Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Yearbook]

I keep thinking about a recent counterpoint to Cameron's tinkering: Scorsese's purist approach on Taxi Driver. During one of the recent restoration jobs, Scorsese opted to keep the desaturated blood, even when it would be an easy R now, because it was "set in stone" upon general release. I do wish that were more the rule than exception, but ironically, the original red, along with his original cut of Gangs, are things I'd love to see(if not supplant, which seems to be the core of the tinkering issues). This is a long winded way of me saying my own internal goalposts are not always clear even to myself.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by henry00x

this is what I was trying to express, thank you for hitting the nail on the head

people on here saying this isnt what the film was supposed to look like as if they know better than James Cameron is absurd to me but to each their own

What are your thoughts on the whole SW-OT Special Edition situation?

Which version and/or release do you find to be the most optimal?

Or is it always the most recent rendition that is "correct"?

Did you find the T2 4K (3D) transfer to initially be JC's intended vision for conventional 2D viewing?

If you felt that was his intended vision for it then, how does that square with his recent comments that the Studio Canal T2 4K repurposed 3D transfer was incorrect and never intended to be released as the "definitive" rendition.

[Member-425016]

I didn't realize Robert Harris at HTF gave this video quality a 10/10.

SMH

We are in the end times. Truly.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by henry00x

this is what I was trying to express, thank you for hitting the nail on the head

people on here saying this isnt what the film was supposed to look like as if they know better than James Cameron is absurd to me but to each their own

Lucas claims that Star Wars Special Edition is what he intended.. OK but I think we can all see that it is NOT how it looked originally in theatres. If I say the SW SE does not look like in theatres, I am not saying I know better than Lucas.

Same thing happens here to a much smaller degree, but still there. Nobody is saying we know better than Cameron, but we all have eyes.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by Filmfan73

I didn't realize Robert Harris at HTF gave this video quality a 10/10.

SMH

We are in the end times. Truly.

RH has long had some debatable opinions on various things over the years.

This does not negate his opinions and first hand knowledge with projects he worked on but there have been numerous times where his conclusions on various topics outside of his influence have been questionable.

[blakninja]

Alright, Bill Hunt has confirmed that the grains we see are not artificially added, they are the original grains. Might be modified but they are not fake grains.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

RH has long had some debatable opinions on various things over the years.

This does not negate his opinions and first hand knowledge with projects he worked on but there have been numerous times where his conclusions on various topics outside of his influence have been questionable.

He has also admitted to giving releases higher marks than he really wanted simply to boost sales.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Filmfan73

[Show spoiler]Titanic 4K UHD Blu-ray Review & Collector’s Edition Unboxing - YouTube

LOL

So now we have two, or even three different stories:

Adam J. Yeend: It's not post-processing, it's a film stock.

Bill Hunt, based on the direct info from Lightstorm: It's a 4K scan from 2011 / 2012 that was post-processed by Park Road, involving grain management and deep-learning algorithms.

Jeff Rauseo from Films At Home: It's a new 4K scan. Also: film stock, baby!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

LOL

So now we have two, or even three different stories:

Adam J. Yeend: It's not post-processing, it's a film stock.

Bill Hunt, based on the direct info from Lightstorm: It's a 4K scan from 2011 / 2012 that was post-processed by Park Road, involving grain management and dee-learning algorithms.

Jeff Rauseo from Films At Home: It's a new 4K scan. Also: film stock, baby!

For what it's worth, I think Bill Hunt is right this time

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

For what it's worth, I think Bill Hunt is right this time

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Alright, Bill Hunt has confirmed that the grains we see are not artificially added, they are the original grains. Might be modified but they are not fake grains.

I'll always question how authentic grain is when it's added back in, frame-by-frame. Is it really authentic then? Each and every frame in the film actually contains the exact original grain filed of the original frame? I'm not sure how much I believe that.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by By_His_Strypes

I don't know about willfully... some just need to be a little clearer perhaps. It looks stunning but not how it should look. well, hot damn! you learn something new every day.

Why do you think that these two things can't both be true at the same time?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by henry00x

this is what I was trying to express, thank you for hitting the nail on the head

people on here saying this isnt what the film was supposed to look like as if they know better than James Cameron is absurd to me but to each their own

I think we all know what Star Wars The Original Trilogy should look like far better than George Lucas does these days. So yeah, sometimes the directors lose sight of what they should be focusing on and get obsessed with new technology. To them, it becomes an obsession to "fix" what isn't broken.

