Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Interesting.

You're generally more anal than anyone else on here. And I respect it. You know your stuff.

But do you find any of the transfer to still look off-kilter? When the ship sinks, I've noticed some shots of the water flooding the ship to look rather odd and unusual.

Going back to my original impressions, it's not that I think the transfer looks bad. I just wish Cameron had stuck with traditional methods of scanning out the print and doing little to no tinkering to the grain of transfer at all.

A few shots of water flooding the ship were digitally enhanced back in 1997, there's one in particular that's always looked weird because it's a miniature. But I'll finish watching it (I stopped last night right on "I believe you may get your headlines Mr Ismay" as it was nearly 4 in the morning) and let you know. The 'review' will have to wait though.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A few shots of water flooding the ship were digitally enhanced back in 1997, there's one in particular that's always looked weird because it's a miniature. But I'll finish watching it (I stopped last night right on "I believe you may get your headlines Mr Ismay" as it was nearly 4 in the morning) and let you know. The 'review' will have to wait though.

So is it safe to assume you liking the transfer?

[Geoff D]

That's why I said "boy am I digging it so far". Yes I'm loving it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A few shots of water flooding the ship were digitally enhanced back in 1997, there's one in particular that's always looked weird because it's a miniature. But I'll finish watching it (I stopped last night right on "I believe you may get your headlines Mr Ismay" as it was nearly 4 in the morning) and let you know. The 'review' will have to wait though.

You stopped right at the intermission.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You stopped right at the intermission.

I know

[jrod8]

I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm absolutely SHOCKED at the 5-star rating from the reviewer on this. Half the time I wondered if I was somehow watching an upscaled DVD the sharpening and filtering is so distracting. How can Cameron be such an incredible technologist with one groundbreaking use of VFX after another, and somehow totally botch one transfer after another? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt with T2 (potentially great transfer ruined by excessive DNR which one *could* argue was for the 3D transfer and then that's the one that ended up on disc) but it's impossible to overlook the fact that he seems to have forgotten what FILM looks like after all the time he's been spending in digital land.

Pick any shot at random, and actors' hair looks so processed, their faces go from smooth to natural to sharpened. Did Cameron watch and tweak this on an ipad or something? This is the biggest disappointment since the trash that Jackson and WB called a 4K transfer of LOTR. I doubt I'll ever watch this 4K disc again, sticking with the Blu-ray which I don't remember having these issues. Reminds me of the early 4K release of Gladiator, but at least they had the sense to reissue that one. For a film like this with literally no excuse to look like a 20 year old video master, 2.5 star video at best. A complete and utter shame to allow this to be the release of a movie this huge.

At least we can all be happy it doesn't have the random HFR transitions like it did in its brief re-release before Avatar 2 came out.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by jrod8

I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm absolutely SHOCKED at the 5-star rating from the reviewer on this. Half the time I wondered if I was somehow watching an upscaled DVD the sharpening and filtering is so distracting. How can Cameron be such an incredible technologist with one groundbreaking use of VFX after another, and somehow totally botch one transfer after another? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt with T2 (potentially great transfer ruined by excessive DNR which one *could* argue was for the 3D transfer and then that's the one that ended up on disc) but it's impossible to overlook the fact that he seems to have forgotten what FILM looks like after all the time he's been spending in digital land.

Pick any shot at random, and actors' hair looks so processed, their faces go from smooth to natural to sharpened. Did Cameron watch and tweak this on an ipad or something? This is the biggest disappointment since the trash that Jackson and WB called a 4K transfer of LOTR. I doubt I'll ever watch this 4K disc again, sticking with the Blu-ray which I don't remember having these issues. Reminds me of the early 4K release of Gladiator, but at least they had the sense to reissue that one. For a film like this with literally no excuse to look like a 20 year old video master, 2.5 star video at best. A complete and utter shame to allow this to be the release of a movie this huge.

At least we can all be happy it doesn't have the random HFR transitions like it did in its brief re-release before Avatar 2 came out.

Did you watch the 4K Disc or the 4K streaming?

[jrod8]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Did you watch the 4K Disc or the 4K streaming?

4K Disc on a calibrated system. I saw it multiple times when it came out in 97, have seen 35mm showings since then, and pretty much every home video format. The only other times I've been disappointed in its appearance have had to do with the limitations of technology (VHS, laser, DVD, etc) not behind the scenes digital tomfoolery.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by sojrner

Sure, but this discussion had drifted to adding breaks on all movies in all theaters, which is what I was addressing.

