Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

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.

Citizen Kane is far bigger and more iconic than American Graffiti, that's for sure.

Are you gonna say that people don't care about Psycho, Jaws, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, and Back To The Future too? Are you gonna say there isn't more money on the table for them too? And plenty of 70s, 80s and 90s films that are hugely iconic and didn't get DNR to the extent of American Graffiti?

Also, the biggest problem of fully degraining an image is not because "no grain means it looks bad". The problem is that it makes people's faces look waxy, textures look weird! That's nothing at all how stuff actually shot on digital looks like! The American Graffiti transfer looks bad by any criteria, not because it doesn't have grain, but because people look very waxy. That wouldn't have been the case with digitally shot stuff, like sports, modern films, and so on. It also looks VERY soft, nothing like the razor-sharpness of digital photography. You think that the only reason people are complaining is because it lacks grain. For me personally, the problem is the horrible artifacts that come from grain removal, not the lack of grain itself. I'm no grain fetishist.

Titanic is a very different matter. It has artifacts from excessive DNR and sharpening, but it's subtle enough that the vast majority of people aren't ever gonna notice. Cameron took care of that, unlike what Lucas did with American Graffiti.

You really can't compare Titanic's restoration with American Graffiti. Titanic's restoration can pass far better as an actual nice digitally shot movie than American Graffiti's, which just looks bad by all criteria. It's a horribly failed attempt to look like a digitally shot movie, it just makes the actors look very waxy, plastic, (and please don't try to suggest that most people can't tell if someone looks like a doll rather than a real person, we humans are extraordinarily good with faces, there is scientific research showing this, and I gave you an example of how people can tell such stuff, but you ignored everything I said). That's not remotely close to how actors look in modern content. It just looks bad. It's consistently bad. Consistence like that is no good at all. Studios try to achieve a more consistent look by applying more DNR in opticals, for example, but not to the footage that actually looks great already!

Here's my last reply to you. Please, don't reply by AGAIN stating facts that I already know, such as "blu-rays haven't become close to be as popular as DVDs" and "most people don't significantly tweak their settings in TVs". I tried to explain WHY in great detail.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4151

Not to mention that no one could see grain on VHS. People have been seeing grain-free images for decades in that sense. It's only in High Definition that it became possible to give some good level of grain in home video transfers.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

that immediate "omg so filmic thank you (Arrow)" feeling you hope for

This aspect pretty much summarizes the most desirable characteristics of the uhd experience, for me, and is a significant part of what separates "acceptable" from "awe-inspiring", in the 4k PQ category. It's why even a "very good" 4k disc can still be a disappointment, at least on some levels. In short, the "what could have been" factor is the hardest pill to swallow for some of us. The uhd discs that blow me away on first watch, with filmic qualities, nominal distractions, and nearly flawless encodes, are the discs that stick in my mind, and define the format for me. Anything short of that can't help but feel like a slightly missed opportunity, irrespective of the cause, or where the blame lies. It's not nitpicking, it's simple observation. My display never lies to me, and I appreciate its candor.

[blakninja]

Back down to $30.99 on Amazon.com

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

This aspect pretty much summarizes the most desirable characteristics of the uhd experience, for me, and is a significant part of what separates "acceptable" from "awe-inspiring", in the 4k PQ category. It's why even a "very good" 4k disc can still be a disappointment, at least on some levels. In short, the "what could have been" factor is the hardest pill to swallow for some of us. The uhd discs that blow me away on first watch, with filmic qualities, nominal distractions, and nearly flawless encodes, are the discs that stick in my mind, and define the format for me. Anything short of that can't help but feel like a slightly missed opportunity, irrespective of the cause, or where the blame lies. It's not nitpicking, it's simple observation. My display never lies to me, and I appreciate its candor.

This makes me wonder what you think of the UHDs of Vertigo and Alien. Both are extremely acclaimed UHDs, but some people have complained that the grain was nevertheless "massaged" to some extent, so they are not as filmic as they could be, and can look a tad too smooth at times, outside of soft focus obviously.

