Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Modren]

Originally Posted by By_His_Strypes

isn't it possible the same print from back in the day would not look the same today?

Prints naturally fade over time unless very well preserved, and since Titanic played for an extremely long time in theaters, most prints would likely be significantly damaged. I haven't seen the 35mm scan, so maybe they found a print that hadn't been played as often, but it would still be faded. The screenshots people have posted in here definitely have the pink push and muted colors I'd expect from a print that was fading.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by LSK

But, the shot you provided, isn't that photographed through that aquarium / fishtank, and maybe made to look that way?

I doesn't matter that it was shot through a fish tank. What matters is that same shot has tons of detail on the 35mm and on the Blu-ray as well. Which means that the UHD streaming version looking so waxy is a fault of the 4K online version, not the source.

Originally Posted by blakninja

How accurate is that 35mm scan?

In terms of colour and contrast, maybe not entirely accurate. The reason I used the 35mm for comparison was to show the detail visible on that print versus the detail visible on the BD and the UHD. It means that there is a lot more detail in the original negative that was cleaned as a consequence of de-graining the film.

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I doesn't matter that it was shot through a fish tank. What matters is that same shot has tons of detail on the 35mm and on the Blu-ray as well. Which means that the UHD looking so waxy is a fault of the 4K remaster, not the source.

That is still an assumption though...

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Wax on Wax off?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by blakninja

But Bill Hunt said the grains are original and not fake ones.. ��

It's best not to trust someone absolutely, given the examples we've seen; pointed out by several members in this thread.

Originally Posted by By_His_Strypes

That is still an assumption though...

How is it an assumption when the difference is clearly visible?

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Clearly Bill Hunt is not reliable. It's best not to trust someone absolutely, give the examples we've seen, as pointed out by several members in this thread.



How is it an assumption when the difference is clearly visible?

It's funny how one can be only as reliable/unreliable depending on if it fits ones point of view on the subject.

[stevenpaulalejandro]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You keep focussing on the stock over and over and over but what you see on the 4K UHD is the specific result of degraining, AI sharpening and regraining. If you like it then you like it, no problem, but it has nothing to do with what was captured at the time.

I don't like it. I don't hate it. I just think overall this release does not rise to the level of outrage of the American Graffiti 4K or of that Vertigo reissue, the first Patton Bluray etc etc et al.
I would never ever pull this out as a reference disc, but I was able to watch it flaws and all.
Given Cameron's history I'm amazed there's even what some people are calling artificial grain in the dang thing.

[By_His_Strypes]

Bottom Line: If one thinks it's a great presentation, even if it doesn't live up to the perfect image you have in your mind. Is there even a problem here? or is the problem more the person who wants it his/her way only...

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by By_His_Strypes

It's funny how one can be only as reliable/unreliable depending on if it fits ones point of view on the subject.

If you are happy with Titanic on UHD, then it's fine. It's perhaps best not to dismiss evidence as just "point of view."

[starmike]

Originally Posted by blakninja

How accurate is that 35mm scan?

It's not accurate at all. I posted an image a few days back of the iceberg an the image was dead black. The 70mm scan is better but still an amateur scan.

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If you are happy with Titanic on UHD, then it's fine. It's perhaps best not to dismiss evidence as just "point of view."

I consider all the evidence, but some are trying to convince me the grain isn't real. I dismiss that out of hand because the evidence says otherwise.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by Some Random on the Internet

Clearly Bill Hunt is not reliable. It's best not to trust someone absolutely

Bill Hunt's been doing this for 25 years and has contacts at Lightstorm. His reputation is secure. Who are you?

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

Bill Hunt's been doing this for 25 years and has contacts at Lightstorm. His reputation is secure. Who are you?

I'm curious to know if his close relationship with Lightstorm makes him biased - either willingly or unwillingly.

[bmick23]

I’m glad the greenish tint has finally made its way into the discussion. I can look past the DNR and other issues, but that nasty tint over the whole film is very distracting.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

Bill Hunt's been doing this for 25 years and has contacts at Lightstorm. His reputation is secure. Who are you?

I see you went for personal insults by editing my username and showing aggressive behaviour ("Who are you?"). Very well. I comment on what I can see. I have eyes. And, it's not just me. Others also have noted that the transfer does not match with the glowing review it is getting. Anyway, don't wish to get engaged in another long-drawn out argument. Had enough of that with another member not so long ago.

Originally Posted by blakninja

I'm curious to know if [Bill Hunt's] close relationship with Lightstorm makes him biased - either willingly or unwillingly.

Bias is very much possible. Or, he simply failed to notice the DNR underneath and the sharpening artefacts.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Modren

Prints naturally fade over time unless very well preserved, and since Titanic played for an extremely long time in theaters, most prints would likely be significantly damaged. I haven't seen the 35mm scan, so maybe they found a print that hadn't been played as often, but it would still be faded. The screenshots people have posted in here definitely have the pink push and muted colors I'd expect from a print that was fading.

It really depends on the era, though. It's not like this is an Eastmancolor print from the '50s or something. A print from 1997/98 shouldn't exhibit too much fading tbh. There was variance from one theatrical print to the next, yes, but the colours have mostly held up. Prints from the '90s hold up quite well.

I have this scan you mention and fading I'd say isn't that big an issue. There's a fair bit of print damage (especially from about the third reel onwards where this green scrape runs up the middle of the frame) and there's some gate weave but faded? It's really not that bad at all. I'm not sure if anything was done to the print to maybe brighten it by the people who scanned it but some some scenes look a bit dull, like they increased the gamma to brighten it because it is quite dark. But I didn't find the scan to be overly faded or anything.

[panasonicst60]

4k < Blu-ray or this 4k > Blu-ray???
Regardless of all the negative discussions, this is the most important question.

[By_His_Strypes]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I see you went for personal insults by editing my username and showing aggressive behaviour ("Who are you?"). Very well. I comment on what I can see. I have eyes. If Bill Hunt's review was reliable, we wouldn't have had several members here point out, with enough technical evidence that the transfer was not as great as he and other reviewers have asserted. It's not just me. Several people have pointed out problems in the transfer that does not match with the glowing review it is getting. Anyway, don't wish to get engaged in another long-drawn out argument. Had enough of that with another member not so long ago.



Bias is very much possible. Or, he got fooled by the fake film grain and failed to notice the DNR underneath, or the sharpening artifacts.

or he's spot on w/ his information. In light of this new evidence, a case that was originally brought (that seemed plausible) against the film would be dismissed if the Judge was being fair. A good honest judge is hard to find these days though.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by stevenpaulalejandro

I don't like it. I don't hate it. I just think overall this release does not rise to the level of outrage of the American Graffiti 4K or of that Vertigo reissue, the first Patton Bluray etc etc et al.
I would never ever pull this out as a reference disc, but I was able to watch it flaws and all.
Given Cameron's history I'm amazed there's even what some people are calling artificial grain in the dang thing.

Right, but I don't think anyone's comparing it to those on a purely visual level, and if people likes it then they likes it! Not got an issue with that. It's thinking that it's purely photochemical magick that we're seeing when we're not, this is the Cameron modern special sauce in full swing is all.

[Cortiz]

They tweak and tampered the hell out of this transfer no questions asked. I watched it last night and my first thought was WTH!!. I knew something was way off....granted I'm not as technical inclined as some members of this forum, but I knew the new transfer was f.....k with. However, personally, I do like the new transfer and enjoyed watching the movie for the first time in many years. I'm not usually a fan of revistionist transfers but in this case I liked it. But yeah, I can see why purists are mad as hell.