here), but I wouldn't want this treatment applied to everything and it'll be interesting to see how older, coarser-looking productions like The Abuse and Aliens will hold up to this processing.

[blakninja]

Don't know if reasonable to request this, but can you guys spoiler tag the image captures you post? Thanks.

[BluFan24]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You keep focussing on the stock over and over and over but what you see on the 4K UHD is the specific result of degraining, AI sharpening and regraining. If you like it then you like it, no problem, but it has nothing to do with what was captured at the time.

If I remember correctly, isn't this what Cameron did to the Alien's remaster from the anthology set?

I watched Titanic with DV and enjoyed what I saw, even though I thought something looked different about it. It makes sense as I also liked the Alien's bluray that we got in the anthology set. I guess I should add that I'm no grain hater, I prefer it actually.

Has there been a Geoffy review yet? Edit: Just saw your post above.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Pro-reviewers seems to be hailing the Titanic 4K BD as "masterwork" and handing out 5 star reviews like candy.

Here are some examples:

hd-report.com: "Grain is perfect. There is no noise reduction or sharpening done to this video image. And, while being digital still maintains its analog feel."

ultrahd.highdefdigest.com: "Facial complexions appear more natural and healthier with a lifelike peach-rosiness in the entire cast, revealing every pore, minuscule wrinkle and negligible blemish. Awash in a very fine layer of natural grain, the mega-blockbuster lands on the shores of UHD with phenomenal results." (98/100 rating for Video)

blu-ray.com: "There is not a grain element astray, not a fiber out of place, not a spot or flaw to be found. The picture is beautifully filmic and organic, with grain very fine and satisfying in every shot. It's evenly distributed and very flattering. Details are spectacular. Facial close-ups reveal a level of complexity that the old Blu-ray could not find, despite its excellence. It's a marvel to see with such clarity even the very finest hairs on Rose's face." (5/5 rating for Video)

Not sure what to make of this. The description in the reviews at least do not match with the screenshot comparisons posted in this thread.

But could it be that those screenshot comparisons are a rare exception, and not representative of the movie as a whole? Or are the pro-reviewers just talking complete BS (which has happened a lot of times before)?

I think we really needs some caps on caps-a-holic to make it possible to compare more screenshots from the BD vs 4K BD, in order to establish some ground truth.

These people function as shills now. We have known this for ages. Their reviews are usually pointless if concerning micro details and DNR. Only a few people really go into detail and will mark something down due to issues that are important on this forum and filmmaking in general.

An overrated film that is very good with stunning visuals. And a problematic transfer possibly. I have no problem if it gets people buying 4K I guess. 29.99 now. I guess that is okay for a film they know will sell megaloads.

I don't particularly like how Cameron treats his films. Not the kind of guy I like in 4K at all anymore. Seems lost in a haze of his own BS.

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It depends on whether you like a DNR'd and artificially sharpened picture or an image with some organic grain and natural detail left intact. Take a look and then cross-check yourself.

Top: 2012 BD
Bottom: UHD

[Show spoiler]Attachment 297847

Yikes.

That’s what ive been trying to say. Some areas look extra sharpened and others look softer. The algorithms they used aren’t smart enough to know what to throw away and what to retain given the film grain basically is the picture. So you end up with this incongruence where some high contrast detail is overly sharpened (such as Bill Paxton’s wrinkles in those caps where he is holding the phone), and other areas that are somehow smoother than the 2012 blu ray (such as this one in the spoiler). Ai or not those processes they use are not ‘smart’ enough for what they’re trying to do: i.e. they’re kidding themselves if they think they can remove the grain without removing detail, while at the same time trying to amplify the detail. It’s an oxymoron.

I’ve been working in software for about a decade. And ai is all the rage right now, but in reality it’s just a term slapped on software products to make it more marketable (such as those ‘IMAX’ approved cameras that do not even use IMAX film, but that’s another topic). Ai can be useful, but we are at a point where more times than not it’s no different or better than regular software imo. And that seems to be the case here given the results.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

These people function as shills now. We have known this for ages. Their reviews are usually pointless if concerning micro details and DNR. Only a few people really go into detail and will mark something down due to issues that are important on this forum and filmmaking in general.

An overrated film that is very good with stunning visuals. And a problematic transfer possibly. I have no problem if it gets people buying 4K I guess. 29.99 now. I guess that is okay for a film they know will sell megaloads.

I don't particularly like how Cameron treats his films. Not the kind of guy I like in 4K at all anymore. Seems lost in a haze of his own BS.

I agree. I'll have to buy True Lies and The Abyss because there aren't likely to be alternatives at this point, but Cameron's greatness was like 30 plus years ago. Nowadays he is a hack.

[LSK]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

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

Top: 35mm print
Bottom: 2012 BD

[Show spoiler]Attachment 297843

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. As the the DNR was not as excessive as on the 2023 remaster, the Blu-ray looks better, comparably.

This is a comparison between the 2012 BD and the DVD. Only option is to compare it to the DVD or the 3D BD, so I chose the DVD, in order to really show the difference.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...=14044&i=0&l=0

BD looks good here. And everywhere else for that matter.

But, the shot you provided, isn't that photographed through that aquarium / fishtank, and maybe made to look that way?

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

These people function as shills now. We have known this for ages. Their reviews are usually pointless if concerning micro details and DNR. Only a few people really go into detail and will mark something down due to issues that are important on this forum and filmmaking in general.

An overrated film that is very good with stunning visuals. And a problematic transfer possibly. I have no problem if it gets people buying 4K I guess. 29.99 now. I guess that is okay for a film they know will sell megaloads.

I don't particularly like how Cameron treats his films. Not the kind of guy I like in 4K at all anymore. Seems lost in a haze of his own BS.

I don't think he honestly cares what people think of him, as some fans (or non fans?) seem to have a bigger Ego than he does.

[blakninja]

How accurate is that 35mm scan?

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You keep focussing on the stock over and over and over but what you see on the 4K UHD is the specific result of degraining, AI sharpening and regraining. If you like it then you like it, no problem, but it has nothing to do with what was captured at the time.

But Bill Hunt said the grains are original and not fake ones.. 🤔

[By_His_Strypes]

But, they say no Cameron bias comes into play... could've fooled me.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by blakninja

How accurate is that 35mm scan?

It's a scan of a 25-year-old print that had been played god knows how many times, done by (presumed) amateurs. Even if it's reasonably accurate to how the print looks now, it's probably not accurate to how it looked when it was first projected, and there's no guarantee it was ever totally accurate to how Cameron and co. intended it to look back in 1997 since prints had a lot of variance from one to the other.

[By_His_Strypes]

isn't it possible the same print from back in the day would not look the same today?

[dorian]

Originally Posted by blakninja

But Bill Hunt said the grains are original and not fake ones.. 🤔

How can he be so sure? Look at the following frame accurate comparison. The grain looks different, more than just NR on the chroma channel to make it monochromatic. Judge for yourself.

Originally Posted by wright96d

This comparison tells a bit of a different story.

https://slow.pics/c/LCuATp1s

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by blakninja

But Bill Hunt said the grains are original and not fake ones.. 🤔

Bill wouldn't just blow smoke from his arse, I'm sure he has it on good authority before he would state it as fact.

[gooseygander2001]

You can't replace the mark one human eyeball. We can hit a target the size of a small car with a missile from 50+ miles away, but try and have a machine or software remaster or restore a movie faithfully or organically....good luck. I actually envy those that like the look of this btw but I can't unsee the flaws.