Of course, Titanic's UHD is obviously manipulated to a far bigger extent.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

This aspect pretty much summarizes the most desirable characteristics of the uhd experience, for me, and is a significant part of what separates "acceptable" from "awe-inspiring", in the 4k PQ category. It's why even a "very good" 4k disc can still be a disappointment, at least on some levels. In short, the "what could have been" factor is the hardest pill to swallow for some of us. The uhd discs that blow me away on first watch, with filmic qualities, nominal distractions, and nearly flawless encodes, are the discs that stick in my mind, and define the format for me. Anything short of that can't help but feel like a slightly missed opportunity, irrespective of the cause, or where the blame lies. It's not nitpicking, it's simple observation. My display never lies to me, and I appreciate its candor.

Do you have some examples of UHD disc with this quality? I would like to have a look, thanks!!

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Do you have some examples of UHD disc with this quality? I would like to have a look, thanks!!

Tremors UHD has a fantastic transfer and encode, effectively transparent to the medium. Great release.

[bbwiscfan]

I haven’t been able to see the whole film a second time yet, but just watched the sinking sequence to test the track and I must say I had to turn this up a few notches. I was hoping I would not to have to do that. With some of the Nolan UHDs which I’ve also been watching lately, for comparison, those were thunderous and knocked me out of my seat (Dunkirk and Interstellar) and required no such adjustment. Not that it’s bad by any means, but this one does seem to require some volume adjustment to get the best experience.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Nolan tracks have a lot of dynamic range compression, so certainly loud but not actually very dynamic. Never mind aggressive limiting and unfortunately at times audible distortion and clipping.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Do you have some examples of UHD disc with this quality? I would like to have a look, thanks!!

Can't tell if serious. You mean like Trancers, Bourne Identity, 3:10 to Yuma, American Graffiti, Terminator Two Judgment Day, No Escape, Jurassic Park, Platoon, The Firm, and Pan's Labyrinth?

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by bbwiscfan

I haven’t been able to see the whole film a second time yet, but just watched the sinking sequence to test the track and I must say I had to turn this up a few notches. I was hoping I would not to have to do that. With some of the Nolan UHDs which I’ve also been watching lately, for comparison, those were thunderous and knocked me out of my seat (Dunkirk and Interstellar) and required no such adjustment. Not that it’s bad by any means, but this one does seem to require some volume adjustment to get the best experience.

Did you just say you had to crank when she sank, to get some spank?

Tru dat, the Nolan releases are typically not shrinking violets in the LFE category, but can have their own issues. They're also not atmos remixes.....

[videopat]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Also, the biggest problem of fully degraining an image is not because "no grain means it looks bad". The problem is that it makes people's faces look waxy, textures look weird! That's nothing at all how stuff actually shot on digital looks like! The American Graffiti transfer looks bad by any criteria, not because it doesn't have grain, but because people look very waxy.

Exactly this. Removing grain isn't a terrible idea because grain is so great, it's a terrible idea because it completely alters the fine detail throughout the entire image. Even Cameron's proprietary DNR can't mask the unnaturally-smoothed effect it gives to faces and objects. The end result yields an image that's neither beautifully-filmic nor modern video pristine, essentially giving you the worst of both worlds.

[Bolty]

So many folks can save their money and just continue to watch the Blu-ray. That's one silver lining.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by videopat

Exactly this. Removing grain isn't a terrible idea because grain is so great, it's a terrible idea because it completely alters the fine detail throughout the entire image. Even Cameron's proprietary DNR can't mask the unnaturally-smoothed effect it gives to faces and objects. The end result yields an image that's neither beautifully-filmic nor modern video pristine, essentially giving you the worst of both worlds.

This is a pretty fair and succinct condemnation of excessive dnr.

Unfortunately, a fairly large number of decision-making folks in their estimation have decided that a manipulated mish-mosh is going to be more appealing to the average consumer than seeing a film in a more natural state with its inherent warts. Or weirder yet, they just don't want their film to look like a film anymore.

The one place where I will make exceptions for copious manipulation is clean-up of distracting damage, where the damage (usually existing on a negative) is so significant that it actually pulls you out of the film experience. Some smearing and moshing is to be expected in those situations around areas of more significant repair efforts, and is usually warranted. I've watched some un-repaired 4k scans where the absolutely relentless flurry of thousands of instances of specs, flecks and scratches flying by holds my attention moreso than the film content itself.

