Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[blakninja]

I wish in a parallel universe Cameron used this camera to film Titanic..

[LordoftheRings]

This one ...

Dream Big - The Solido IMAX Camera - YouTube

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by stigdu

I thought it was hilarious!

Your standards shouldn't be so low.

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Your standards shouldn't be so low.

They're reaaaallllly low.

Plus I'm British.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No 35mm contact prints were made back in the '90s. Even Nolan's movies don't get direct contact prints off the negative. For digitally graded movies, the negative is scanned first, inverted digitally, colour graded and then lasered onto prints. So, that too is not direct contact printing. The 70mm prints for titanic, and all of Cameron's Super35mm films were made by contact printing the Internegative (IN), which was three generations removed from the original negative (OCN-IP-IN-70mm print). The 35mm was also made from the same IN. This is because The Super 35mm 4-perf image with its 1.33:1 aspect ratio (and Techniscope 2-perf underwater shots) would first need to be brought to a uniform aspect ratio to fit the 70mm and 35mmm anamorphic squeeze prints. For Titanic, the 70mm prints were printed to an aspect ratio of roughly 2.25:1. The grain might be a bit exaggerated due to the generational difference, or not.

Attachment 298107

Cameron flooded Titanic's negative with light during shooting to reduce visible grain. If the movie was shot anamorphic or on 65mm film to begin with, then they could have directly contact printed off the negative as they wouldn't have needed to re-frame the film for the different deliverables. However, when a large number of prints get made, the negative can get damaged. So, it's safer to use the Internegative that is struck off the Interpositive.

Read more here - https://theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm

Erm...Nolan's films absolutely have show prints minted directly from the negative as well as conventional IP-IN-print runs, particularly for his IMAX shows as all the 15/70 prints for his last three movies have been run directly from the conformed 15-perf IMAX negative.

And for Cameron's films the 70mm prints (of which there are only a few) are usually printed directly from the negative because there's no need to squeeze it for 4-perf anamorphic as per the 35mm prints. It's still an optical blow up, and not "contact printed" (literally impossible when changing the size of the film gauge) but as you're going spherical to spherical there's less quality loss. Defeats the point if you're printing from the already-squeezed 35mm IN, especially as the aspect ratio doesn't match from 35mm anamorphic to 70mm.

[Monty Cora]

Originally Posted by mar3o

What's with the scene when Rose is setting her pictures up near the beginning? There's a couple shots where there are some ghost/double images, especially around Billly Zane. I've noticed this in other versions too. It's visible in one of the 180p fan extended versions out there. It almost looks like it's a leftover from the 3D conversion. Is that what this is? Surprised to see it on the UHD.

That's just the highlights hitting the lens. A very strong light source will sometimes do that. If you look closely you'll see that it only happens with the reflected areas of the actors, their hair and darker clothes don't have it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Erm...Nolan's films absolutely have show prints minted directly from the negative as well as conventional IP-IN-print runs, particularly for his IMAX shows as all the 15/70 prints for his last three movies have been run directly from the conformed 15-perf IMAX negative.

And for Cameron's films the 70mm prints (of which there are only a few) are usually printed directly from the negative because there's no need to squeeze it for 4-perf anamorphic as per the 35mm prints. It's still an optical blow up, and not "contact printed" (literally impossible when changing the size of the film gauge) but as you're going spherical to spherical there's less quality loss. Defeats the point if you're printing from the already-squeezed 35mm IN, especially as the aspect ratio doesn't match from 35mm anamorphic to 70mm.

It seems, yes, Nolan's IMAX prints are struck directly off the negatives, but as per VariTimo on reddit, the 70mm 5-perf and the 35mm anamorphic prints are made from dupes. Both 65mm and 35mm release prints need cropping to their respective formats, so that's understandable. What I don't understand is if they use the negative for every time a 70mm IMAX release print is made, won't it increase the possibility of damaging the negative?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommu...ished_on_film/

As for Cameron, click on that ASC link (see below). There it is clearly mentioned that both the 35mm and the 70mm prints of Titanic were struck from the Internegative. Remember, the negative is in a 4:3 aspect ratio, with effects shots in 16:9 (approx) and underwater shots in Techniscope 2.33:1. All that has to be cropped/resized to 2.20:1 (actually taller on the prints)and 2.39:1 for anamorphic 35mm.

