Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[THF90]

Originally Posted by 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!

I know ZERO about the technical details of anything movie related as I’m just a movie fan, but could see from the start that it has something unnatural looking about it. Someone pointed out that it must be a filter of some sort, I just don’t know enough technically to call it what it is I am seeing.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

While I'm sure you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that by itself doesn't 'debunk' the facts specific to how the overwhelming number of consumers watch a movie at home, especially a title such as Titanic, hand in hand with the default settings for TVs shipped from the factory.

To give additional context to the above, consider the fact the industry have made available to consumers a superior standard, Blu-ray/UHD, granted with an incremental cost expenditure, and the majority have chosen DVD.

Those in the home entertainment industry are no different than ourselves, in that they live in the world as it is, not as we want it to be. It's the inconvenient truth, the one that provides all the answers to why things are the way things are, popular titles which no longer appear filmic, empty shelves, etcetera, etcetera.

Or in other words, it's where rhetoric meets reality, redux.

Let's count our blessings that there are still a few studios and boutique labels serving a niche market for those of us who still believe that films shot on film should look like film.

About default settings, you ignored everything I said in my previous comment. Please read it again. You assume that people being afraid of tweaking default settings, for fear of messing up and for knowing they don't have knowledge (that's how my parents and brothers are) means that they actively like literally anything. Sharpness turned to Max will look ****ing horrible to anyone who is not blind. And motion smoothing seems to be a coin toss if it's on by default or not. And even then, some TVs' motion smoothing is far more aggressive and noticeable than others. Some people can feel something is off with any motion smoothing, even if they can't quite put their finger on what is off, while other people will only see something wrong in higher settings. Motion smoothing is by far the most egregious and noticeable processing that TVs do. Even all the garish colors in Vivid Mode aren't 1% as appaling to me as motion smoothing.

My middle brother doesn't really care about picture quality at all, he rolls with everything, but he immediately felt that the image looked very off when I turned motion smoothing on. It's a fallacy to think that most people like motion smoothing, especially as there are studies showcasing that people enjoy the actors' performances far better at 24FPS than higher frame rates. Not to mention how HFR screenings of movies always attract mixed reception at best, with even casual moviegoers feeling something is off, and often getting motion-sick. On the other side of the spectrum, there may be some people who are frame-rate blind, just like there are tone-deaf people. There are people who claim to have seen the Variable Frame Rate screenings of Avatar 2, but couldn't notice the massive Frame Rate shifts. This needs more scientific research. Studies so far have used small samples of people.

Most people don't use DVD. Most people don't use physical media at all. Streaming is both more convenient and offers far better picture quality than DVD, it's so blatantly obvious that one would have to be blind to not see a significant difference. The people who buy DVDs are ones who didn't care to enough to buy a blu-ray player (especially as high-definition content grew easy to access due to downloads, streaming and piracy in the internet, so you didn't need blu-rays to benefit from high definition) AND to get rid of the DVD player they already owned. So, if they see a movie they love in a store, they will go like "I love this movie, I have a DVD player, it's dirt-cheap to buy this movie, so why not own it in some form, and also not let my DVD player only get dust?". That's all there is to it. To be honest, I hate the snobbery that users in this forum seem to have against people who buy DVDs. I welcome anyone who buys physical media in any format!

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you. You were the guy that said that American Graffiti was completely degrained by Universal to appeal to the youth. Which is wrong in so many aspects.

First: Universal didn't degrain anything, it's all on Lucasfilm.

Second: Universal has plenty of movies that have far wider appeal to any audience than American Graffiti, such as Jaws and Back To The Future, and Universal didn't degrain them. At least not like American Graffiti, which relies a lot more on 60s nostalgia, while Jaws and Back To The Future are far more likely to appeal to anyone even if they have zero nostalgia for the 70s or the 80s, and are also far more iconic movies.