I see. I don't think a break is necessary for all films these days, even though I know that's what used to be done long ago. I'm sure some will have to use the facilities even during a 90-minute film. It's happened to all of us at one time or another. But I do feel any film that approaches the 3-hour mark should consider it and have some mercy on the audience.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by jrod8

I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm absolutely SHOCKED at the 5-star rating from the reviewer on this. Half the time I wondered if I was somehow watching an upscaled DVD the sharpening and filtering is so distracting. How can Cameron be such an incredible technologist with one groundbreaking use of VFX after another, and somehow totally botch one transfer after another? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt with T2 (potentially great transfer ruined by excessive DNR which one *could* argue was for the 3D transfer and then that's the one that ended up on disc) but it's impossible to overlook the fact that he seems to have forgotten what FILM looks like after all the time he's been spending in digital land.

Pick any shot at random, and actors' hair looks so processed, their faces go from smooth to natural to sharpened. Did Cameron watch and tweak this on an ipad or something? This is the biggest disappointment since the trash that Jackson and WB called a 4K transfer of LOTR. I doubt I'll ever watch this 4K disc again, sticking with the Blu-ray which I don't remember having these issues. Reminds me of the early 4K release of Gladiator, but at least they had the sense to reissue that one. For a film like this with literally no excuse to look like a 20 year old video master, 2.5 star video at best. A complete and utter shame to allow this to be the release of a movie this huge.

At least we can all be happy it doesn't have the random HFR transitions like it did in its brief re-release before Avatar 2 came out.

Can't agree with any of this. I hate what Cameron has done with Aliens based on what I've seen so far from streaming and caps, but this is nothing like that. No way does this look like it's been upscaled from a DVD.

Yes there's plenty of filtering and somehow I feel it works for some shots due to the time period it's set in and the look he wanted. But the overall clarity is often striking.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by dorian

MaxCLL plot:

[Show spoiler]

This is very surprising, but welcome, considering Jim's conservative approach to HDR.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by jrod8

4K Disc on a calibrated system. I saw it multiple times when it came out in 97, have seen 35mm showings since then, and pretty much every home video format. The only other times I've been disappointed in its appearance have had to do with the limitations of technology (VHS, laser, DVD, etc) not behind the scenes digital tomfoolery.

it's got high marks in every review I've read, from more than 5 different reviewers
what screen and player are you using ?
as every review says it's more detailed has great HDR & also sounds better than ever & has new extras
so maybe it is your equipment or calibration lol

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by jrod8

4K Disc on a calibrated system. I saw it multiple times when it came out in 97, have seen 35mm showings since then, and pretty much every home video format. The only other times I've been disappointed in its appearance have had to do with the limitations of technology (VHS, laser, DVD, etc) not behind the scenes digital tomfoolery.

That's odd. I had watched the digital version first, which was poorly compressed and looked too processed, sharpened. That gave me the wrong impression that the disc too would look too processed, too sharp and too digital-looking. When I watched the disc version, however, I was surprised to see it looking very filmic. It had fine grain throughout. In fact, unlike earlier, I do feel now that Titanic has never looked as good in the home format before this 4K disc version.

[Show spoiler]Titanic Andrews_Five compartments flooded UHD Disc.jpg

Titanic Painting Jack paints Rose UHD Disc.jpg

Titanic Painting Rose Keep still UHD Disc.jpg

Titanic Cal plenty of fine grain UHD Disc 70mm grading.jpg

I made my own colour, contrast and brightness fine tunings, but the detail here looks strikingly beautiful and the fine grain is very much visible and preserves the organic look to a significant extent. I am watching it on a 24" 10 bit monitor in DCI-P3 mode with D65 colour temperature.

[mar3o]

I found the color pleasing overall. Not sure how it would compare to the original theatrical grade and I have a feeling it may be too warm/yellow in some places with skin tones but I can live with it.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by NX-74205

Must admit, I do want to get a decent VR headset to enjoy the 3D version of this film again; was always one of my favourite discs on my last TV and I kinda miss watching it that way. Still, I enjoyed the 4K disc.

Go with the Quest 3, man.
Can't go wrong with that one.
It has everything the upcoming Apple Vision Pro has, but at only $500, instead of $3500.
That and a decent 20.000mAh portable powerbank should get you over 6 hours of play time.

