Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The answer print that was signed off by the director and/or DP is the best color reference. However in cases where the answer print no longer exists or can't be located then comparing multiple theatrical prints and using them as reference is usually the next best thing. That said, a lot of the theatrical print "preservations" that I've seen which were made by fans are usually very flawed and probably wouldn't represent how that exact same print would look while being projected (and some of them are blatantly off such as the Raiders scan where the golden idol was silver or The Matrix where limes in a design were changed to yellow) so fan scans aren't really something which should be considered accurate at all.

Also: IPs aren't really a good reference as true reference materials should be used in order to accurately grade IP scans too.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Top image has better contrast and accentuated detail while bottom image looks low contrast and has a comparatively duller and flattened look. Both are from the same source. So, which is the correct look?

Neither

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Top image has better contrast and accentuated detail while bottom image looks low contrast and has a comparatively duller and flattened look. Both are from the same source. So, which is the correct look?

You missed the part where Geoff said:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The ones from that highdefwatch webshite are photos of a screen

[NoFro]

Originally Posted by Dark_Vader

This used to literally suck the enjoyment of this hobby.

That is why now I take it with a grain of salt.

I'm never swayed by overreaction and never, ever by screenshots.

It makes me nostalgic for the 4K release of The Lord of the Rings. That was a doozy.

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

You guys do realize movies are meant to be watched in movement and not through ultra augmented stills, right?

How many times have we all got riled up over a handful of frames that barely register when you actually watch the movie? This forum runs on that stuff

[PeterTHX]

Goddammit people, stop with the repeat images!

Rude as ****

[steve_dave]

Damn. This thread went under just as fast the Titanic. What? Too soon?

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The answer print that was signed off by the director and/or DP is the best color reference. However in cases where the answer print no longer exists or can't be located then comparing multiple theatrical prints and using them as reference is usually the next best thing. That said, a lot of the theatrical print "preservations" that I've seen which were made by fans are usually very flawed and probably wouldn't represent how that exact same print would look while being projected (and some of them are blatantly off such as the Raiders scan where the golden idol was silver or The Matrix where limes in a design were changed to yellow) so fan scans aren't really something which should be considered accurate at all.

Also: IPs aren't really a good reference as true reference materials should be used in order to accurately grade IP scans too.

no obviously the best way to get the most accurate colors is to use the colors straight off the negative, because clearly it has the most detail, so wouldn't it also have the most accurate colors? /j

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

You missed the part where Geoff said:

I saw what he said, but it still doesn't answer my question - which look is the accurate one, or does it keep varying based on the viewing equipment (Projector vs TV)? Personally, I prefer the colour and contrast of the top image from highdefwatch, not the bottom one which seems to be a direct capture.

[Djt31]

Don't think this review has been posted here : https://www.avsforum.com/threads/tit...096/?u=9512376

Audio/UHD Video total rating: 97 (Max score: 100)

Titanic comes to Ultra HD Blu-ray from Paramount Home Entertainment featuring 2160pHEVC encoded video and lossless Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 channel sound.

Titanic recently underwent a remastering and its Ultra HD Blu-ray presentation was derived from that process.

Presented in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, this film’s Ultra HD video rendering is a sight to behold. It’s a period-based film that relies on stylized visuals that employ stark contrasts, vivid chromatic elements and lots of CGI. With an appreciable increase in detail and richness of color, the image appears refined and vivid. Primary and secondary colors are emboldened, while whites appear gradational and vibrant. When brought together, the combination of color and sepia literally pop off of the screen. Onoe the best examples of this occurs in the scene where Jack and Rose meet on deck and he proceeds to show her how to “spit”. The blend of sepia, color and white detail is simply gorgeous.

Blacks are noise free, stable and fairly deep. Contrast and brightness are balanced well which enliven bright scenes while maintaining an appreciable level of visibility and dimension during the film’s darker segments. The first scene to demonstrate this occurs during Rose’s panic attack as she runs toward the rear of the vessel followed by Jack’s intervention. The first scene that shows the ships engine is among my favorites of the presentation, not only visible but audibly as well.

The rendering of fine detail is, at times, breathtaking. Closeups are revealing of the subtle textures in facial features, hair and the beautiful costumes worn by the cast. Wide angle shots vary in terms of visual depth but, in nearly all instances offer appreciable degrees of refinement and, fidelity is never in question. The exterior shots/CGI as well as the interior sets featured in the story, offer clarity, detail and dimension that belie the film’s age. Grain is present, evenly rendered and primarily organic is appearance.

I also felt that the implementation of HDR proved to be a defining element. This film relies on its ability to render light at differing stages. The cinematography makes use of streaming/brilliant light which is sometimes combined with mid/low lit backgrounds. It’s application here is spot on, creating lifelike imagery with a near infinite sense of depth. The sequence in the bowels of the sinking ship where Jack and Rose are trying to make their way out amid locked gates and rising water is among the presentation’s highlights for HDR. I could go on. Suffice it to say, this is an outstanding Ultra HD presentation.