Third: most people don't really care about a filmic look one way or the other, as long as it doesn't look obviously bad. The tampering that was done with the Titanic transfer is something that only hardcore videophiles will see. Hell, I think I would struggle to see anything wrong in motion, rather than pausing the frame. This is overall a great picture. BUT, the same applies in reverse. A fine-grained movie is not something that is gonna bother anyone. It's only when the film is obviously very grainy that you really get a loud complaining crowd. Titanic wasn't shot in very grainy stock, so this level of degraining is just unnecessary. It's really just Cameron and his fetish for a sharp digital look, that's all.

Fourth: the vast majority of 4K transfers done nowadays, including the ones for classic iconic movies of all eras, look nicely filmic. Maybe not filmic enough to satisfy the most hardcore purists and grain fetishists (such as the amazing Alien 4K transfer, which is not as grainy as one would expect from the film stock it was shot on), but still filmic overall.

[amorphously]

Originally Posted by videopat

The disc has the same look, unfortunately

Has anyone mentioned if there is too much teal on this transfer?

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you. You were the guy that said that American Graffiti was completely degrained by Universal to appeal to the youth. Which is wrong in so many aspects.

Let's not go down a rabbit hole here, personalize how the industry is operating, lose sight of the facts, make assumptions about what people think and or believe and instead focus on how they behave.

The facts are the Blu-ray format never surpassed DVD at any point during the lifecycle of physical media, consumer research data has proven time and again that the overwhelming majority of consumers do not significantly alter their TV settings, and that the entire industry has transitioned from film stock to digital, completely altering consumer expectations.

Furthermore, you are completely missing the point specific to American Graffiti, i.e., who determined to de-grain the film is irrelevant, what matters is that no one at Universal raised a flag specific to its appearance when the title was prepped for the 50th Anniversary release.

What does that tell you?

What it tells me is simply that the de-grained appearance is acceptable given the intended market, hand in hand with how overwhelming majority of consumers watch TV, with the default settings, including motion smoothing.

US streaming service revenue in 2022 was $30B, as opposed to $1.5 for physical media, and globally is a $70B market.

When we speak of the home entertainment market, that number combined with EST is the target platform.

[matbezlima]

You are stating facts that I didn't deny in my post. I said that blu-ray never came close to reach the levels of success as DVD. And I also said that most people don't significantly tweak their settings. You are just repeating what I said, but without actually addressing what I said for WHY all of that is the case, and what it all actually means! It's impossible to discuss with you, your "analysis" is so shallow, you only interpret facts in the most simplistic possible way, while also not giving people enough credit. Go back to my original post and read it all again, every phrase, every word, every point I made there, especially in the first three paragraphs. Come back when you can address what I really meant to say, instead just of telling me basic facts that I know of!

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4148

After you have again read the link above, I will say that by your logic, you're gonna say that HFR is acceptable too, even though HFR is nothing new really, and people have been seeing it since the rise of television in the 1950s, and it didn't ever come close to make 24FPS stop being the standard of movies, and what most people expect and want movies to look like. There is research showing this, and also that people enjoy actors' performances more at 24FPS than in HFR. Point is: people barely tweak settings not because they actually love the default settings, but because they are afraid of messing things up in technical stuff, even when they might feel something is wrong (and most people can tell that movies look off with motion smoothing on, any kind of HFR really, whether they are videophiles or not, Vivid Mode isn't half as obviously bad). 24FPS is gonna be the standard forever. It will always be what culture at large sees as the cinema look, it's an unbreakable loop. Again, HFR is nothing new, it has existed since the 1950s, and it didn't make people want their movies to be HFR. Also, plenty of TVs don't have motion smoothing on by default. Point is: most people don't like motion smoothing, whether they know what it is or not, whether they know how to turn it off in their TVs or not. HFR cinema has always been a mixed bag at best, with divisive reactions from everyone, including casuals.

It doesn't matter what Universal thinks, Lucas has the final authority on the transfer. That point you made is irrelevant. Universal couldn't have raised a flag. Universal isn't stupid to say "don't buy this disc, Lucas screwed it up, we are not at fault". No matter how bad the transfer is, it would be stupid to not try to sell it. And again, restorations like American Graffiti are the minority. The vast majority of restorations are not like that.