When I watched both Avatar and TITANIC 3D on the set, I was literally blown away by the 3D rendering and cinema screen, so much that my actual 55" 4K TV felt like a 20" monitor, in comparison.

It really DOES feel like you're sitting in front of a giant screen.
Even 4K movies look much more sharper than some TVs/monitors I tested.
Might probably give this 4K release another go, but with the Quest 3, this time, instead of my Samsung 4KTV to see how it fares.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by escvnte

Go with the Quest 3, man.
Can't go wrong with that one.
It has everything the upcoming Apple Vision Pro has, but at only $500, instead of $3500.
That and a decent 20.000mAh portable powerbank should get you over 6 hours of play time.

When I watched both Avatar and TITANIC 3D on the set, I was literally blown away by the 3D rendering and cinema screen, so much that my actual 55" 4K TV felt like a 20" monitor, in comparison.

It really DOES feel like you're sitting in front of a giant screen.
Even 4K movies look much more sharper than some TVs/monitors I tested.
Might probably give this 4K release another go, but with the Quest 3, this time, instead of my Samsung 4KTV to see how it fares.

No screen door effect on the Quest 3?

And do films play in the correct framerate (like TVs go into the proper 24p mode for blu-rays/UHDs)?

[INdetectableMAN]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

That's odd. I had watched the digital version first, which was poorly compressed and looked too processed, sharpened. That gave me the wrong impression that the disc too would look too processed, too sharp and too digital-looking. When I watched the disc version, however, I was surprised to see it looking very filmic. It had fine grain throughout. In fact, unlike earlier, I do feel now that Titanic has never looked as good in the home format before this 4K disc version.

Attachment 298224

The first image shows what crazy AI can do to emphasize facial features in a close-up.

At this point I don't know how you're seeing it, but it seems quite unnatural to me.


I've also seen the 4K/UHD web streaming version, and I haven't experienced potentially major differences.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by mar3o

No screen door effect on the Quest 3?

And do films play in the correct framerate (like TVs go into the proper 24p mode for blu-rays/UHDs)?

Not that i'm aware of.
The PQ is stunning on the thing.....I say in line with a 4K screen.

I turn off passthrough when i'm watching something, so I get a complete immersive experience.

And, yes.
Movies DO play at their original 24p rate.
The 120hz refresh rate is only used in VR games, Apps and on the main menu.

I rip my Blu-Rays and just pass them with USB on the device's internal storage and play them either with BigScreen, or Skybox VR (great for 4K HDR movies, as it does apply the correct HDR settings).

[NJScorpio]

Originally Posted by escvnte

Not that i'm aware of.
The PQ is stunning on the thing.....I say in line with a 4K screen.

I turn off passthrough when i'm watching something, so I get a complete immersive experience.

And, yes.
Movies DO play at their original 24p rate.
The 120hz refresh rate is only used in VR games, Apps and on the main menu.

I rip my Blu-Rays and just pass them with USB on the device's internal storage and play them either with BigScreen, or Skybox VR (great for 4K HDR movies, as it does apply the correct HDR settings).

I tried VUDU's 3D movies through Quest 2, was a bit disappointed...but now you got me interested in an upgrade. I've had no time for gaming, so I didn't think it'd be worth picking up. It is very tempting.

[dcx4610]

I guess some people are going to be more sensitive to the AI sharpening than others. When I first watched my copy, I thought the transfer was really stunning (and still do to some extent). I did feel like it looked a little oversharpened and the contrast felt a little unnatural at times but overall, it was the best I've ever seen it look or sound.

It was after the fact that I found out there was a 35mm rip floating around and that Cameron used AI for the UHD restoration. Comparing the two side by side, now I can't unsee the AI and it annoys me. It absolutely looks like taking a pic or a video and throwing it in an AI upscaler.

Thankfully, it does feel like the AI was set to "low" and the effect is fairly minimal. Do I wish that they would have simply left it alone and had it mirror the 35mm as closely as possible? Yep. Is it a crime against humanity? No.

I think if you have an extra critical eye for these things, it will probably bug you but if you are just simply a fan of the movie, you'll be happy with how nice it looks overall. Despite the AI tampering, it doesnt loook like True Lies (which feels like AI is set to max) and I could never see myself going back to the Blu-ray version.