Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Do you has a link you can share?

I found something that claims to be the "4K" trailer but it has a note claiming the source is 1080p ProRes but the file itself is 3840x1608 HEVC and 2gbs in size.

Definitely comes from a higher quality source than the awful 1080p YT upload.

It has all the telltale marks of filtering and upscaling.

Various instances where finer details exhibit that extra 'pop' in clarity that looks great upon initial glance but really appears artificial upon further review.

That newer form of EE.

Loss in fidelity of finer details where the processing does not have enough information or does not consider as important.

Futzing up of various bits of visual information such as hair, especially when fluttering due to wind or sufficient movement of the actor.

Haloing due the filtering.

Anyhow DNR and upscaling/sharpening artifacts that have been around for yonks.

I fear that The Abyss, Aliens, True Lies, & T1 4K remasters are destined to look like polished UltraHiDef-Resolution dog turds.

*Also weird issues that may in part be attributed to the 3D conversion process.
Some real humdingers.

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

Definitely comes from a higher quality source than the awful
I fear that The Abyss, Aliens, True Lies, & T1 4K remasters are destined to look like polished UltraHiDef-Resolution dog turds.

Theoretically, there’s no reason for them to scrub these clean unless they’re prepping them for 3D releases like Titanic or T2. Didn’t Cameron approve a very nice Aliens re-master (added grain, I know, but looks delicious anyway)?

When they announce T1 special anniversary screenings in HFR 3D that’s when we start worrying…

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jerclay

Theoretically, there’s no reason for them to scrub these clean unless they’re prepping them for 3D releases like Titanic or T2. Didn’t Cameron approve a very nice Aliens re-master (added grain, I know, but looks delicious anyway)?

When they announce T1 special anniversary screenings in HFR 3D that’s when we start worrying…

Yes, Aliens was subject to the same Lowry process used on T1, Titanic and the HD transfer of Abyss that's floating about. They all look fantastic and more importantly they don't look unfilmic for it, but now I think Jimbo's got a brand new bag with this AI upscaling/enhancing silliness (prolly Peter Jackson getting in his ****ing ear, seeing as Weta did much of the VFX anyway), i.e. he's moved on to this and so it'll be his remastering 'process' from here on out.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

https://imgur.com/a/vLZWyJo

[Show spoiler]


It appears as though after the filtering of the grain, Leo's face looks rather soft with a kind of grain-esque dithering.




Curious thing about Kate's lip.


The rigging sure likes to get out and stretch.
Along with other various 3D conversion artifacts.
Look along the rails and their hands, etc.





The processing seems to have trouble handling real human very fine facial hair along contrasting edges.
Although processing handles hair poorly in numerous manners.





Just general rotoscoping and sharpening wonkiness.



During the camera move the top of the usher's hair is not consistently rotoscoped out.




Poorly handled hair but some of his facial features come through but rather too accentuated which makes it look rather artificial.


Hair not consistently rotoscoped, be it due to automation or human error/sloppiness.







Rails? Where we are going, we don't need rails.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

https://imgur.com/a/vLZWyJo

[Show spoiler]


It appears as though after the filtering of the grain, Leo's face looks rather soft with a kind of grain-esque dithering.




Curious thing about Kate's lip.


The rigging sure likes to get out and stretch.
Along with other various 3D conversion artifacts.
Look along the rails and their hands, etc.





The processing seems to have trouble handling real human very fine facial hair along contrasting edges.
Although processing handles hair poorly in numerous manners.





Just general rotoscoping and sharpening wonkiness.



During the camera move the top of the usher's hair is not consistently rotoscoped out.




Poorly handled hair but some of his facial features come through but rather too accentuated which makes it look rather artificial.


Hair not consistently rotoscoped, be it due to automation or human error/sloppiness.







Rails? Where we are going, we don't need rails.

Posting upconverts is pretty much worthless, no offense.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Posting upconverts is pretty much worthless, no offense.

None taken.

I would have gone with the native prores file but my google-fu was not successful.

The file I found and used is not that far off from the captures you have provided.

The upconversion should not cause some of the artifacts I have noted but I could be wrong.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

None taken.

I would have gone with the native prores file but my google-fu was not successful.

The file I found and used is not that far off from the captures you have provided.

The upconversion should not cause some of the artifacts I have noted but I could be wrong.

I don't ever upconvert but I can't imagine that it's impossible for it to cause them, especially if you don't know what you're doing. And since that site upconverts the video as well as changing stereo to 5.1, I'm betting their QC isn't the best.

[Riddhi2011]

Bad news: Titanic IMAX re-release is seemingly locked to 2.39:1. A reddit user has posted after attending an IMAX show in Indonesia. Don't know if this is true. Can anyone confirm here after attending an IMAX show? I love the scope framing for this film, but have already watched that version nine times in theatres, including the original 35mm release. I don't want to pay for watching the scope version again, especially since it's a 1.5 hours journey from my home.

Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/commen...onfirm_it_was/

[Pocketkid2]

Wasn't the movie framed for 2.39:1 consistently and only opened up to 1.78:1 for the 3D conversion? Either way I can't wait to see how this new remaster looks at my local IMAX theater.

