Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[DigitalDeluge24]

Kate Winslet – Lesson of Self Worth | L'Oréal Paris® Australia & NZ - YouTube

[THF90]

Originally Posted by dalemc

Oh you're right in this - the stunt woman was heavier set than Kate yeah. This is mentioned in the book too, how they had to replace her neck and everything since Kate's face and jawline were more naturally and clearly defined. Made the face replacement job a bit more tricky and involved!

Kate probably wasn't phased, she has always spoken highly of Sarah Franzl, the stunt lady I think she even mentions her in the new documentary that's on this 4K edition

Defined? Let’s be real.

They look very close to one another’s size and they both look fine.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The shot varies, at one point it's just her face being replaced, at others it's a whole head replacement, they even had to comp in the earrings in some frames because they were bouncing differently from Kate's run to the stuntwoman's, and the strobe lighting wasn't matched across the two shots so that all had to be massaged into place. Even the water spray across their faces had to be erased then re-animated over the top. Insane shot for 1997 tech, absolutely insane.

I think you stated "ballsy" a while back about them doing that at that time. (you were talking about a different shot though, but same sentiment here) Just stunning how far they stretched beyond what was possible. Just out there. I like this movie both for the phenomenal story, pacing, and structure, as well as the ingenuity and tech on display. Simply good stuff.

[TXMoviebuff77]

How has this thread not been closed yet?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

How has this thread not been closed yet?

¤ https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=167383

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by dalemc

I have got a whole lot of 35mm film strips from a projection print. I've shared a few here but they may have gotten missed, all hidden with the Spoiler tags. Happy to send you a whole giant selection privately somehow, if you're interested?

Yes, please, dalemc. That would be great.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sojrner

I think you stated "ballsy" a while back about them doing that at that time. (you were talking about a different shot though, but same sentiment here) Just stunning how far they stretched beyond what was possible. Just out there. I like this movie both for the phenomenal story, pacing, and structure, as well as the ingenuity and tech on display. Simply good stuff.

It was that same shot I was talking about I think? Just super ballsy.

[INdetectableMAN]

The problem with Titanic UHD is that the AI algorithm, when analyzing the facial features of some actors in more or less static close-ups, exaggeratedly emphasizes it, offering levels of detail in those definitely ridiculous facial features that strongly attacks the photography original of the movie.

There are close-ups of Paxton, which are truly ridiculous in how emphasized his facial features look. Reminds me of a lizard from the Galápagos Islands.

It doesn't look like cinema, it looks like something else.

Cameron has put his films at the service of technology, when he should have put technology at the service of cinema to offer appropriate transfers that are respectful of the original elements of his film.

What you see in Titanic, in those exaggerated and tremendously emphasized details, does not belong to the original elements of the film registred by the camera (or at least not to be shown that way), that is only information invented by its artificial intelligence AI and that attacks with total impunity and impudence against the most basic and elemental concepts of image quality.

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally Posted by INdetectableMAN

The problem with Titanic UHD is that the AI algorithm, when analyzing the facial features of some actors in more or less static close-ups, exaggeratedly emphasizes it, offering levels of detail in those definitely ridiculous facial features that strongly attacks the photography original of the movie.

There are close-ups of Paxton, which are truly ridiculous in how emphasized his facial features look. Reminds me of a lizard from the Galápagos Islands.

It doesn't look like cinema, it looks like something else.

Cameron has put his films at the service of technology, when he should have put technology at the service of cinema to offer appropriate transfers that are respectful of the original elements of his film.

What you see in Titanic, in those exaggerated and tremendously emphasized details, does not belong to the original elements of the film registred by the camera (or at least not to be shown that way), that is only information invented by its artificial intelligence AI and that attacks with total impunity and impudence against the most basic and elemental concepts of image quality.

"For the first time ever, you and I are in total agreement!"

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by INdetectableMAN

The problem with Titanic UHD is that the AI algorithm, when analyzing the facial features of some actors in more or less static close-ups, exaggeratedly emphasizes it, offering levels of detail in those definitely ridiculous facial features that strongly attacks the photography original of the movie.

There are close-ups of Paxton, which are truly ridiculous in how emphasized his facial features look. Reminds me of a lizard from the Galápagos Islands.

It doesn't look like cinema, it looks like something else.

Cameron has put his films at the service of technology, when he should have put technology at the service of cinema to offer appropriate transfers that are respectful of the original elements of his film.

What you see in Titanic, in those exaggerated and tremendously emphasized details, does not belong to the original elements of the film registred by the camera (or at least not to be shown that way), that is only information invented by its artificial intelligence AI and that attacks with total impunity and impudence against the most basic and elemental concepts of image quality.

