Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by starmike

More screenshots added to this post:

https://www.highdefwatch.com/post/ca...ter-yes-it-can

These screenshots are taken by photographing the TV. I'm just saying this to make sure no one forgets it.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Farerb

So it's basically an upscale of the previous Blu-ray with additional sharpening.

Worst-case scenario is that it's from the previous 4K master. So, not just a blu-ray upscale.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Wrong

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2308

Where was I wrong? please explain.

[Jowiko96]

I saw a 35mm print at Music Box Theatre in Chicago in August and color wise, it looked much more in line with the new UHD disc than the 35mm scan that’s going around online.

I love how the scan looks, but it’s not an accurate representation of the film. It never was supposed to be.

[SpacemanDoug]

looks like it's The Exorcist all over again

every time one toxic thread dies, two more take its place

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Where was I wrong? please explain.

Do I really have to? It's not a "blu-ray upscale".

Like, holy shit, dude.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

looks like it's The Exorcist all over again

Lord of the Rings!!

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Farerb

Lord of the Rings!!

moreso was referring to the thread itself

[matbezlima]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=982

[NoFro]

I love this forum. It's the same story every time:

Initial nervousness and cynicism.

First reactions in: IT'S THE BEST THING EVER.

Pixel peeping then begins: IT'S THE WORST THING EVER.

Can't believe how many times we've been through this cycle

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Farerb

So it's basically an upscale of the previous Blu-ray with additional sharpening.

There's no way it's an upscale from the 2K, look at Kate's dress from the screenshot #18:




You can't create details like that out of thin air, the source is clearly 4K.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

There's no way it's an upscale from the 2K, look at Kate's dress from the screenshot #18:

You can't create details like that out of thin air, the source is clearly 4K.

It's that dagnabbit AI, I reckon

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yeah I'm not talking about the scratches I was just saying that in response to the comment that the 35mm scan is "immaculate". It isn't. And regardless as to whether or not the print remains unchanged, it's still a theatrical print (aka not accurate to the way the film is supposed to look) because of the lack of consistency and the amount of generational loss you experience by the sheer nature of creating a theatrical print. The photochemical process just has too many steps involved. And a projected theatrical print is absolutely not the most authentic source for how a film should look. One could look drastically different than the next so who's to say this 35mm scan is even correct? And that's precisely the point.

And no respectable restoration is gonna use a shitty theatrical print as a reference (unless that's all that's available and, well, that's a whole other issue in and of itself). If the restoration is being done from the original camera negative, for example, the restoration team isn't going to reference a theatrical print when a better source, a PROPER source - like an answer print - is available. Being one step away from the OCN, an answer print would be a way better reference for how a film is supposed to look. Because from there they'd create an interpositive, and then from THERE they'd create an internegative (or dupe negative) and only from THERE would they strike the theatrical prints. You're so many steps removed from the OCN at that point that it would be a very bad idea to use a theatrical print as a reference to restore/grade a film. It's just not done that way.

Disagree. Modern restorations don't ever go for that 4-step process of O-Neg-IP-IN-RP. They scan the O-Neg, invert it digitally and the grade it based on a projected print. They don't spend money on striking new answer prints. I don't know why you are so hung up on the generation loss. You are NOT SUPPOSED to watch the Negative or the Interpositive. Don't you realise that. For over a century, the filmmakers determined the final look of the film in the theatres as to how the projected release print would look. The O-Neg and IP are just the raw materials to create that look. They were not the be-all and end-all of the look of a picture. 70mm prints were indeed struck from the negative, but such prints were extremely rare and very few people across the world saw those prints. The only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print. And the reason is because that's what people saw all over the world during the original release. They didn't see an answer print, they didn't see the IP or the Internegative. They saw a release print. In fact, T2's 4K UHD, despite the heavy DNR, has colours that are mostly quite faithful to the 35mm release prints, though not a 100 percent match. The older T2 DVD and Blu-rays had the wrong colour grading.

[matbezlima]

Is this the Lawrence Of Arabia 4K thread all over again, when people there were arguing that it was an upscale? Please, not that mess again.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Do I really have to? It's not a "blu-ray upscale".

Like, holy shit, dude.

I know it's not a Blu-ray upscale. If I mistakenly implied that then I apologise. The UHD is clearly from the same 4K master which was used to make the 2012 3D and 2D Blu-rays. What I feel, looking at the UHD screenshots, is that they are using the DNR'd 4K master and not the raw 4K scan without the DNR.

[fkid]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Is this the Lawrence Of Arabia 4K thread all over again, when people there were arguing that it was an upscale? Please, not that mess again.

Unfortunately, people just love to keep talking and filling pages with the same re-hashed arguments, acting like they are an authority on industry practices and know better than everyone else. How some movie release threads get into the hundreds of pages is almost entirely explained by ego, self-indulgence, and lack of humility. I'm outta here.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I know it's not a Blu-ray upscale. If I mistakenly implied that then I apologise. The UHD is clearly from the same 4K master which was used to make the 2012 3D and 2D Blu-rays.

[Moviola]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You're overreacting imo, T2 is its own category of a disaster, although this is frightening:



The more I look at these screenshots, the more I like how it looks overall, but when you start looking at the details, there's definitely something strange going on here, at least partially.

And these letters on Paxton's jacket remind me a little bit of our favorite AI upscaling:

The lettering on the on the camera submersible is where it immediately stood out to me. https://slow.pics/c/c5rfoxRc

The sticker is sharpened to the point of looking unrealistic amidst the density of the murky water. The sharpening software naturally has no context for what it is that it's manipulating, which is why this sort of stuff really needs constant human oversight. Artificial, yes. Intelligent, certainly not.

It's not looking as bad as Avatar in the frame below, but you can see similar anomalies here where the sharpening is doing weird things to faces and arms.

https://slow.pics/c/THFKLAtC


Generally though I agree that it doesn't look too bad so far. Only a few frames captured have given me serious pause. I'd rather watch the blu-ray of Avatar, whereas I don't think I've seen enough to suspect that I'll be turned off the UHD presentation here. I'm keen to see the disc in motion.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

I love how you keep finding innovative techniques to mock me using Gifs. It's amusing. I love it. Keep entertaining me. Don't try that bicycle maneuver at home, though. You might flip and crack your eggs.

Originally Posted by Jowiko96

I saw a 35mm print at Music Box Theatre in Chicago in August and color wise, it looked much more in line with the new UHD disc than the 35mm scan that’s going around online. I love how the scan looks, but it’s not an accurate representation of the film. It never was supposed to be.

Tired of saying that I never called the 35mm scan of Titanic accurate. I was merely pointing out the grain structure ONLY. The grain, not the rest of the attributes. I too agree it looks different and has black crush plus pervading darkness in the night scenes unlike the projected print which clearly showed the iceberg and other details.

[omgitsgodzilla]

It's definitely a higher-resolution source, but it's also clearly had some artificial sharpening done. Check out the star on this guy's cap:

[Show spoiler]

https://slow.pics/c/THFKLAtC

This is an extreme example, but I'm really not digging the look of this. Gonna keep looking through the comparisons but I'll probably end up canceling my order. This just doesn't look like as good a UHD as the Blu-ray was a Blu-ray.