All those involved in the process of rendering this 4K release is to be commended on an excellent and faithful Ultra high-definition experience that is among the year’s absolute best.



Dolby Atmos:

Titanic isn’t a thriller or action film but, it already had a solid multi-channel surround mix, so I wondered what the application of object placed sounds would add. I was very pleased with the handling of this audio track. The use of overhead sound objects elevates proportional correlation. When compared to the original 5.1 track the Atmos mix offers a noticeable improvement by opening up the soundstage, elevating the perception of low-level detail and seemingly offering broader dynamic range. The opening underwater sequences utilize the overhead channels to enhance the feeling of immersion as the submersible vehicles work their way around the wreckage of the Titanic. As Rose begins to tell her story the score is bled to the height channels which extends the breadth of the James Horner’s sweeping music.

Things settle down until the night of the sinking, at which time, the entire system is put to work. This includes effects such as falling debris, engines thrusting, and supporting atmospherics that fill the listening area. In general, the audio mix is applied to very good effect, correlating with the onscreen events quite nicely as the most minute audio cues are fully realized. This Atmos listening track proved to be enlightening and complemented an already excellent soundtrack.

The 7.1 soundtrack is highlighted by robust dynamics and James Horner’s superlative music score. The orchestrated elements are spread across the soundstage and blend beautifully with the film’s variety of sounds/effects to create a transparent well focused presentation. Panning sequences are delivered with seamless precision which make for a cohesive listening experience. High level detail and excellent directional correlation enables smaller background sounds within the mix to be audible. Dialogue is definitively reproduced with refining clarity and discerning room penetration through the center channel. Surround activity is effectively used to broaden the sound field and primarily consists of enveloping ambience along with discretely placed effects that integrate well with the front speakers.

The soundstage opens up during the large scale set pieces, beginning with the iceberg collision, and delivers solid impact and clearly articulated audio that allows all of the sonic detail within the soundtrack to be distinguishable. Bass reproduction is clean with palpable presence that adds depth to the music score and low level punch that underscores the disaster based sequences. Titanic is a film that relies as much on its quiet moments as it does on the more active ones. This is a well balanced audio presentation that handled each with aplomb and sounded magnificent in the process.



Final Thoughts:

Winner of 11 Academy Awards Titanic is a sweeping and memorable epic film that remains among my personal favorites. It makes its debut on Ultra HD Blu-ray in this Ultra HD Blu-ray/Digital release from Paramount Home Entertainment featuring beautifully restored video quality, a terrific Dolby Atmos listening track and a fan friendly supplemental package that include new and legacy content. Titanic in Ultra HD on Blu-ray is a must have for fans and is highly recommended.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Matt89

K well I never said that either. Are any of you reading my posts correctly? Of course the OCN isn't an indication of how a film is supposed to look in terms of colour. It's just raw footage. What I said is that when a movie is restored from the negatives, they're not using a theatrical print as a reference to grade the film because it's NOT a good reference as to how the film was supposed to look.

It's not the best source, no. But sometimes it's all they've got. And it's at least a guide when there is not a better source. In this case of course I'm sure they have better indicators for what was the intended color, not that it matters much anyways when you have directors like Cameron who are going to do their own thing different again every time they work on it, regardless of how it originally looked, but for older films with limited resources, any guide is better than none.

[Ninoners]

Originally Posted by starmike

I'm just going to say this about that 35mm "scan" floating around...

The irony is that the scan is SO BAD that you can't even see the iceberg. Here's a literal screenshot from that scan.

yEAH bUT The GrAIN lOOKS natURAL!

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I saw what he said, but it still doesn't answer my question - which look is the accurate one, or does it keep varying based on the viewing equipment (Projector vs TV)? Personally, I prefer the colour and contrast of the top image from highdefwatch, not the bottom one which seems to be a direct capture.

The direct capture isn't accurate either. HDR to SDR conversions never are.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Matt89

No there's no miscommunication, you're just wrong lol.

You're saying that when a film gets restored, the best representation of a film's look comes from a theatrical print and thus should be used as a reference. You could not be more wrong. Period end of story.

https://www.johndaro.com/blog/2021/5/5/restoring-classics-a7t2e

Specifically the section on "Grading":

"Grading restoration titles is a total sub-discipline from grading as a whole. New theatrical grading starts with references and look development to achieve a certain tone for the film. There is a ton of work that goes into this process. Restoration grading differs since the goal is staying true to that original intent. Not reimagining it. Much like new theatrical grading, a good reference will set you up for success. My preferred reference is a filmmaker-approved answer print. These were the master prints that best represented the filmmakers’ creative intent."

Again, proper restorations are not using a theatrical print for reference simply because they are NOT a good reference.

Jesus Christ.

Is there any need for the aggression?

What is it with these forums lately and all the hostility? It's really making this place unpleasant.

The quote you highlighted yourself says , "My preferred reference is a filmmaker-approved answer print.", which makes sense when available. And in this case I'm sure they wouldn't need to turn to an old theatrical print for reference. But a preferred source isn't always available.