[THF90]

Originally Posted by 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!"

No. This is the first time I am seeing this film and something was off to my eyes right away.

I am also just very sensitive to things like the Soap Opera effect, so I’m sure people who aren’t hyper-aware like I am, have no problem with the image.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

This is a pretty fair and succinct condemnation of excessive dnr.

Unfortunately, a fairly large number of decision-making folks in their estimation have decided that a manipulated mish-mosh is going to be more appealing to the average consumer than seeing a film in a more natural state with its inherent warts.

The one place where I will make exceptions for copious manipulation is clean-up of distracting damage, where the damage (usually existing on a negative) is so significant that it actually pulls you out of the film experience. Some smearing and moshing is to be expected in those situations around areas of more significant repair efforts, and is usually warranted. I've watched some un-repaired 4k scans where the absolutely relentless flurry of thousands of instances of specs, flecks and scratches flying by holds my attention moreso than the film content itself.

Titanic was shot in fine-grained stock, right? This level of DNR simply wasn't even necessary to create an image that will highly please everyone, from hardcore cinephiles to literally anyone really. I would be more understandable, though not approving, of such DNR in grainy movies. Psycho has plenty of scenes that are very grainy. It still looks great, as the grain adds to the detail and sharpness, I wouldn't scrub it.

It's pretty common for problematic sections of movies, such as opticals, to get far more DNR applied, to achieve a more consistent cleaner look (though the opticals will still look far worse than OG neg, so I don't think this even accomplishes much).

But applying excessive DNR to a whole transfer? That just doesn't make sense.

[stvn1974]

I haven't watched my copy since I won't have my new 4K TV until Christmas so I can't comment on the PQ, but if Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies turn out like Titanic based on this thread the internet might not be able to handle all of the outrage on March 12, 2024.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I haven't watched my copy since I won't have my new 4K TV until Christmas so I can't comment on the PQ, but if Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies turn out like Titanic based on this thread the internet might not be able to handle all of the outrage on March 12, 2024.

Next week will kick off the discussion for those three.
Digital releases on the 12th.

Best get your copy of Nearer, My God, to Thee cued up because it is going to be chaos.

[THF90]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I haven't watched my copy since I won't have my new 4K TV until Christmas so I can't comment on the PQ, but if Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies turn out like Titanic based on this thread the internet might not be able to handle all of the outrage on March 12, 2024.

The internet is going to implode on March 12, 2024

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by THF90

No. This is the first time I am seeing this film and something was off to my eyes right away.

I am also just very sensitive to things like the Soap Opera effect, so I’m sure people who aren’t hyper-aware like I am, have no problem with the image.

The artifacts in Titanic are subtle enough for most people to not notice anything wrong, but hardcore videophiles will notice.

Soap opera effect is another thing entirely. Nothing is as jarringly obvious as soap opera effect, this is by far the worst thing. One doesn't even need to be a videophile of any kind to intuitively feel that something is off. Granted, some people are far more sensitive than others. 30FPS might still be tolerable for some people, while for me it's already unacceptable. Go lower than that, and I become confused if I'm seeing soap opera effect or not. 60FPS is another level. To stand it, one has to be either frame-rate blind (maybe there are such people, just like there are tone-deaf people) or actually love that the movies now look like stage plays, and everyone is in cosplay. That's the known psychological effect of high frame rates and how uncanny they are: it stops looking like a movie, and more like a stage play. It stops feeling like cinema, it's something else entirely. It's too real.

That said, I've heard that the lowest motion smoothing setting on Sony TVs, or the Cinematic Motion setting in LGs, don't have any soap opera effect.

[BrahmaBull1969]

Originally Posted by leniphotography

Is anyone else unable to watch their 4K disc? My copy plays in like 10 FPS or less and is incredibly unwatchable. I bought a new 4K Blu-ray player just for this film (my old one didn’t have Dolby Vision.) I’ve tested other discs that all play totally fine, even Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk plays perfect in 60 FPS.

Yup! I got a replacement disc and there are issues in the same exact spot with the 2nd disc. My issue starts when Jack asks Rose, "Wanna go to a real party?". As the steerage sequence begins the disc is unplayable for the duration of the film. I sure hope Paramount somehow get notified and can ship new discs to customers having this issue.