Titanic 70mm print from IN.jpg

https://theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm

Originally Posted by Geoff D

the aspect ratio doesn't match from 35mm anamorphic to 70mm.

Eh, the aspect ratio of 35 anamorph is 2.39:1 and 5-perf 70 is 2.28:1. Not much difference. However, the 70mm prints of Titanic are taller and the printed image varies between 2.11:1 and 2.25:1 inside the 2.28:1 image area. The projection is around 2.11:1 as well for some reason and not 2.20:1. I checked some videos recorded inside the 70mm screen at the The Ritz in Sydney. The projected image dimensions suggest about 2.11:1. Coincidentally, I saw Interstellar on 35mm in 2018, with Nolan in the audience. The theatre houses a 70mm screen as they had 70mm projectors once. The aspect ratio of that screen was ALSO 2.11:1, which is how Interstellar was projected off the anamorph print. I could see the bottom of the previous frame at the top of the image. So, proper masking was not done. But, it's curious that on more than one occasion, 70mm screens have been found to be taller than 2.20:1.

[dalemc]

Originally Posted by mar3o

What's with the scene when Rose is setting her pictures up near the beginning? There's a couple shots where there are some ghost/double images, especially around Billly Zane. I've noticed this in other versions too. It's visible in one of the 180p fan extended versions out there. It almost looks like it's a leftover from the 3D conversion. Is that what this is? Surprised to see it on the UHD.

That slight ghosting effect was there from day one, it looks like a lens quirk that was innate to that specific lighting in those scenes. Here's a screencap from the 2005 DVD, you can see it there, just by Billy Zane's side, shoulder and arm

EDIT: Just seen, your question was answered above, before I posted!

[dalemc]

Originally Posted by dorian

The 70mm print would exhibit less grain as it isn't enlarged as much. I'm not sure whether or not a 70mm blow up would retain as much information as a 35mm contact print.

I might be totally wrong here, apologies in advance! I'm thinking a 70mm blow up like Titanic, would possibly have more grain - since it is enlarging the grain that is already inherent in the actual 35mm source, then being printed/developed out onto 70mm film stock which has its own grain structure itself?

If Titanic was filmed originally in 70mm, then yes I can see how it would be a less grainy presentation since it wouldn't need to be enlarged as much during projection.
Again, I will fully admit that my knowledge is limited with this kind of thing so am always keen to learn more, no offense intended!

Here's a scan of a large 70mm film cell that I have, just out of interest.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by dalemc

I might be totally wrong here, apologies in advance! I'm thinking a 70mm blow up like Titanic, would possibly have more grain - since it is enlarging the grain that is already inherent in the actual 35mm source, then being printed/developed out onto 70mm film stock which has its own grain structure itself?

If Titanic was filmed originally in 70mm, then yes I can see how it would be a less grainy presentation since it wouldn't need to be enlarged as much during projection.
Again, I will fully admit that my knowledge is limited with this kind of thing so am always keen to learn more, no offense intended!

Here's a scan of a large 70mm film cell that I have, just out of interest.

I think on motion, the grain would be less apparent, as opposed to a still. That's the case with 35mm as well, to some extent.

[dorian]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No 35mm contact prints were made back in the '90s. Even Nolan's movies don't get direct contact prints off the negative. For digitally graded movies, the negative is scanned first, inverted digitally, colour graded and then lasered onto prints. So, that too is not direct contact printing. The 70mm prints for titanic, and all of Cameron's Super35mm films were made by contact printing the Internegative (IN), which was three generations removed from the original negative (OCN-IP-IN-70mm print). The 35mm was also made from the same IN. This is because The Super 35mm 4-perf image with its 1.33:1 aspect ratio (and Techniscope 2-perf underwater shots) would first need to be brought to a uniform aspect ratio to fit the 70mm and 35mmm anamorphic squeeze prints. For Titanic, the 70mm prints were printed to an aspect ratio of roughly 2.25:1. The grain might be a bit exaggerated due to the generational difference, or not.

I was talking about the theoretical differences in resolution. I know contact prints aren't practical for most films.

