Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[starmike]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Is there a way to get a 2D open matte on disc?

3D BR has a main video track and the 3D track. So the open-matte video track is already there.

[Desk.]

I’ve just been watching a little of Titanic 4K and have noticed something interesting.

In the opening scenes Bill Paxton’s face is incredibly detailed… up until the point where he moves his head quickly. At that point the detail in his face appears to noticeable soften… until his head movement stops and it’s incredibly sharp again.

I wonder if it’s a case of AI applied to sharpen the image not being able to ‘lock on’ and upscale a moving face, hence the reversion back to a more ‘normal’ image on those situations.

At first I thought my eyes were just tired but I’m wondering if there’s something to this.

Watching on into the surface daytime scenes and the image is phenomenal, perhaps the best I’ve ever seen.

If Cameron is using AI secret sauce to make his films super sharp, then I’m intrigued by the potential.

[Djt31]

Originally Posted by Desk.

I’ve just been watching a little of Titanic 4K and have noticed something interesting.

In the opening scenes Bill Paxton’s face is incredibly detailed… up until the point where he moves his head quickly. At that point the detail in his face appears to noticeable soften… until his head movement stops and it’s incredibly sharp again.

I'd say it's the motion blur that does that effect but I may be wrong...

[Desk.]

Watching some more of this and it’s almost freaking me out a little just how detailed the image is.

You know the expression ‘every pore and wrinkle’? This gives that a whole new meaning with Gloria Stuart’s face, where the amount of… ‘character’ is beyond anything I’ve seen before, on film or even in the flesh.

It’s like I’ve gained superhuman vision.

A little uncanny, and that’s a little concerning.

[crowe-t]

Originally Posted by dalemc

Happy to share! Unfortunately that wasn't one of the images they released at the time, but here are the rest - doing these in a spoiler thing so we aren't scrolling endlessly through my damn uploads, sorry folks!

[Show spoiler]

Thanks so much for posting these.

[Mierzwiak]

These screenshots are beautiful!

[Desk.]

It’s really beautiful. The 1912 scenes are looking a little less ‘hyper real’, perhaps by design, with a bit of a softer, sepia style.

But by gum, this is one beautiful image, and for me really challenges what I’ve come to accept is possible with a film on this 4K format.

A ‘game-changer’, if you will.

Can’t wait to see Aliens and The Abyss!

[skyless]

Just flicked through the flim. The DNR isn't too egregious for the most part but the amount of sharpening they've applied is off putting. It's quite noticeable on hair, eyelashes and clothes with fine detail.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by skyless

Just flicked through the flim. The DNR isn't too egregious for the most part but the amount of sharpening they've applied is off putting. It's quite noticeable on hair, eyelashes and clothes with fine detail.

Judging by some of the scans from the 2012 restoration, it was applied back then to closeups.

[Mierzwiak]

You can clearly see the color noise in the grain on the screenshots posted by dalemc (personally I like it), it looks to be entirely missing on UHD.

[emmet otter]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

It's insane how much of it is discarded to fit the cinema screen. At this point, why even use Super 35? 3-perf 35mm film (Terminator), or shooting anamorphic make more sense.

I always despised 'matted' to this day. Wished every film was given the fullest frame option.

[admccroan]

UPS says scheduled delivery is Sunday! It’s UPS SurePost so it’s being delivered by USPS. I ordered both the CE and standard.

[Shaneacook1989]

I should receive my copy today but it looks like I'll have to wait to watch it because the beta code for MakeMKV expired yesterday.....rats!

Yes, my pc is my only BD player at the moment

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by emmet otter

I always despised 'matted' to this day. Wished every film was given the fullest frame option.

I do often feel that films seem too tight and squeezed in at times these days. Too many hyper close-ups and cut-off heads/faces/foreheads/necks. Depends on the director and cinematographer too, but seeing that shot of the full frame makes me want to see the whole film in that ratio at least once, to see how it feels fully opened up. I really do enjoy the 3D version for that reason - the 16:9 opened-up image.

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by Shaneacook1989

I should receive my copy today but it looks like I'll have to wait to watch it because the beta code for MakeMKV expired yesterday.....rats!

Yes, my pc is my only BD player at the moment

You just have to go to their forum and get the new one.

[pinballmaster]

Originally Posted by emmet otter

I always despised 'matted' to this day. Wished every film was given the fullest frame option.

How does someone get to see the matte version? What are these screenshots being pulled from? I didn't even know this version existed.

[blakninja]

Any of you Titanic fans knows anything about Titanic movie posters? I heard there was a recalled version because it did not have Gloria Steward name on it?

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Considering the amount of digital touch-up work needed to make the film work in 1.78:1 due to the amount of goofs seen just outside the 2.35:1 ratio, I'd hate to imagine how much more work would be required to make it presentable in an even taller ratio.

Why use Super 35? There are a number of reasons (look them up) but the most obvious reason and the most relevant one to this conversation would be so the film could easily be reformatted for other displays such as 4:3 CRTs without being anywhere near as compromised as typical pan and scan jobs.

Anyway, the film was composed for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, that's the ratio it will look best in unless you think "more image automatically = better" and don't understand framing/composition. The other ratios were an afterthought (hence why so much digital work needed to be done to erase mics and other equipment/goofs in the 1.78:1 3D presentation). I have no interest in seeing what every film would look like completely opened up. I've seen enough open matte presentations of numerous films to know that any film opened up that much from the original intended aspect ratio is just going to show lots more dead space, goofs (unless they've been digitally erased) and of course the intended composition will be impacted.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I do often feel that films seem too tight and squeezed in at times these days. Too many hyper close-ups and cut-off heads/faces/foreheads/necks. Depends on the director and cinematographer too, but seeing that shot of the full frame makes me want to see the whole film in that ratio at least once, to see how it feels fully opened up. I really do enjoy the 3D version for that reason - the 16:9 opened-up image.

What about "IMAX Enhanced" versions of films? It's not rare for Marvel movies on Disney Plus to be available in such versions. It can be a nice novelty, though they are not obviously not the intended aspect ratio, and should not be the default way to watch a film. James Gunn feels this way about the IMAX Enhanced versions of his Guardians Of The Galaxy movies: he is not against it as a nice option to have, but he didn't compose the films for that aspect ratio, so it will never be the way he recommends people to watch his movies.

You know what is a very frustrating case though? Dune. That film was made for IMAX, and to fully use its screen. Dennis Villeneuve said it so. The film was made to be seen in IMAX aspect ratio. But now, in all platforms and releases, you can only watch it cropped!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

What about "IMAX Enhanced" versions of films? It's not rare for Marvel movies on Disney Plus to be available in such versions. It can be a nice novelty, though they are not obviously not the intended aspect ratio, and should not be the default way to watch a film. James Gunn feels this way about the IMAX Enhanced versions of his Guardians Of The Galaxy movies: he is not against it as a nice option to have, but he didn't compose the films for that aspect ratio, so it will never be the way he recommends people to watch his movies.

You know what is a very frustrating case though? Dune. That film was made for IMAX, and to fully use its screen. Dennis Villeneuve said it so. The film was made to be seen in IMAX aspect ratio. But now, in all platforms and releases, you can only watch it cropped!

Ehhhhh. Several shots in the 2.39 version of Dune were specially expanded horizontally from the IMAX original. I do think that some shots still look a bit cramped in 2.39 as not all were embiggened, but the 2.39 version is its own unique presentation of the film.