By the way, I know that I wouldn't raise a flag at Universal, I would still try to sell the disc and pretend there was nothing wrong with it. Again, Lucas has final saying, it's futile to even try to argue with his desires.

Also, people definitely look weird in American Graffiti. Anyone who doesn't sit far from the screen will be able to notice how plastic the faces look. It's very obvious, you don't need a trained eye, unlike something such as Titanic. I remember when Netflix shared pictures of the actors and actresses of the upcoming live-action Avatar The Last Airbender, and people (most of which were definitely not videophiles) immediately complained that Azula's actress looked weird in the picture, as if she was a doll rather than how human skin is supposed to be like.

Streaming services are losing money overall though. Hollywood will need to re-educate people to buy movies more often again.

[GloveSlap]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Let's not go down a rabbit hole here, personalize how the industry is operating, lose sight of the facts, make assumptions about what people think and or believe and instead focus on how they behave.

The facts are the Blu-ray format never surpassed DVD at any point during the lifecycle of physical media, consumer research data has proven time and again that the overwhelming majority of consumers do not significantly alter their TV settings, and that the entire industry has transitioned from film stock to digital, completely altering consumer expectations.

Furthermore, you are completely missing the point specific to American Graffiti, i.e., who determined to de-grain the film is irrelevant, what matters is that no one at Universal raised a flag specific to its appearance when the title was prepped for the 50th Anniversary release.

What does that tell you?

What it tells me is simply that the de-grained appearance is acceptable given the intended market, hand in hand with how overwhelming majority of consumers watch TV, with the default settings, including motion smoothing.

US streaming service revenue in 2022 was $30B, as opposed to $1.5 for physical media, and globally is a $70B market.

When we speak of the home entertainment market, that number combined with EST is the target platform.

I agree with you that physical media is becoming increasingly niche, but if they were smart that would include increasingly catering to that niche's sensibilities.

Any reasonable restoration workflow would have a file of the film scan before filtering is applied. I don't think it's too crazy of a concept to release the unmolested version on disc and then do whatever to the streaming version.

But like you said, many studios are probably oblivious or just don't care.

[matbezlima]

Guys, this is pretty much a non-issue. A storm in a cup of water. The vast majority of 4K transfers are great (unless you are Paramount), and it's nice they use the same transfers for streaming and digital overall. And a little bit of grain is not gonna make ANYONE go "OH, MY EYES!".

By the way, physical media being more niche is a fact, not opinion. That guy wants to act as if I deny that.

By the way, you guys don't want to see the raw film scan. It would be acceptable for any home video release, it would just be extra work to share it too. Scratches, dirt, and so on. Just do a great restoration, which is already the case in the vast majority of cases! No need to release raw scans too!

[Riddler The Slag]

I've finally watched it. What can I say, it's a Monet. The 4K UHD is stunning. I can't find a flaw in it. It looks beautiful. This will be added to the reference list. The opening shots of Titanic underwater are a treat for the eyes.

Absolutely stunning and if this is what Abyss, True Lies and Aliens is going to look like, I can't wait.

[Ruined]

Watched a bit of this

Cameron clearly did some fancy digital processing on this

While it is a bit shocking at first, I can't say it looks bad. In fact, the processing employed does a good job of modernizing the look of the film. I am sure this will bother some, but at the end of the day I think the majority of people will be satisfied with the results and will think it looks better than when it came out in theaters.

Kudos to Cameron, this is one of the best examples I've ever seen of trying to modernize a film's look with digital tools while still retaining an analog feel.

[mar3o]

Many are giving the UHD credit for giving us "some" grain or a "fine layer of grain", but the thing is, I don't like grain just because I like to see random bits dance on the screen. I want to see the real grain because that's part of the picture. I don't want to see a layer of fake fine grain placed back over it after removing the real grain. I don't get why they have to remove all the grain in the first place. If they want a fine layer of grain, then why not leave a bit of the actual grain behind, instead of removing it all and then putting fake grain back on top?

