Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Scott in UK]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Put an extra apple in there from me aswell.

[bmick23]

Originally Posted by amorphously

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

That's my main issue with this release. They kept the same dirty teal color grade from 2011.

[Mr Gitz]

Can someone please explain something to me? Maybe I’m an idiot but I just don’t get this.

I’ve been reading about how the CGI in the titanic 4k remaster is upscaled because the CGI was originally rendered at 2K, right?


Okay. So most all CGI VFX before relatively recently were rendered at 2K, correct? So any 1990s/early 2000s film with CGI coming to 4K UHD has the CGI upscaled to 4K unless the cgi is Rerendered, which doesn’t really happen. Still with me?

But back when movies like Titanic were a thing all the CGI VFX were printed out to film, right?

So even though it’s hard to determine the amount of pixels a frame of film could hold since film and digital aren’t a 1:1, if the CGI is printed out to film, isn’t the CGI now whatever native resolution 35mm happens to be? Because the cgi is now baked into the film just like everything else in a master film print? The film has the resolution, right? Not the thing the film contains.

In other words a shot of Leo’s face was recorded onto 35mm film, a shot of cgi titanic was recorded onto 35mm film. Wouldn’t Leo’s face and the titanic both have the same resolution since both were recorded onto the same 35mm print?

Does that make sense?

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by samlop10

It’s a shame because the film could have looked so good without all that extra processing…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).

My gf, someone with close to zero interest in physical media and maybe 20 blu rays in the console under her old plasma, and whom only watches a handful of films in the course of a year, made an interesting observation when she asked what I was reading, and I showed her parts of this thread and the American Graffiti thread.

It seemed to her that the small handful of the very biggest egos in the game simply can’t accept the notion of having the legacy of their “greatest film creations” be “just another film” like everyone else’s. It’s almost like they need their work to transcend at this point, to be unique, somehow higher and better than everyone else’s, which means achieving something greater in their minds than the film medium itself allows for, and throwing the highest levels of costly and sophisticated over-processing at it. So they’re spending their time and energy cooking up their own personal recipes for re-casting their films as “greater than just a film” using modern digital tools to “help their godly creations ascend” to match their inflated egos along with their bad personal taste, in their own very personal struggles to have their films not look like “just another grainy old film”, in the end.

Of course, nothing in life is that straightforward, but you have to wonder if there’s some truth to these musings.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by Mr Gitz

Can someone please explain something to me? Maybe I’m an idiot but I just don’t get this.

I’ve been reading about how the CGI in the titanic 4k remaster is upscaled because the CGI was originally rendered at 2K, right?


Okay. So most all CGI VFX before relatively recently were rendered at 2K, correct? So any 1990s/early 2000s film with CGI coming to 4K UHD has the CGI upscaled to 4K unless the cgi is Rerendered, which doesn’t really happen. Still with me?

But back when movies like Titanic were a thing all the CGI VFX were printed out to film, right?

So even though it’s hard to determine the amount of pixels a frame of film could hold since film and digital aren’t a 1:1, if the CGI is printed out to film, isn’t the CGI now whatever native resolution 35mm happens to be? Because the cgi is now baked into the film just like everything else in a master film print? The film has the resolution, right? Not the thing the film contains.

In other words a shot of Leo’s face was recorded onto 35mm film, a shot of cgi titanic was recorded onto 35mm film. Wouldn’t Leo’s face and the titanic both have the same resolution since both were recorded onto the same 35mm print?

Does that make sense?

No. If you take a screenshot of a 200dpi vcr tape that you’re watching, using your 4k camera phone, is the resolution of the underlying image in your screenshot now suddenly 4k? Your phone image is, but the underlying content in your new photo is still a nasty 200dpi blur-fest. A higher res image of lower-res content can’t magically just create new detail that doesn’t exist in the underlying content. Similarly, forgetting cgi, if you film something in 1080, just dropping it on a 4K disc doesn’t suddenly give it 4k resolution. It’s limited to the resolution of its original source, at best.

