Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Yearbook]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Cameron should be careful with the AI tools he uses for remastering his movies.. one day the AI will take over and change his movies without consent.

Jimbo sells out to Skynet! On the other hand, maybe AI gets so good one day, it can reverse the AI enhancements from this one.

[KcMsterpce]

I just watched it.
I was a little wary about what I was going to end up watching, but I have a word I kept saying as it played (for the visuals, not the movie itself): "Dayamn!"

It looks baller AF. This is an excellent transfer.

For me, if a movie is de-grained and/or DNR'd, then the sacrifice for "no grain" leads to a smoothed out, textureless presentation.
This wasn't the case while watching "Titanic". It has an ever-so-thin sheen of grain, but the detail and clarity almost never looks like it was compromised.
There were some moments where things looked kind of processed and "DNR'd up", but it would be for 1-3 seconds in a quick shot, then cut to next moment and it's gone. All that glorious detail and beauty comes right back, and I almost think I was just imagining things due to always expecting to see DNR smeers! It's almost always a 'blink and you'll miss it' moment. I could even cite specific moments where it happens, but I'd rather wait around and find out if others mention the same moments as me at some point.

Anyhoo, I could probably write 3000 words on this movie, the transfer, my misgivings and all the fixins, but it looked nothing like the T2 4k transfer.

The brightness levels were nicely balanced, and I think it was just glorious.

If people are complaining that it isn't riddled with film grain, and it's been "scrubbed", then fine. But for me, the biggest issue is when that happens and the detail is lost along the way. That's not the case with TITANIC for 99.9% of the movie.

[stvn1974]

Send a Terminator back in time to stop DNR technology from being created.

[Scott in UK]

Originally Posted by tsaville

Amazon did the same with Oppenheimer when it was backordered, then dropped the price when it was back in stock. Titanic must be selling well...

And for those who don't know, I'd assume the reason why they (or any retailer would do that) is because even though they know putting it at that high price is reducing the amount of people who would actually be willing to buy it at that high price, that's OK because something being on back order is already reducing the chances of it being ordered anyway, so they've got nothing to lose by putting it higher.

If because of being on back order it puts it in a state of already being less likely to be ordered, putting the price high is just keeping it in a state it's already in anyway.

But...knowing hopefully there still might be the odd person who will pay that high price.

[punisher]

supply and demand..rest assured it will drop again.

[THF90]

Am I going to have to purchase the actual disc?!

The 4k Dolby Vision stream has no grain and a filtered look I can’t get past, but if the disc has grain and seems to lack that filter that makes the film not look filmic, then I might just have to buy the disc.

[videopat]

Originally Posted by THF90

The 4k Dolby Vision stream has no grain and a filtered look I can’t get past, but if the disc has grain and seems to lack that filter that makes the film not look filmic, then I might just have to buy the disc.

The disc has the same look, unfortunately

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by THF90

Am I going to have to purchase the actual disc?!

The 4k Dolby Vision stream has no grain and a filtered look I can’t get past, but if the disc has grain and seems to lack that filter that makes the film not look filmic, then I might just have to buy the disc.

Why would stream and disc be different? Don't they all come from the same master?

[THF90]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Why would stream and disc be different? Don't they all come from the same master?

Discs tend to look better, so I was hopeful the 4k stream would be different to the disc so I could enjoy the look of Titanic, but there’s a filter look that personally throws it off for me, unfortunately.

[blakninja]

Just read this article, very on topic lol

After 40 Years, Director Robert Wise's 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' Is Finally Complete

"I would never call this a restoration," he explains to A. Frame. "It's a completion of the film. A restoration implies you were taking something that was there previously and restoring it to its original form. This [film] never had a finished form until now. I don't think there’s ever been another film that took 43 years to finish."

Full article: https://aframe.oscars.org/news/post/...view-exclusive

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by dorian

The frames are slightly off but the comparison is still valid. I think all the 2012 publicity frames released were from a 2k master that have since been resized and compressed and who knows what else.