Originally Posted by dalemc

I might be totally wrong here, apologies in advance! I'm thinking a 70mm blow up like Titanic, would possibly have more grain - since it is enlarging the grain that is already inherent in the actual 35mm source, then being printed/developed out onto 70mm film stock which has its own grain structure itself?

Assuming they're projected onto the same size screen, the overall enlargement of the 35mm source is the same. The difference lies in how much of the print film's grain is enlarged.

[dalemc]

Originally Posted by dorian

Assuming they're projected onto the same size screen, the overall enlargement of the 35mm source is the same. The difference lies in how much of the print film's grain is enlarged.

Okay yeah, that makes sense!

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

After jumping between the BD (I forgot how stunning that disc is!) and 4K (80 gigs "version", at least it's not streaming rip :P) I decided to cancel my order.

Now, I don't think it looks bad; it's sharp and detailed enough to trick you into thinking that you're watching a great 4K version, but at the same time it's much less filmic than the Blu-ray. I wouldn't say it became extremely digital now, no, but the combination of reduced grain and higher sharpness makes everything almost too good looking, too detailed. Some, if not most, of the close-ups are almost ridiculously sharp and even if I haven't noticed anything disturbing (those Aliens screenshots, Jesus!), there's something weird about them, as if that "layer" between the movie and reality was gone and you could reach your hand and touch the actors.

[I also checked some of the "problematic" screenshots (like old Rose looking at the drawing through the water) and they're OK in motion.]

Overall it's not that much of an upgrade to me, although it IS an upgrade, just not in a way I would like it to be.

Judging from what I've seen so far, I think Titanic is based on the 4K master, but Aliens and True Lies were upsc-AI-led from their 2K versions, that's why they look so much worse and aggressively enhanced. I don't know about The Abyss, I hope I could check it soon.

This is a fair assessment. I am sure it will please most of the folks especially the new generation social media crowd followed by those who are tolerant to fundamental issues.

I am still fine with the 4K version but a true shame the film-makers are now going in the opposite direction (do as I say and not as I do type).

After this, I watched Muppets Take Manhattan (Sony) and oh boy you see those lovely natural film grain with loads of textures. Man it did look gorgeous and truly filmic.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the Disney UHD could have better compression and possibly slight more grain than the Paramount UHD.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Where is caps-a-holic when you need them?

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by lgans316

After this, I watched Muppets Take Manhattan (Sony) and oh boy you see those lovely natural film grain with loads of textures. Man it did look gorgeous and truly filmic.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the Disney UHD could have better compression and possibly slight more grain than the Paramount UHD.

Sony has never disappointed when it came to their Blu-Ray/4K releases.

They did a hell of a good job with the 25th Anniversary Edition of Men In Black, other than also Raimi's Spiderman 1-3 and Resident Evil 1-6.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

We are inside a serious discussion

Couldn't resist not posting this one

YouTube

Definitely not a 10/10 presentation.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by escvnte

Sony has never disappointed when it came to their Blu-Ray/4K releases.

They did a hell of a good job with the 25th Anniversary Edition of Men In Black, other than also Raimi's Spiderman 1-3 and Resident Evil 1-6.

Legend of Zorro remains the odd man out for me. Otherwise Sony have been rock solid despite some early light cannon grades.

[Ben_UK]

Why is it exactly that Nolan doesn’t allow DI’s to be struck from the OCN?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Why is it exactly that Nolan doesn’t allow DI’s to be struck from the OCN?

Once again, he wants to do a PHOTOCHEMICAL color grading because his main target format is film prints...

Doing a DIGITAL intermediate defeats the purpose of releasing ANALOG film prints just like a vinyl sourced from a digital recording does

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Why is it exactly that Nolan doesn’t allow DI’s to be struck from the OCN?

I think Nolan believes as do many others that physical colour dyes and chemicals produce a richer colour and contrast than digital colour grading can approximate. And he is right, I feel. There's something more tactile about using something real versus virtual. The impact might be subtle but its there. It just feels more real and "present" for he lack of a better word. Also, digital intermediate fixes a particular resolution on the image (4K at the moment). This becomes a limitation if one wants a higher resolution master, especially for IMAX or regular 70mm. Even 35mm film is said to be about 6K. Since the photochemical process is analogue, there's no pixel limit. That final cut negative or Interpositive can be scanned at any resolution the filmmaker wants.