Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

This shot out stood out when I saw it in Dolby Cinema a few years ago.

This is how it looks in terms of grain structure on the 35mm (colours and light levels may not be fully accurate) -

vlcsnap-2023-11-27-22h23m46s176.jpg

I personally think the 35mm looks more organic and less "artificial" or green screen like the Blu-ray does. Because of the natural, organic grain the green screen background doesn't stand out like an eye-sore and blends with the rest of the image. This is the advantage of release prints. The grain in them hide the flaws of CGI and composites. But again, personal preference may vary.

Originally Posted by starmike

How can you defend "grain structure" from a print that was amateurishly scanned, and scanned badly? There are so many good 35mm and 70mm scans that are done right. Titanic is not one of them. You can't use it as a basis for anything.

Because I have seen numerous 35mm prints projected in the cinemas in the last six years and as recent as December 2022 (Satyajit Ray's The Adversary from 1970). The grain structure in this "unprofessional" 35mm scan looks exactly as coarse or as organic as on those prints I saw projected in cinemas in India. There are definitely much better 35mm scans out there, like T2, Star Wars, etc., but the Titanic scan's grain pattern is pretty much the same as in those scans. It's only the light levels and the colour that is poor.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

...the Titanic scan's grain pattern is pretty much the same as in those scans. It's only the light levels and the colour that is poor.

I'd really like to know how you can gauge proper grain structure from a print you admit has bad light levels and color.

[fkid]

Riddhi, you really should calm down, way too many posts per minute at this rate. This thread is for discussing the UHD 4K release of this film only, stop polluting it for attention.

Something nobody has mentioned yet is the Dolby Vision metadata is garbage, just a static brightness lift, with no dynamic per-shot L1 or trims, same as Avatar had with similar HDR grade (200-nits cap), which also seemed to use similar DNR/AI sharpening tinkering. Doesn't happen with most Paramount releases, so I wonder who is responsible for this when it does happen? Maybe Cameron lets his nephew do the Dolby Vision at home... /s

DoVi plot vs HDR plot

Btw, I hope everyone is ready for The Abyss release to also be disappointing to some extent based on Avatar and now Titanic, even the 4K announce trailer seems to hint strongly at DNR. Sigh...

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

I'd really like to know how you can gauge proper grain structure from a print you admit has bad light levels and color.

I can "SEE" the grain with my eyes looks natural and also because I KNOW that it was scanned off a film print, not artificially imposed on top of a digitally cleaned picture (UHD). Having crushed blacks or faded colour does not mean the grain is faded. the grain remains the same as it was when printed. or are you suggesting that the grain flakes off the print over time too in addition to the colour?

[starmike]

Originally Posted by fkid

Btw, I hope everyone is ready for The Abyss release to also be disappointing to some extent, even the YouTube 4K announce trailer seems to hint strongly at DNR. Sigh...

Did you not see the ProRes trailer? Don't use YouTube as a gauge.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I can "SEE" the grain with my eyes looks natural and also because I KNOW that it was scanned off a film print, not artificially imposed on top of a digitally cleaned picture (UHD). Having crushed blacks or faded colour does not mean the grain is faded. the grain remains the same as it was when printed. or are you suggesting that the grain flakes off the print over time too in addition to the colour?

I'm suggesting that the print was badly scanned, and different prints have different qualities. The same movie scanned in 35mm and 70mm show INSANELY different grain structure, implying that the 35mm version is garbage to begin with.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by fkid

Btw, I hope everyone is ready for The Abyss release to also be disappointing to some extent based on Avatar and now Titanic, even the 4K announce trailer seems to hint strongly at DNR. Sigh...

You haven't kept up with the discussion in that that thread and the analysis of the ProRes version of the trailer.

[PeterTHX]

Guys - PLEASE spoiler or delete repeat images.

This thread's getting unreadable.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by starmike

Did you not see the ProRes trailer? Don't use YouTube as a gauge.

Where did you get the ProRes trailer? I've been checking archive.org and thedigitaltheater since it dropped and it's just not there.

[fkid]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

You haven't kept up with the discussion in that that thread and the analysis of the ProRes version of the trailer.

Time will tell, I'm not saying it will be depressing or T2-level, only similar to Titanic and Avatar, that's all. The colour revisionism (for The Abyss) is what's bothering me more, but that's to be expected these days, especially from JC. DNR/upscaling/sharpening algo is his go-to now, a few folks have already confirmed this anecdotally and some ProRes trailer frames indicate it too: https://imgbox.com/FKAKDnGf and https://imgbox.com/zN3IWU2a

In any case, that's discussion for another thread really. The piss-poor Dolby Vision metadata on Titanic shows that if Disney is involved in any way, likely Paramount discs just get DV tacked on for marketing purposes, no real quality control.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Where did you get the ProRes trailer? I've been checking archive.org and thedigitaltheater since it dropped and it's just not there.

I'm in the middle of something so I can't search, but check the Abyss thread about two weeks ago.

[Pieter V]

Video #1
ID : 4113 (0x1011)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : HEVC
Format/Info : High Efficiency Video Coding
Format profile : Main 10@L5.1@High
HDR format : SMPTE ST 2086, HDR10 compatible
Codec ID : 36
Duration : 3 h 14 min
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 (Type 2)
Bit depth : 10 bits
Color range : Limited
Color primaries : BT.2020
Transfer characteristics : PQ
Matrix coefficients : BT.2020 non-constant
Mastering display color primaries : BT.2020
Mastering display luminance : min: 0.0001 cd/m2, max: 1000 cd/m2
Maximum Content Light Level : 283 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 196 cd/m2

Dolby Atmos track is 24-bits. Double checked.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Dolby Atmos track is 24-bits. Doubled checked.

