Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[blakninja]

Doesn't shooting in Super35 allow you to crop as you wish later? Mesning you don't have to crop to 2.35 in the center but can decide to crop more the top or more the bottom as you wish?

Also, Titanic intended ratio was 2.39:1 not 2.35:1.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

Thank you, Dalemc!

Very interesting.

Fine grain structure but not like the new 4K master, which some peeps are claiming is wholly organic and NGMO film grain.

The shots with excellent focus, those do not exhibit the special extra sharpness that one Hollywood Twitter person was claiming is inherent to the era of film stock, and whatever else.

That's why I said it was bullshit right from the start. From the very start. You can clearly see the difference in the grain structure between the day exteriors and nights/interiors too as per the different stocks used, the day shots are virtually grainless while those nights/interiors mos def have grain, quite a noisy little layer of it too, which of course would only be embiggened if watching a 2.39 extraction thereof. And no super-sharpening applied to it either. Huh. It's complete and utter bullshit that this was filmed on some sort of magic film stock that just happens to showcase all of these exceedingly digital shenanigans.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by blakninja

How could DiCaprio think he was above that when the only thing popular thing he did was Romeo + Juliet, he was pretty much unknown. He was great in DeNiro's movie and Depp's movie, but he was nowhere near a superstar. He ego must be huge.

I suppose it was because he was already an Oscar nominee and considered one of the top actors of his age even before becoming a superstar in Titanic. Cameron could be embellishing a bit to make for a good story, but he talks about it here:

#JamesCameron talks casting #LeonardoDiCaprio in #TITANIC | #film #movie #cinema #films #celebrity - YouTube

Forgot that part about DiCaprio wanting to make changes to the script

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

I'm not saying the 2.39 presentation is bad. I just said that the IMAX version is what Villeneuve favors.

[Shaneacook1989]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

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

Its not available for December yet....unfortunately

[Geoff D]

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.

The Terminator was shot on 4-perf too, just for the usual 1.85 extraction. Movies have been wasting real estate for a long, long time. It's nothing new or unusual, all I care about is seeing the framing that was intended and don't get hung up (FOMO) on what was actually shot to the negative at the time. Sheesh, even most modern 'IMAX' embiggenings are just opening up the mattes top and bottom and don't do anything interesting with it at all.

Cameron despises everything about anamorphic, just FYI.

What do you mean, "at this point"? Titanic was made over 25 years ago and Cameron loved Super 35 because it allowed him to frame his movie for the widescreen cinematic arena but also to reframe it extensively for the 4:3 TV screens of the time, rather than chopping his compositions in half had he shot anamorphic.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sorry for the random off-topic comment, but I would really love your deep technical insight about all comments in the short thread linked below. Don't worry, I won't pester you, I promise in the name of God! I wish you the best!

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=368804

[matbezlima]

In the whole matter of anamorphic lenses, I can't help but ask if there is a Technirama equivalent to 15-perf 70mm film, which is IMAX.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's why I said it was bullshit right from the start. From the very start. You can clearly see the difference in the grain structure between the day exteriors and nights/interiors too as per the different stocks used, the day shots are virtually grainless while those nights/interiors mos def have grain, quite a noisy little layer of it too, which of course would only be embiggened if watching a 2.39 extraction thereof. And no super-sharpening applied to it either. Huh. It's complete and utter bullshit that this was filmed on some sort of magic film stock that just happens to showcase all of these exceedingly digital shenanigans.

So what would you say your impression of these 4K screenshots is then?

Personally I really like the look myself

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by blakninja

How could DiCaprio think he was above that when the only thing popular thing he did was Romeo + Juliet, he was pretty much unknown. He was great in DeNiro's movie and Depp's movie, but he was nowhere near a superstar.

In addition, Romeo + Juliet hadn't even been released yet when he was cast.

It came out in November 1996, while they were filming in Rosarito.

Cameron probably had seen it, or at least footage from it, however, since they were both Fox films.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Desk.

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

I'll get pelted with tomatoes for saying this, but it could be useful if the code is cracked.

I'm one of a small handful that thoroughly enjoys the look of the UHD for the first 'Avatar' despite recognizing the inconsistencies with the employment of AI on that disc. Still looks a hell of a lot better than traditional DNR or Edge Enhancement at least.

Anyway, I hadn't been able to keep with this thread over the last 24-hours. Is the verdict on the disc is that it is indeed quite good? Or are people still raging on about the techniques Cameron and company used to get this disc to look the way that it does?

I can't wait for Tuesday to get here. I'm getting my 8-year old daughter the Collector's Edition. This is the first film that has left a memorable impact on her in her life so far. She's been pretty obsessed about the history of the Titanic and its wreck ever since seeing the film for the first time months ago. She also loves the Avatar films.

Cameron just doesn't miss. He has every age demographic figured out.

[80club2237]

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.

where you get that first image?
looks amazing!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Titanic intended ratio was 2.39:1 not 2.35:1.

Titanic has always been released on home video in 2.35:1. Even Cameron in an interview with yahoo Movies (see link below) said and I quote that the theatrical version of Titanic "was originally released in a CinemaScope ratio — 2.35:1 ratio."

