Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[videopat]

Wanting a slipcover with your purchase is one thing, but refusing to buy a movie because it doesn't come with one is kind of hilarious.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by videopat

Wanting a slipcover with your purchase is one thing, but refusing to buy a movie because it doesn't come with one is kind of hilarious.

And yet people say it here all the time. "Won't buy it for $4.99 if there's no slip". Hilarious.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by starmike

I don't think it's the hate for slipcovers themselves, but the obsession over them.

<Kramer>
Does it come with a slip? Well, did yours come with a slip? I need a slip.
</Kramer>

I gave a thanks for the Kramer reference.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by videopat

Wanting a slipcover with your purchase is one thing, but refusing to buy a movie because it doesn't come with one is kind of hilarious.

I'll buy it from someplace I know has a slip, if I found out the place I was going to buy it from doesn't have slips, and there's an option to buy one with a slip elsewhere, but if there are no options with a slip, like they're sold out, I certainly won't not buy it.

[evil_silence]

Just bought the 4K release in Canada. I grabbed it at Wal-Mart, as most physical media up here is dying and pretty hard to find.

The release did not come with a slipcase, sadly. I don't know if this is everywhere up here, but Wal-Mart seems to not have slipcases on a lot of their new releases, which seems odd to me. I didn't even look at Sunrise at all, their prices are utter garbage.

I also noticed recently that Paramount stopped giving digital copies with their releases up here. They always used to supply an iTunes code with their releases, noticed this also with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I already owned them on iTunes and they were also upgraded on there, so not a big deal. However, these physical releases seem less of a bargain now that they're only coming with the UHD disc, no regular blu-ray and no digital, either.

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I guess you don't like money. Many slipcovers sell for actual cash on Ebay and even in here. And they increase what you can get for the discs if you sell them later.

Meh. One time I saved a whole bunch and nobody bit when I put em up for sale.
easy come easy go.
I'm sure If I sold them I'd have to put up with buyers complaining about how long it took to ship them the slipcovers and that the slipcovers had dents and scratches. They could release blurays and 4ks in plain white covers and as long as they had the title on the spine I'd be fine with them.

[punisher]

I would be okay with paper sleeves the way lots of cds come now..like little digibooks

[Trekkie313]

UHD would not last long in paper sleeves. Plus thin cardboard will eventually fall apart.

[brainofj72]

Really did not enjoy this transfer. Looks totally unnatural and too many ugly anomalies start creeping in by the end (there’s a shot of water rushing down a hallway where whatever stupid AI crap they applied becomes hideously obvious, for example). Just pure silliness to apply all this completely unnecessary processing and trickery to a beautiful 35mm OCN. I’ll be sticking with the decade-old BD for future viewings.

[punisher]

how about this...my new 2 cd of Oppenheimer..if it was a 4k set it would be so kool and save so much room storing..it has plastic disc holders inside

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by stevenpaulalejandro

Meh. One time I saved a whole bunch and nobody bit when I put em up for sale.
easy come easy go.
I'm sure If I sold them I'd have to put up with buyers complaining about how long it took to ship them the slipcovers and that the slipcovers had dents and scratches. They could release blurays and 4ks in plain white covers and as long as they had the title on the spine I'd be fine with them.

Fair enough.

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

UHD would not last long in paper sleeves. Plus thin cardboard will eventually fall apart.

I meant with same blue plastic covers but with plain white artwork

[Count Orlok]

Originally Posted by admccroan

I found this today for $2 at a used books/movies store. I’ve never seen this slipcover before. Anyone else? It has a Sam’s Club price sticker on it. Wonder if it was a store exclusive?

[Show spoiler]

Kinda dumb that the 1999 DVD was still in print in 2008 when the 3/2 disc remastered sets had been out since 2005 and 2007. Is the disc inside blue or the re-issued gray?

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by admccroan

I found this today for $2 at a used books/movies store. I’ve never seen this slipcover before. Anyone else? It has a Sam’s Club price sticker on it. Wonder if it was a store exclusive?

[Show spoiler]

I love that cover!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Really did not enjoy this transfer. Looks totally unnatural and too many ugly anomalies start creeping in by the end (there’s a shot of water rushing down a hallway where whatever stupid AI crap they applied becomes hideously obvious, for example). Just pure silliness to apply all this completely unnecessary processing and trickery to a beautiful 35mm OCN. I’ll be sticking with the decade-old BD for future viewings.

I feel that the DNR in the compressed online streaming versions make water look unnaturally smooth in many scenes. The DNR has affected the surface texture of water and made it look softer by inevitably removing fine detail. The distinctiveness and organic sharpness is reduced. This is also evident in the opening scene's underwater shots. The water texture is less distinct and the mud being displaced by the submarines (or the propellers of the ship while leaving Southampton) now look less clearly defined. The original grain on the prints enhanced the textural quality of the image, which is now reduced.

[admccroan]

Originally Posted by Count Orlok

Kinda dumb that the 1999 DVD was still in print in 2008 when the 3/2 disc remastered sets had been out since 2005 and 2007. Is the disc inside blue or the re-issued gray?

The disc is gray.

[moviebuff75]

Just because a transfer doesn't expose every pore, even if a previous transfer did, doesn't mean it is incorrect.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by moviebuff75

Just because a transfer doesn't expose every pore, even if a previous transfer did, doesn't mean it is incorrect.

The ones who are pushing back against those who see these for what they are still don't even seem to understand the problem.

With Titanic, you do see every pore - but the problem is every pore is exaggerated and looks over-sharp.

With True Lies, it's the opposite and most of the time you don't see any pores.

It's almost like Cameron is experimenting and using his previous films as a testbed for different algorithms.

[andreasy969]

Had the Scandi release in the mail today. Nice slip, English cover, 3 nice discs and no stacked discs (which I'm sure the US would've had, had it come with 3 discs to begin with).

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Question....

If the stern had broken off completely, instead of being still attached at the very bottom -- would it have stayed afloat on its own?

Not a chance. The steel plates had buckled and torn apart from one another, allowing more water to enter the ship which greatly increased the rate of sinking.

Really once the damage had been done to the 5th compartment, the ship was doomed. And once the forecastle dipped below the surface of the water, the rate of sinking increased rapidly.