Is it because removing all the grain allows their algorithms to do their "magic" better than if grain was present?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Many are giving the UHD credit for giving us "some" grain or a "fine layer of grain", but the thing is, I don't like grain just because I like to see random bits dance on the screen. I want to see the real grain because that's part of the picture. I don't want to see a layer of fake fine grain placed back over it after removing the real grain. I don't get why they have to remove all the grain in the first place. If they want a fine layer of grain, then why not leave a bit of the actual grain behind, instead of removing it all and then putting fake grain back on top?

Is it because removing all the grain allows their algorithms to do their "magic" better than if grain was present?

You can't sharpen the image without removing the grain first or it will look like a snowstorm when you are done with it

[TXMoviebuff77]

Congrats on effing up yet another 4K thread, this one is dead to me now, y’all should be ashamed!

[videopat]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

Congrats on effing up yet another 4K thread, this one is dead to me now, y’all should be ashamed!

lol

[TXMoviebuff77]

Originally Posted by 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.

Can someone explain this in actual English?!?! Wtf!

[TXMoviebuff77]

@Matbezlima yea TL;DR no one cares

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally Posted by The Collector FX

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

So am I, and I'm no optimist, which means I expect a **** up of the same calibre.
Feces!

Aliens was the one movie of the bunch, I cared for the most, followed by Abyss. But what we're seeing here looks more like the first Avatar transfer.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

Congrats on effing up yet another 4K thread, this one is dead to me now, y’all should be ashamed!

[TXMoviebuff77]

Much like the Titanic this thread has sunk, RIP Jack Dawson.

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by Ruined

You can't sharpen the image without removing the grain first or it will look like a snowstorm when you are done with it

You shouldn’t try to sharpen the image at all in the first place. Removing damage? Of course. Restoring the colors? Yes. Fixing other errors? Sure. Removing the grain? No, sharpening the image? Absolutely not.

The whole point some of us are trying to make is that Cameron and team went beyond just restoring damage and fixing errors. They shouldn’t have tried to artificially sharpen it, trying to add detail that was never there, which means they wouldn’t have needed to remove the grain in the first place.

There’s been plenty of older and newer films than Titanic that look way more filmic and truer to their source, which have also gained a substantial amount of natural/native detail without going through all the digital manipulation that this transfer did. And as those promo stills show, it could have looked better. Gaining the extra the detail that was already there in the source thanks to the 4K scan and a more ‘respectful’ restoration (for lack of a better word) if it had gotten one. This whole degraining, artificial sharpening, other digital tinkering, and re-graining afterwards was completely unnecessary to make it look ‘better’.

Am i saying it’s a complete disaster? No. Can people still enjoy it? Obviously. But could it look better? Absolutely. And it should have. The film is so iconic (and i would say a monumental achievement in cinema) that it makes sense people on here will scrutinize it even harder. And unfortunately Cameron doesn’t seem to be able to allow his films to exist in their context of time. Even Avatar got that abomination of an upscale despite the fact it is more recent. The thing looks like an oil painting instead of a movie at times. Watching the 4K restoration of The Abyss a few days ago, he did a very similar to it like Titanic. And after that and this disc, my expectations for the 4Ks of Aliens and True Lies are extremely tampered now. It’s a shame because the film could have looked so good without all that extra processing to ‘modernize’ it. Sometimes creators and artists really are their own worst enemies. Just look at Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Oliver Stone (look at the 4K disc of Platoon).

[Spizz]

Just compared the audio to my Blu-Ray copy. Either there is something wrong with my Sub or the Atmos track doesn't have as much bass impact compared to the Blu-Ray 5.1 DTS track. As I don't see anyone mentioning any issues I assume it is on my end?

I am looking at the end scenes with the ship breaking apart.