Here's a comparison of the two, overlaid

The UHD, being 4k, clearly has more detail. You can see the lace front on Billy Zane's wig. The UHD unfortunately has more digital manipulation too with what looks like noise reduction, then sharpening.

Here's a comparison of the chroma channel/s (histograms stretched for better visibility)

The 2012 publicity shot has been heavily compressed, hence the lower res and macroblocking. The UHD is strange. There is enough chroma detail to delineate strands of hair but no dye clouds whatsoever.

Here's a comparison of the luma channel

This comparison tells a bit of a different story.

https://slow.pics/c/LCuATp1s

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by wright96d

This comparison tells a bit of a different story.

https://slow.pics/c/LCuATp1s

What's the comparison there?

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

What's the comparison there?

It's one of the 4K stills from 2012 lined up to and compared to the same frame from the 4K UHD.

[Geoff D]

Cameron talking about making the extended cut of The Abuse (god i love that SE DVD) but it's a cromulent reminder of his entire attitude to appraising his films years after the fact:

Originally Posted by The King of The World

There are many exciting new possibilities. There are also new dangers. And there are no codified ethical guidelines for what should and should not be done. Each filmmaker entering this realm of revisitation and revision is a moral pioneer, creating rules for him/herself to follow.

[fteixeira]

Originally Posted by Cvalda

I really don't get how someone can look at stuff like this and declare it "perfect" lol. This looks like when I take a selfie on my phone with the front camera and it oversharpens it and makes every single unappealing flaw and line on my face stand out.

Wait? is that a new a PS5 game of Titanic? Wow, the graphics look amazing.

Putting hyperbole aside, the general consensus is that Titanic does look very good. No one can reasonable argue that this movie has not been egregiously messed with extensively. But, more often than not, technology improves over time and the AI is getting better. No hurry to pick this up... will do so when a discount can be had.

[The Collector FX]

Originally Posted by wright96d

This comparison tells a bit of a different story.

https://slow.pics/c/LCuATp1s

Looking at these, nobody can say with a straight face that the grain wasn't scrubbed. It clearly has been. Thankfully her face doesn't look like wax but had the person(s) responsible turned the DNR dial just a bit further...

Great...now I'm worried about Aliens...

[BorisKarloffice]

Those caps look very similar to the Abyss remaster I saw on Wednesday.

It's not bad compared to some of the other nightmares we've seen, but it's definitely not what a movie shot on 35mm "should" look like.

[Dr. T]

"And I’m very, very particular in my transfers. I look at every damn pixel."
-James Cameron

He'd fit right in here!

[thejoeman2]

James Cameron is no different than that one guy that returns an OLED because one sub pixel out of 33 million or so is out.

[Scott in UK]

With what I'm about to say I'm not trying to big my self up or put myself on a pedestal or like I'm some big shot, but us creators are also all human beings.. But I do understand that mentality of some people wanting to change or fix things, or don't blame them for being tempted in wanting to do so.

Myself for example, I have a mostly music YouTube channel, and I've got music/videos that are many years old. At the time I made it I would of been happy with it, but then years later I may listen/watch back and think, I don't like the sound of that, or that part is to loud, or i wish I had done that differently, or that's something I shouldn't of let pass, and should of fixed it etc etc.

But of course I can't, the only way would be to make and reupload a completely new video, but I'd then lose all my views, likes, and comments on the already existing one. But I did find myself in a situation earlier this year where a couple of my videos got taken down. (long story) So because that put me in the position of having to reupload them, it gave me the opportunity to be able to think, ok I can now fix those things I wanted to.

One of those things this time for example, was also to remake the videos in higher picture quality, whereas 10 years ago when I didn't have that knowledge, I uploaded them just as 480p. So I do get it of wanting to correct or tweak past creations.

Edit: I'm certainly not saying I agree with all their decisions though! But that's out of our hands, it's their choices for better or for worse.