[thesaxmaniac]

I finally had some time to watch this thing and:

Close ups look really incredible at times

Everything else looks kinda disappointing, shimmery, sharpened, etc

Not sure how this got a 5/5 cause this is nowhere near The Matrix level of reference quality image.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

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

He's saying that he's unable to remaster/uprez/improve the quality of his YouTube videos without futzing with his monetization. So, since he's unable to make money off of a better version since he is only able distribute his work through the one channel and still make money, Cameron shouldn't be allowed since he can make money on other channels. I think.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

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

His post made total sense. Please read it with attention, it's not hard to understand.

His point is that artists often like to tinker with their work, as their tastes change, and their skills evolve. Artists are rarely perfectly happy with their work. Osamu Tezuka often redrew his old manga work to match his new skills.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Chad Rouch

He's saying that he's unable to remaster/uprez/improve the quality of his YouTube videos without futzing with his monetization. So, since he's unable to make money off of a better version since he is only able distribute his work through the one channel and still make money, Cameron shouldn't be allowed since he can make money on other channels. I think.

That was not the point at all of his post.

[By_His_Strypes]

This is one of those times where I find the review on the site perfectly reflects what I saw on the disc.

[t-mel]

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.

People that buy 4k UHDs aren't the average viewer. Anyway, this has nothing to do with appealing to the tastes of the masses and everything to do with appealing to the (bad) tastes of those in charge. There is a reason this keep happening with films of certain filmmakers and not for popular titles in general. Fortunately, it also means it probably won't become more common.

Also, I don't understand the argument that the average viewer won't mind watching DVDs, or low quality streams, but will draw the line with watching something that hasn't been edge enhanced or has too much grain.

[blakninja]

I think it depends on where we come from.

For the people who loved Titanic in 1997 and hold the movie dear to their heart, we'll more likely would want a UHD release that is closest and truest to how it was shown in 1997, but will welcome any additional details or cleanup (image and sound). Anything on top of that (AI enhancements, new VFX, etc) are not very welcomed because that's not what we fell in love with.

For the people that Titanic is just a movie they like and would watch but not something they hold dear, I guess it's more likely we will accept any tinkering with the movie.

It's like your wife or husband, if she/he changes too much over time, you'd be "hey, this is not who I married!"

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

It seemed to her that the small handful of the very biggest egos in the game simply can’t accept the notion of having the legacy of their “greatest film creations” be “just another film” like everyone else’s. It’s almost like they need their work to transcend at this point, to be unique, somehow higher and better than everyone else’s, which means achieving something greater in their minds than the film medium itself allows for, and throwing the highest levels of costly and sophisticated over-processing at it. So they’re spending their time and energy cooking up their own personal recipes for re-casting their films as “greater than just a film” using modern digital tools to “help their godly creations ascend” to match their inflated egos along with their bad personal taste, in their own very personal struggles to have their films not just look like “another grainy old film”, in the end.

This is why I prefer Nolan and Villeneuve philosophy, they try to shoot things with the highest possible details, but maintaining the "cinematic film" feel. They would go IMAX, but stick to 2D and 24fps and would probably never "revisit" and tinker with their movies.

Cameron is pushing the boundaries, but his mixing of 48fps and 24fps in Avatar II was just annoying and the 3D is just a nice to have but I'd rather watch stuff in 2D (personal opinion).

[tankryankr19]

Originally Posted by 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.

I noticed my Sub going insane with the bass in the Atmos Mix, compared to the 5.1 DTS-HD Track, had a bit more kick to the Atmos Mix but the 5.1 DTS is a close second

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

My gf, someone with close to zero interest in physical media and maybe 20 blu rays in the console under her old plasma, and whom only watches a handful of films in the course of a year, made an interesting observation when she asked what I was reading, and I showed her parts of this thread and the American Graffiti thread.

It seemed to her that the small handful of the very biggest egos in the game simply can’t accept the notion of having the legacy of their “greatest film creations” be “just another film” like everyone else’s. It’s almost like they need their work to transcend at this point, to be unique, somehow higher and better than everyone else’s, which means achieving something greater in their minds than the film medium itself allows for, and throwing the highest levels of costly and sophisticated over-processing at it. So they’re spending their time and energy cooking up their own personal recipes for re-casting their films as “greater than just a film” using modern digital tools to “help their godly creations ascend” to match their inflated egos along with their bad personal taste, in their own very personal struggles to have their films not just look like “another grainy old film”, in the end.

Of course, nothing in life is that straightforward, but you have to wonder if there’s some truth to these musings.