What does eac3to read?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

I'm suggesting that the print was badly scanned, and different prints have different qualities. The same movie scanned in 35mm and 70mm show INSANELY different grain structure, implying that the 35mm version is garbage to begin with.

The 35mm version is "garbage" to begin with? What?? The entire film was shot on 35mm film. Not a single 65mm shot there. The 70mm is a blowup from the 35mm. Colour and light levels will differ on 70mm because of the larger film frame. A 70mm print of a 35mm shot movie cannot be reference point. The reference should always be the 35mm.

Originally Posted by fkid

Riddhi, you really should calm down, way too many posts per minute at this rate. This thread is for discussing the UHD 4K release of this film only, stop polluting it for attention.

That's a VERRYYY interesting way to put it; making me the villain here, just for comparing a different version of the film with the UHD. The level of aggressive language thrown at me just for making some posts is interesting to note. Thanks man.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The 35mm version is "garbage" to begin with? What?? The entire film was shot on 35mm film. Not a single 65mm shot there. The 70mm is a blowup from the 35mm. Colour and light levels will differ on 70mm because of the larger film frame. A 70mm print of a 35mm shot movie cannot be reference point. the reference should always be the 35mm source.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

This is how it looks in terms of grain structure on the 35mm (colours and light levels may not be fully accurate) -

Attachment 297378

I personally think the 35mm looks more organic and less "artificial" or green screen like the Blu-ray does. Because of the natural, organic grain the green screen background doesn't stand out like an eye-sore and blends with the rest of the image. This is the advantage of release prints. The grain in them hide the flaws of CGI and composites. But again, personal preference may vary.

I have 35mm prints of The Matrix, Jurassic Park (both Open-Matte and Super-Wide), TITANIC, Aliens and the original Star Wars Trilogy.

Sure, colors might not be 100% accurate, but what you see is that's how it would look if they were projected on the big screen.

With that said, I prefer the organic look of both Jurassic Park and TITANIC 35mm scans over their Blu-ray counterparts.
Not to mention their original DTS 5.1 Cinema sound over their DTS-HD/DTS:X remixes.

There's just something about those prints that brings back childhood memories, at a time where going to a cinema was just having fun and not watch a smartphone screen every half an hour or so.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Oh, ho, ho! Being the BIG guy aren't you boy? Keep those insults coming. They don't affect me. By the way, he's one of the most incompetent politicians you could have chosen to make your point.

[tankryankr19]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Video #1
ID : 4113 (0x1011)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : HEVC
Format/Info : High Efficiency Video Coding
Format profile : Main 10@L5.1@High
HDR format : SMPTE ST 2086, HDR10 compatible
Codec ID : 36
Duration : 3 h 14 min
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 (Type 2)
Bit depth : 10 bits
Color range : Limited
Color primaries : BT.2020
Transfer characteristics : PQ
Matrix coefficients : BT.2020 non-constant
Mastering display color primaries : BT.2020
Mastering display luminance : min: 0.0001 cd/m2, max: 1000 cd/m2
Maximum Content Light Level : 283 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 196 cd/m2

Dolby Atmos track is 24-bits. Double checked.

Sounds promising, what is the file size on the BD-100 Disc?

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Oh, ho, ho! Being the BIG guy aren't you boy? Keep those insults coming. They don't affect me. By the way, it's one of the most incompetent politicians you could have chosen to make your point.

Would you prefer a Trump gif?

Originally Posted by tankryankr19

Sounds promising, what is the file size on the BD-100 Disc?

90 gigs

Originally Posted by wright96d

Size: 90,821,492,736 bytes

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by escvnte

I have 35mm prints of The Matrix, Jurassic Park (both Open-Matte and Super-Wide), TITANIC, Aliens and the original Star Wars Trilogy.

Sure, colors might not be 100% accurate, but what you see is that's how it would look if they were projected on the big screen.

With that said, I prefer the organic look of both Jurassic Park and TITANIC 35mm scans over their Blu-ray counterparts.
Not to mention their original DTS 5.1 Cinema sound over their DTS-HD/DTS:X remixes.

There's just something about those prints that brings back childhood memories, at a time where going to a cinema was just having fun and not watch a smartphone screen every half an hour or so.

100% agreed. I too have those exact 35mm scans. I also have the Star Wars Trilogy, and many, many more I wish not to say here. Most of them are scanned perfectly and look very much like how 35mm prints look when projected in theatres. Some are more perfect than others. After seeing those, even the UHDs look vastly inferior in comparison. The Mummy (1999) UHD and the Criterion restorations are the only ones I found that are more faithful to the 35mm print look. That's how I want all film-shot movies to look like. I really dislike this ultra clean, digital look of modern remasters which feel very synthetic. Watching the prinst do take me back to my childhood in the early '90s. I remember seeing Jurassic Park, Baby's Day Out, Dunston Checks In, Jurassic Park 2, Tomorrow Never Dies, and Titanic on the big screen. I had many memorable film experiences in the 200s as well, and even as recently as last year. There's nothing like seeing movies projected on film.