Again it doesn't matter anyways because with the big films, every release ends up looking different anyways. Filmmakers don't seem too concerned with making them look accurate to their original release.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by starmike

I'm just going to say this about that 35mm "scan" floating around...

The irony is that the scan is SO BAD that you can't even see the iceberg. Here's a literal screenshot from that scan.

I guess you could say that screenshot is accurate to how the iceberg actually appeared (or didn't appear lol) on the night of April 14, 1912.

Realism!!!

[The Collector FX]

I haven't seen Titanic since the DVD glory days. Now having seen caps of the 4K disc, I think it looks very, very good. With that said; I haven't seen this film thirty eight times like of some of you in here so I don't have a trained eye or critical position.

For now, I'll reserve Blu Ray vs 4K quality thoughts until someone uploads screen caps to caps-a-holic. Sometimes people get it wrong, like with Schindler's List. The Blu Ray vs 4K on that one was negligible at best but the reviewer hyped it up to the the end all be all of 4K discs. It's not.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Is there any need for the aggression?

What is it with these forums lately and all the hostility? It's really making this place unpleasant.

I've repeatedly faced this hostility from some members here. It's like they just cannot tolerate someone else's perspective and are quick to dismiss their views by considering their own views as 100 percent legit. And then comes the aggressive language, insults and mocking gifs. At times I feel provoked enough to insult them in return, but I keep myself civil enough to not be as harsh or unkind.

Many folks here are very dismissive of divergent views and quickly become extremely defensive and attacking. I still like it here though as I get to learn and share stuff about films. When I have made mistakes, I have apologised rather than being aggressive. Aggression should never be welcome in these forums as it just creates an overall negative atmosphere.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by The Collector FX

I haven't seen Titanic since the DVD glory days. Now having seen caps of the 4K disc, I think it looks very, very good. With that said; I haven't seen this film thirty eight times like of some of you in here so I don't have a trained eye or critical position.

For now, I'll reserve Blu Ray vs 4K quality thoughts until someone uploads screen caps to caps-a-holic. Sometimes people get it wrong, like with Schindler's List. The Blu Ray vs 4K on that one was negligible at best but the reviewer hyped it up to the the end all be all of 4K discs. It's not.

The Schindler's List UHD is great though.

[Croweyes1121]

Really interesting follow-up tweet just now from HD Movie Source:

I took a second look at Titanic today after @AJYeend told me that I should look for similar movies in that time period. Deep Impact also has heavy camera ringing and a sharpened look. Very similar to edge enhancement, it has that look of ringing around hard objects. He said it was the film stock, and after taking a second look I agree with him. The sharpness that I'm seeing is not digital sharpness, it's actually the film stock with a mix of camera ringing.

I've used words like, oversharpened, and that is not a good word to use, because it implies that it has been purposely done. But, I wonder, if there's anyone else out there who is also sensitive to this look? It's what I would call, an edgy look.

It appears that in the late 90s, this was prevalent, and to be fair to myself, and others who could share similar opinions to me on this. Many of the reviews that you'll read over the coming weeks will be from reviewers who have fond memories of the VHS, LaserDisc, and even DVD versions like myself. The upgrade to Blu-ray was a small blip in my memories of this film. What I'm trying to say is that this level of detail that Titanic now has on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray has never been seen in a home video release of this film like this before. The adjustment to seeing it in 4K is almost like you've been blind all of your life, but now you can see. Being able to see this much detail means more camera artifacts are visible, one of them being camera ringing and an edginess to close and midrange shots. Many far shots actually look soft by comparison.

One thing I'll say is that you don't need film knowledge to have an opinion on what you like, and don't like. Some of the shots I still don't like the look of, but, I do have more of an appreciation for them now because of what @AJYeend has explained to me. It's responses like his that allow my knowledge to grow, and enjoy the film format even more. Screaming at somebody online because they have a different opinion from you is not what I'm personally here for. So, thank you, Adam for taking to time to explain this.

If I have worried you with comments like Titanic is oversharpened, I apologize. My goal is to have an opinion that is mine, regardless of what the masses are saying. However, remembering that these are analog film artifacts and not digital artifacts is key here. Also, as a video purist, I still do not like the look of edginess, heavy camera ringing, and the look of increased sharpness, which some shots in Titanic do have.

Please let me know what you think, and thank you for reading. @TitanicMovie

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I've used words like, oversharpened, and that is not a good word to use, because it implies that it has been purposely done. But, I wonder, if there's anyone else out there who is also sensitive to this look? It's what I would call, an edgy look.

I don't think you're wrong. I think there are shots in Titanic that look "over enhanced" and a little artificial, e.g. many on the salvage ship.

We have to get used to the new tools that Hollywood is now starting to use that aren't as easy to spot anymore. They no longer apply blanket sharpening or noise filters, but ML-trained algorithms that have some "understanding" of the image content and selectively enhance individual image elements. What could go wrong.

[The Collector FX]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

The Schindler's List UHD is great though.

For sure. It's an improvement over the BD - just not very significant or drastic, just shows that they did an outstanding job with the Blu Ray.