[GRSN]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Bad news: Titanic IMAX re-release is seemingly locked to 2.39:1. A reddit user has posted after attending an IMAX show in Indonesia. Don't know if this is true. Can anyone confirm here after attending an IMAX show? I love the scope framing for this film, but have already watched that version nine times in theatres, including the original 35mm release. I don't want to pay for watching the scope version again, especially since it's a 1.5 hours journey from my home.

Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/commen...onfirm_it_was/

Saw it last night in IMAX 3D HFR (3D yeah, not what you meant)
but it was 1.78:1 the whole film, looked pretty naice!

i think they even sped up the music in one scene
can't remember the damn scene,
but it was an version of "My Heart Will Go On"

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by GRSN

Saw it last night in IMAX 3D HFR (3D yeah, not what you meant)
but it was 1.78:1 the whole film, looked pretty naice!

i think they even sped up the music in one scene
can't remember the damn scene,
but it was an version of "My Heart Will Go On"

Originally Posted by Pocketkid2

Wasn't the movie framed for 2.39:1 consistently and only opened up to 1.78:1 for the 3D conversion? Either way I can't wait to see how this new remaster looks at my local IMAX theater.

The Reddit poster had attended an IMAX 3D showing, not 2D. So, Why would it be in scope? Or did the theatre cheapen out and just pay for a regular scope 3D DCP? All IMAX 3D prints of Titanic are supposed to be in 1.78:1. I don't think we have HFR 3D in our nearby IMAX 2K theatre.

As for the speed up in the HFR, it's like PAL DVDs with 4% speedup and pitch shifted audio, all over again.

[Agent Kay]

Prints are not a thing for this.
Scope is the way for the standard DCPs

[GRSN]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The Reddit poster had attended an IMAX 3D showing, not 2D. So, Why would it be in scope? Or did the theatre cheapen out and just pay for a regular scope 3D DCP? All IMAX 3D prints of Titanic are supposed to be in 1.78:1. I don't think we have HFR 3D in our nearby IMAX 2K theatre.

As for the speed up in the HFR, it's like PAL DVDs with 4% speedup and pitch shifted audio, all over again.

Yup, that's what most likely happened.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The Reddit poster had attended an IMAX 3D showing, not 2D. So, Why would it be in scope? Or did the theatre cheapen out and just pay for a regular scope 3D DCP? All IMAX 3D prints of Titanic are supposed to be in 1.78:1. I don't think we have HFR 3D in our nearby IMAX 2K theatre.

As for the speed up in the HFR, it's like PAL DVDs with 4% speedup and pitch shifted audio, all over again.

That's not how HFR works

[Dubstar]

I saw this on a BARCO 4K laser system this afternoon, and it simply didn't hold a candle against the outstanding Dolby Vision 'Cinema' 2017 theatrical release - I can't fairly comment on the Atmos remix because the audio system on said screen a lot of the rear speakers weren't working (so disappointing)

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Prints are not a thing for this.
Scope is the way for the standard DCPs

I know. I used "print" as a substitute for DCP, since I am more familiar with the term "print" than DCP, because of film's historical and linguistic impact.

[Riddhi2011]

frame rate

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's not how HFR works

I am not saying that HFR works like PAL DVD 4% speed up. I know they actually create all those extra frames rather than increase the frame-rate. But, since the poster I quoted mentions about the song being sped up and since we know how HFR movies have a overly smooth, "soap opera effect," which PAL DVDs might have too, because of increased frame rate and speed, I used that reference. PAL versions of movies feel more like video, which is what "soap operas" feel like, is it not? HFR is also infamous for its "soap opera" effect. Hence I drew a light reference. It wasn't meant to be a serious technical claim.

[Rizor]

Saw this in Dolby 3D earlier. It didn't look very good. The usual Reliance grain removal, noise reduction and oversharpening. Hopefully the 4K disc looks better. I think it's based on the same master that the Blu-ray is from, just without the added grain layer the Blu-ray has. Not sure if they did more work on it. I believe Reliance touted their work on the 2012 re-release and Blu-ray as a 4K remaster.

Edit: Haven't been following the discussion of this re-release and the trailer from the last page. I'm afraid it's true.

[VanHiscers]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Saw this in Dolby 3D earlier. It didn't look very good. The usual Reliance grain removal, noise reduction and oversharpening. Hopefully the 4K disc looks better. I think it's based on the same master that the Blu-ray is from, just without the added grain layer the Blu-ray has. Not sure if they did more work on it. I believe Reliance touted their work on the 2012 re-release and Blu-ray as a 4K remaster.

Edit: Haven't been following the discussion of this re-release and the trailer from the last page. I'm afraid it's true.

I’m seeing it in Dolby 3D this weekend at a local AMC. I’m assuming the Dolby 3D presentation is open matte, but does it also has HFR? Thanks!

[cybersoga]

I think they have a master without the 3D DNR as that's what the current blu-ray was made from. All they need to do is take that master, give it a new HDR grade and stick it on a 4K disc.