Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[LordoftheRings]

They gonna milk that cow to the max.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by escvnte

Just do a comparison with your TV with the 2012 Blu-Ray and the 4K iTunes/leaked UHD Blu-Ray and you'll see that it's an entirely new scan.

I don't recall seeing pores with so much detail on the 2012 Blu-Ray, or the Image being so brighter and vibrant.

You would think that a perfectionist like Cameron would treat one of his most acclaimed works to date with a cheap-poor 4K transfer? C'mon, man.

Even the screenshots posted in this thread show how great this transfer is, compared to the 2012 one.
The first time TITANIC got a proper 4K Dolby Vision release was in 2017.
So, more than likely, Cameron and his crew worked with that scan for this release.

Of course you are eligible to think what you think about this release.
But, to me, and so many others, here, it looks perfect.

You are mistaken about mastering process of a film. Every time they put out a new home video or theatrical release, they are not going to Re-scan the film from the negative. They already have a fantastic 4K scan from 2012, which they de-grained and digitally tweaked. They are not going to re-scan from the negative and re-do all those digital alterations again. It makes no temporal or financial sense. Sharpening, clean-up, different colouring, can all be done on the same master file. They don't need a new 4K scan for that.

What "cheap-poor 4K transfer?" You are reacting as if Cameron is upscaling the 480p DVD itself to 4K.

As others have pointed out, the 4K UHD credits already mention that it's the same 2012 4K master file which was used for this release, not a scan done in 2017 or a 2023 scan.

Also 4K scan and 4K master are not the same thing. The scan is the individual film frames that are digitised from the film source. That's the raw material. The master with its proper colour grading, additional embellishments, are created using the said raw scan. Don't get confused.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It seems that an unnecessary amount of noise reduction was done on the base image for the UHD.

Apparently having a great looking 4K master is not enough

James Cameron at the DI suite during grain management / sharpening session:

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Freddie_Quell

Titanic's a great cow to milk.

Number 3 fattest cow of all-time (inflation adjusted).
Now available on 4K UHD to complement regular 2D and 3D.
Love stories are big in Hollywood.

Screenshot_20231202_100913_Chrome.jpg

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Yup, and it smacks of being so minimal effort. I have to assume PonyoBellanote lives in a metropolitan place like NYC or LA where production values for entertainment still exist..

Not even remotely close, lol! I'm not even american. My theater is a small-ish chain, like they're not ''local theater'' small, but they're not ''huge megacorporate'', somewhere in between, but they do value quality. My cinema is one of those with 18 screens. Has Dolby Atmos, 4K screenings, those Chrys-something laser projectors.. about the only thing it doesn't have is Dolby Cinema, and that may be because Dolby is a *****. But either way, I hear Dolby Cinema screens are 1:90, so I'd rather not get it if it has to be at the loss of the full big screen. Considering my theater has those Chrys-something projects, laser projection and 4K screenings, I assume it should be capable for Dolby Cinema.

I even have some pics in my phone of the screens and all, but I don't think is it the right place to spam them with.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Number 3 fattest cow of all-time (inflation adjusted).
Now available on 4K UHD to complement regular 2D and 3D.
Love stories are big in Hollywood.

Attachment 297580

Interestingly, the Number 2 fattest cow is unmilkable :P

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The undesirable effects of the AI image enhancement is pretty apparent here. Just look at the mouth, the chin, the temple. It's a shame Cameron is this insistent on damaging his films by over-reliance on digital tools.

Attachment 297583

I don't know if rest of you finds this acceptable on one of the biggest, most successful and critically acclaimed movie of all time. Less famous movies are getting far better 4K releases.

I find this unacceptable. I just want a "raw" unenhanced version

[yetanotherone]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The undesirable effects of the AI image enhancement is pretty apparent here.

Please remove or spoiler tag the screenshots from my post you quoted, no need to have them in full size multiple times in one page.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by yetanotherone

Please remove or spoiler tag the screenshots from my post you quoted, no need to have them in full size multiple times in one page.

Spoiler tag added to your pics.

[Trekkie313]

The amount of willful misinformation and panicking in this thread is getting ridiculous.