It looked excessively sharp on streaming even with reality creation at 0 in both my Sony TVs. Bet it looks sharp like a razor blade on the disc lol. The 4K disc will be with me on the 18th unless the date was pushed back.

[KiLLPaTRiCK]

This is like Indy 500 whose on lead.
Now Titanic, then Abyss or Aliens and True Lies trailing behind... Going faster than you can read the post`s...

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by KiLLPaTRiCK

This is like Indy 500 whose on lead.
Now Titanic, then Abyss or Aliens and True Lies trailing behind... Going faster than you can read the post`s...

Going by the posts in the threads (bad to worse).

1. Titanic
2. Abyss ??
3. Aliens
4. True Lies

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The shot varies, at one point it's just her face being replaced, at others it's a whole head replacement, they even had to comp in the earrings in some frames because they were bouncing differently from Kate's run to the stuntwoman's, and the strobe lighting wasn't matched across the two shots so that all had to be massaged into place. Even the water spray across their faces had to be erased then re-animated over the top. Insane shot for 1997 tech, absolutely insane.

What's insane is that they even attempted it, but they clearly weren't ready for it. The shot is questionable; there's visible morphing and the faces wobble. Jack's face replacement looks like a static image at times. It's probably the only shot in an otherwise well-planned production that screams "we'll fix it in post". You can tell JC really wanted it to be slow-mo, because otherwise the shot would have worked using the technology of the time.

There are special FX make up techniques that can transform you into a completely different person, provided you only face the camera head on. There are videos on YT where women transform themselves to famous celebrities and movie characters. Perhaps this is how they could have achieved the shot without hassle.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DigitalDeluge24

What's insane is that they even attempted it, but they clearly weren't ready for it. The shot is questionable; there's visible morphing and the faces wobble. Jack's face replacement looks like a static image at times. It's probably the only shot in an otherwise well-planned production that screams "we'll fix it in post". You can tell JC really wanted it to be slow-mo, because otherwise the shot would have worked using the technology of the time.

There are special FX make up techniques that can transform you into a completely different person, provided you only face the camera head on. There are videos on YT where women transform themselves to famous celebrities and movie characters. Perhaps this is how they could have achieved the shot without hassle.

The whole point of that shot was to do it in post. It's staggering they even attempted it, I can tell you're not impressed but I think it's magnificent for what it is, and it gets betterer the nearer they get to camera which is the opposite of conventional VFXery.

[samuelkhan999]

Can anyone confirm the Fox 4k/International release has got DV. If so, is it identical with the US release? Thanks

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by samuelkhan999

Can anyone confirm the Fox 4k/International release has got DV. If so, is it identical with the US release? Thanks

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4528

[DigitalDeluge24]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The whole point of that shot was to do it in post. It's staggering they even attempted it, I can tell you're not impressed but I think it's magnificent for what it is, and it gets betterer the nearer they get to camera which is the opposite of conventional VFXery.

I think it's a question of being aware and honest with oneself about what the technology of the time can do. In that instance JC really wanted it all: the slow-mo, the close-up, the flashes and the splashes, and it all became too much for 1997. It's like if PJ had decided to fully light up the Balrog in FOTR, instead of having it cloaked in shadow. It would have exposed the seams of the nascent CGI and ruined the illusion.

It's the sort of uncompromising filmmaking style JC is known for, which tbf works out most of the time.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by samuelkhan999

Can anyone confirm the Fox 4k/International release has got DV. If so, is it identical with the US release? Thanks

I got mine today.
It's the same transfer, but with more audio languages and the 20th Century Fox logo at the beginning.
The included Blu-Ray, on the other hand, it's the same Blu-Ray that was released in 2012 (not Open-Matte, but the 2.35:1 OAR)

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by lgans316

It looked excessively sharp on streaming even with reality creation at 0 in both my Sony TVs. Bet it looks sharp like a razor blade on the disc lol. The 4K disc will be with me on the 18th unless the date was pushed back.

Mine shipped from Amazon Italy a day before the official release date.
Depending which delivery option you choosed, it should arrive in time for Christmas.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Going by the posts in the threads (bad to worse).

1. Titanic
2. Abyss ??
3. Aliens
4. True Lies

I don't care that much for Abyss.
If Aliens and True Lies get the same treatment of TITANIC, I might just stick with the original Quadrilogy Blu-Ray and 35mm scan for Aliens, and the Spanish Blu-Ray for True Lies.