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

I don't think it's a "majority" in this thread or anywhere close. You're probably seeing a larger majority of posts, but they seem to be the same people who are going to repeatedly litigate their case as to why this is terrible. Over. And over. And over again. If they stop, it might seem like this one is "getting away with it".

Your "side" keeps accusing those who have criticisms that we are calling the disc "terrible" Most including myself are not doing that, at all. You're just seeing the words you want to see so then you can fire accusations at us. Nobody can have any nuanced conversation in here because too many people ignore what's being said and jump to conclusions about what they think we're saying instead of reading what we're actually saying.

[blakninja]

I'm still confused.

Bill said:

- [the 2K digital intermediate work done in 2012 for the theatrical 3D release began with native 4K scans of original camera negative
- a new 4K digital intermediate has since been built using the original scan data [native 4K scans of OCN].
- the new Titanic UHD remaster is built upon the 2K digital intermediate

So we have this, correct?



I would expect this new 4K UHD bluray be built upon the new 4K DI but it's not the case?

[tsaville]

I finished watching this last night. I guess there are two ends of the spectrum. I have some discs in my collection (Weird Science from Arrow being the worst offender) where the grain is so thick and chunky that it detracts from the overall experience and is damn near unwatchable. I suppose purists would say that is a "good" transfer. On the other end you have Mr. Lucas, adding terrible CGI characters, removing dialogue, changing who shot first, etc... To me, Titanic is in the middle. Yes, the picture looks sharpened and somewhat processed but it looks great overall and the content of the film wasn't changed.

At the end of the day, these are all subjective opinions and everyone has the right to express them in a civil manner...

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by blakninja

I'm still confused.

Bill said:



So we have this, correct?



I would expect this new 4K UHD bluray be built upon the new 4K DI but it's not the case?

You still have that wrong. What you see on the disc is from the 4k scan. There's no 2k in-between.

Bill was just pointing out where the 3D release came from years ago - it was derived from the same 4k scan this 4k comes from.

The 3D 2k intermediate has nothing to do with this 4k disc or master.

Then
4k scan>>>>2k 2D intermediate/master>>>>2D blu-ray disc
4k scan>>>>2k 3D intermediate/master>>>>3D blu-ray disc

Now
Same 4k scan>>>>new 4k intermediate/master>>>>UHD disc

The might be some other steps in there but this is the idea.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by blakninja

I'm still confused.

The original SCAN from 2011/2012 WAS 4K. So they went back to the original SCAN data and made a new master, this time in 4K...

3D workflow was limited to 2K then....

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by sojrner

I would argue there is more complaining about those pointing out flaws than actual people pointing out flaws in the release. However, this is an enthusiast forum with varied (strong) opinions, what else should anyone expect? Recent angry and obtuse name-calling from the likes of so-called movie buffs aside, debates over minutiae are what forums like this are all about. Did we suddenly forget that?

Flaws being pointed out does not mean the release is "terrible," nobody can enjoy it, or the world has ended. It simply means there are, in fact, flaws. If you would step back and dispassionately read what you call repeated litigation, the majority on here who find issue with it have made it very clear that it's ok to still like the release, and they even like many elements about it, it's just not perfect like a movie of this caliber was expected to be, or like it should be. Many are (rightly) upset about it, and this place is exactly where that feeling should be voiced.

Chill out, debate about it, but don't get upset or demand this forum stop being a forum.

Rock on.

What we are seeing here in nothing when compared to the screenshot comparison posts by AVSForum member Xylon back in those days.

[bmick23]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

For the people always claiming they've seen recent film prints and know the UHD is wrong - Was the film print you saw correct? How was it stored? Was any of it damaged, faded or otherwise altered over the last 25 years? Was their projector equipment setup exactly perfect to show James Cameron's 1:1 perfect vision that his eyes saw on his official editing equipment in 1997? Was your previous DVD or Blu-ray the true "correct" PQ?

The theater print that's going around is not reference copy quality. The answer to your question though is white balance. Look at the highlights in the daytime scenes like the "king of the world" scene. The whites and midtones lean toward green, and this affects the rest of the image by making reds look more muted and shifting blue to teal. A proper print is going to have white whites, not shifted tints. A sunny day on the Atlantic ocean is going to have blue water and blue sky (as it appears in the 1999-2005 releases) not teal water and teal skies that suddenly popped up in 2011 during the height of the orange and teal fad. We know they used work done on the 2K remaster, and the grade is exactly the same to that one, just tweaked for HDR.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by blakninja

I'm still confused.