[Coasterghost]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 are virtually the same, then there was no need for blakninja to claim that Titanic's intended aspect ratio was 2.39:1 and not 2.35:1. So, what's the harm if someone said it's 2.35:1?

Not to dredge anything up but Here's some 35mm images that are from original trilogy saying it was 2.35:1 and showing a 2.39:1 crop.

The anamorphic “squeeze” is 2:1. Here’s a cell off the internet:


And here it is cropped and resized:


As you can see it is 2.35:1...(Poster note on bluray.com: I removed this half of the message pertaining to 70mm)

...When cropped it comes to 2.39:1 as so:

Here is also from originally reddit, a image from a 35MM scan;


So if we look at the entirely of the released versions of it:
35MM Full Gate

[Show spoiler]

1080p 3D Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

1080P Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

35mm Reel Scan

[Show spoiler]

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Coasterghost

Not to dredge anything up but Here's some 35mm images that are from original trilogy saying it was 2.35:1 and showing a 2.39:1 crop.

Here is also from originally reddit, a image from a 35MM scan;

[Show spoiler]

So if we look at the entirely of the released versions of it:
35MM Full Gate

[Show spoiler]

1080p 3D Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

1080P Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

35mm Reel Scan

[Show spoiler]

That's a fan restoration. I love it because of the more organic grain and gate weave, but the colours seem faded to yellow and there is a lot of black crus, poor highlights. The fan restorers didn't have notes from Cameron or anything. They framed/cropped the 35mm print on their own. If Cameron has gone on record to claim it was originally released in 1997 in 2.35:1, and if the digital cinema release and the home videos are also 2.35:1, then I am inclined to believe him. However, as others have said, the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 is negligible.

[Coasterghost]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

That's a fan restoration. They didn't have notes from Cameron or anything. They framed/cropped the 35mm print on their own. If Cameron has gone on record to claim it was originally released in 1997 in 2.35:1, and if the digital cinema release and the home videos are also 2.35:1, then I am inclined to believe Cameron. However, as others have said, the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 is negligible.

It was just showing it how it was shown on film…since that print was scope anyway. That was the point, and why I also provided an image from a 35mm scan that’s been floating around the internet…now if people want to complain about something, apparently the 70mm scan is rumored to be 2.20:1 so I don’t know.

[admccroan]

I just got an email from UPS that my Best Buy shipment has been rescheduled to Tuesday. Originally scheduled for tomorrow. Guess they couldn’t let me have it a couple days early.

[matbezlima]

More 4K HDR clips. These are not upscales of the open matte version.

YouTube

YouTube

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Coasterghost

It was just showing it how it was shown on film…since that print was scope anyway. That was the point, and why I also provided an image from a 35mm scan that’s been floating around the internet…now if people want to complain about something, apparently the 70mm scan is rumored to be 2.20:1 so I don’t know.

Which 70mm scan? Can you share the link with me on DM? The 70mm image on the film prints is in an approximately 2.11:1 aspect ratio. So, it's taller than 2.20:1.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

The amount of willful misinformation and panicking in this thread is getting ridiculous.

Getting? Ha!

[emmet otter]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

I personally would be all for digital removal of unwanted 'pop ups' during the filming. Even to slightly zoom in for just a particular scene for a brief moment to take out anything unwanted would also be acceptable. To lose so little and to gain so much throughout the whole film would be an acceptable sacrifice to maintain a full open matte. Just my opinion and wish.

[gooseygander2001]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

More 4K HDR clips. These are not upscales of the open matte version.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WtOOcggxUmk

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_OIrZ2Q-ano

Yikes... If these are rips from the disc they look really unnatural to my eyes. As others have said, it looks like Cameron is slowly trying to make his catolog of movies look more modern/digital instead of embracing film and the era his movies were made. I'm all for directors intent but now I wish he didn't own the rights to his own movies. Some sites that I normally agree with gave this glowing reviews but if those clips are representative of the 4K UHD then god help us!

[teddyballgame]

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

if you're in a pinch you can manually adjust your system clock to a time before expiration. I had to re-register the beta key afterwards but it worked

consider supporting the developer when you get a chance