And did you then say, “Baby, you’re so hot when you talk like that!” and start shedding your jeans?

[emmet otter]

Seems like i'm glad I did not pay full price on this. Amazon will have this down to $9.99 in no time....then it'll be worth it. Will be patient

[LoSouL]

I watched this last night. It was an amazing rewatch, having not seen it for possibly two decades. The entire finale was absolutely harrowing, and a remarkable feat of movie making that I'd never fully appreciated when I was younger, even though we watched it a lot. A hint of Hollywood corniness, but that's somewhat nostalgic now.

In retrospect, you can see why it was so successful, because it really does have a little bit of everything to appeal to many demographics... drama, romance, scandal, excitement, spectacle, tragedy, history, passion, heroics and villainy, sacrifice and selfishness, feats of engineering, prominent women and men of all ages etc. Movies of this physical scale are starting to feel like looking back at 18th century automatons, with Thomas Andrews Jr eyes.

Anyway... it's simultaneously a nice looking UHD and a mildly disappointing one. Entirely watchable and immersive, but it does look too clean, the sharpness is noticeable at times, and there are at least a couple times where you'll notice the AI effect on faces. It absolutely is not a ringed out wax fest though and there is still a lot of detail. I'd also like to say the color seems fine and doesn't at all come across like something that's been re-graded for pop and contrast. Didn't seem crushed or elevated.

It just doesn't have that immediate "omg so filmic thank you Arrow" feeling you hope for. 90% of people who buy this aren't going to notice or care, and just enjoy the overall nice presentation, but I imagine you guys will. I don't know a damn thing about older releases, but I didn't actually have a copy of the movie in my collection any way, and it's... good enough.

[cgpublic]

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?

One of the high-level objectives of any digital processing project is to maintain a consistent image for the entirety of the film. When distinct sources are present, i.e., live action film, VFX and CGI as is the case with a film such as Titanic, typically the grain is minimized or removed to hit a baseline target.

The greater the resolution output, in this case 4K, the greater the challenge to maintain a consistent appearance. Inconsistencies in film and related effects which once appeared to be well-integrated in the context of a theatrical presentation, or in the early, low-resolution state of home media, can no longer maintain the illusion of reality at the higher resolution.

The solution, once all of the individual parts have been addressed, e.g., restoring the actual film, fixing the effects, etc, is to test and identify a specific look via AI to do the actual work to create a unified appearance. A fine layer of grain, organic or as the result of digital processing, can mask many flaws.

It can also provide a semblance of the original appearance if actual film was used by adding it back in and help to integrate all of the original sources, or to give the appearance of film stock in place of a digital camera.

Every film is different in its construction, and every human may have a different bias and or preference for what constitutes the optimal appearance.

My earlier point is simply younger audiences don't have the same reference specific to film stock and related grain, because they have been exposed to far more grain-free digital content via original TV and streaming services.

The result is simply a grain-free or overly processed image is no longer perceived as 'fake' in the same manner it was prior to availability of digital tools on smart phones. It's become democratized and common-place.

Someone who screened the film at age 25 in 1997 is now over 50 years old. It's perfectly understandable that someone who viewed the film then, or perhaps viewed the film after the fact, may be of the opinion that this release appears 'processed,' for better or worse.

My point, specific to both American Graffiti and Titanic, is simply the overwhelming majority of consumers are not going share an opinion specific to grain or processing that the image appears 'worse.'

To them, it's never looked better.

Everyone in the industry knows this, and behaves accordingly. The objective is to ensure an IP asset such as Titanic remains as enduring and popular for new generations as it did back in the late 90s. That's IP asset management, that's the point.

Citizen Kane? Nobody cares, licensed to Criterion, have all the grain you want, knock yourself out.

Titanic? Hit the bricks, there's plenty of money left on the table.

It's a business. Not a nostalgia trip.

[Member-425016]

Does the 3D BD have more film grain? I might just go that route.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

And did you then say, “Baby, you’re so hot when you talk like that!” and start shedding your jeans?

Three or four times a week usually, but I do make her dinner first, and almost always open some decent wine. We don't usually get to wear jeans, it's still 80F down here and we're typically just kicking around in skimpy shorts. We only put on jeans if we take out one of my motorcycles. It's a hard life in Florida, but someone's gotta do it