- https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...205743953.html

It is very much possible he framed and extracted a 2.35:1 composition from the 1.33:1 IP in 1997, for the 35mm prints, and not 2.39:1.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

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

They usually don't post a new key for a few days after the old one expires. So there's usually a gap of a couple/few days where it doesn't work. Right now the posted key still says expires in November, so they haven't posted the new one yet.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I can't wait for Tuesday to get here. I'm getting my 8-year old daughter the Collector's Edition. This is the first film that has left a memorable impact on her in her life so far. She's been pretty obsessed about the history of the Titanic and its wreck ever since seeing the film for the first time months ago. She also loves the Avatar films.

Cameron just doesn't miss. He has every age demographic figured out.

That sounds cool.
I first saw TITANIC in cinemas when I was only 7-8. And it truly made me appreciate the art of film-making even more.

Cameron, with his stories of people from different worlds falling in love or get fond (like with Ripley and Newt in Aliens, or the T-800 with John in T2), combined with great action/CGI never disappoint, and he truly set a landmark for epic movie making.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by dalemc

Oh wait, yes I've got them! Here are just a few, I don't want to spam the forum.

Some are very evidently the full Super35 frame, others are a bit cropped down (probably closer in size to the 16:9 Open Matte version for the 3D blu-ray).
ALSO - these files do vary in image quality a bit, but you can see the fine details and inherent grain in these 2012 master scans. Some would be worth comparing to the 4K disc, just out of interest.

[Show spoiler]

Thanks for sharing these Super 35mm shots, dalemc. They were released to promote the 2012 3D theatrical re-release. Same thing was done for Terminator 2's 3D re-release.

What I find so pleasing is that even in full frame, Titanic looks so beautiful; like oil paintings. Though I doubt, we'll ever see the entire frame. Most likely never. But they did release a 16:9 encode of the raw scan from 2012 without the cleanup, new grading or the digital tweaks for cable TV. That has a wider framing than even the 3D BD.

Top: Open matte HDTV/Cable version.
Bottom: 3D BD.

Titanic OM HDTV vs 3D BD Stern.jpg

Titanic OM HDTV vs 3D BD Bow.jpg

Titanic OM HDTV vs 3D BD on the ocean.jpg

I think, for a future IMAX re-release, a 1.66:1 aspect ratio version could be crafted for showing on the IMAX 1.43:1 screens. That will allow more of the Super35 frame to be visible. But, I'll be happy if the 2012 3D open matte version is re-released in theatres again, which sadly didn't happen this year and is less likely to happen in the future as well. There's certainly a lot more image in their vaults than they let out -

Titanic VFX Digital Domain website.jpg

[Trekkie313]

So Cameron's idea of 3D post conversions is to make the color-timing seafoam green, just like T2.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

So Cameron's idea of 3D post conversions is to make the color-timing seafoam green, just like T2.

Well, my post was more about the framing, not the colour. I'd suggest you cross check with your Blu-ray to see what the exact colour is.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Titanic has always been released on home video in 2.35:1. Even Cameron in an interview with yahoo Movies (see link below) said and I quote that the theatrical version of Titanic "was originally released in a CinemaScope ratio — 2.35:1 ratio."

- https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...205743953.html

It is very much possible he framed and extracted a 2.35:1 composition from the 1.33:1 IP in 1997, for the 35mm prints, and not 2.39:1.

2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 are the same thing as far as actual film is concerned. They're all Scope.

The actual aspect ratio on the release prints is 2.35:1. It's just that, over time, they moved away from framing scope movies on home video at 2.35, because the seams between shots at cuts could be visible as white flashes. As a result, they started mildly cropping Scope on home video to 2.39 or 2.40.

But they're the same thing when shot, at least on actual film.

Obviously, on digital video, you can shoot at absolutely any aspect ratio you like.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

2.35, 2.39 and 2.40 are the same thing as far as actual film is concerned. They're Scope.

It's just that, over time, they moved away from framing scope movies on home video at 2.35, because the seams between shots at cuts could be visible as white flashes. As a result, they started mildly cropping Scope on home video to 2.39 or 2.40.

But they're the same thing when shot, at least on actual film.

Obviously, on digital video, you can shoot at absolutely any aspect ratio you like.

They are all "Scope," yes, but they aren't technically speaking, "the same thing." The proportions vary. 2.35:1 has more height than 2.39:1 or 2.40:1. On a 2.39:1 screen, 2.35:1 will have slight black bars at the sides. I have seen a 2.35:1 movie projected on a 2.39:1 cinema screen. There is a sliver of unused space at the sides during projection. This may not be prevalent, but it does happen.

Yes, I know about the white flashes at the very last frame of a shot. It's a cutting mark or something; like a thin tear or crease in a page. Yes, they did change the projection standard to 2.39:1 to hide those artifacts, but 2.35:1 is how Cameron framed the film for 35mm anamorphic release. It may have been projected 2.39:1, but all screens or projection systems aren't 100% accurate in aspect ratio terms (BFI IMAX is 1.31:1 even though IMAX standard is 1.43:1, etc.). The 70mm release prints were both printed and projected in roughly 2.12:1 aspect ratio, not even 2.20:1. The projected image showed less picture than what was printed because of the standard aperture plate masking.