Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[1924]

question. Why would reviewers go out of their way to praise this release when they had no problem trashing the T2 4K? Or a bad recent release like American Graffiti?

[LordoftheRings]

If people want Cameron's real love just go for the 100th Anniversary of the Sinking of Titanic ... The Limited (((3D))) Edition 4-disc Blu-ray set ... 2012.

Cameron is a 3D guy, not a 4K guy. It seems quite obvious to me, and perhaps to you too.

[scififan73]

Originally Posted by starmike

AI is just like any other tool, it's either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit, it's not our problem.

Have you ever retired a perfectly good 4k transfer by mistake?

[Riddhi2011]

This entire "Freud" scene shows frozen grain in the actors' faces and on just about everything in the background. On film, the grains would be random and would change per frame. Here the "grains" are just static and don't even flicker. The are just stuck motionless all over the frame.

[Show spoiler]Titanic preoccupation with size.jpg

PS: This is from the lower bitrate streaming version. The UHD disc looks far better and there's no frozen grain on it, in this particular scene.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by 1924

question. Why would reviewers go out of their way to praise this release when they had no problem trashing the T2 4K? Or a bad recent release like American Graffiti?

Titanic is the opposite of T2 - the former has too much details, the latter has almost none. Like I said - it doesn't look bad, only wrong which is not the same, and it's really easy to fell for all that sharpness and exaggerated details.

[LordoftheRings]

The devil is in the details.

[Pagey123]

Having seen this in motion a few days ago, and having looked at the caps from the True Lies and The Abyss threads, I can now put my finger on what stands out to me the most: actors' wrinkles. Mr. Andrews, in Titanic, has a pronounced wrinkle between the brows that, on the 4K/UHD, is crazily exaggerated. It just doesn't quite look natural. Lines in faces have something going on with the AI enhancement as well. It's not enough to ruin the movie (for me), but it's definitely enough to catch the eye. Hopefully future algorithms, if we continue to see their use, fix this or dial it back.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by 1924

question. Why would reviewers go out of their way to praise this release when they had no problem trashing the T2 4K? Or a bad recent release like American Graffiti?

To be fair, the two releases are very different. T2 was trash. Everything was smeary. This release has tons of detail. It doesn't look like a waxfest like T2. It isn't true to it's source, but I can see how most reviewers wouldn't realize just how much of this detail is due to AI tinkering; in other words, how much detail is real and how much is AI-enhanced. I don't think any of us knows just how much of the detail is true detail from the 4k scan and how much is enhanced. But the end result is certainly much better than T2.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

Having seen this in motion a few days ago, and having looked at the caps from the True Lies and The Abyss threads, I can now put my finger on what stands out to me the most: actors' wrinkles. Mr. Andrews, in Titanic, has a pronounced wrinkle between the brows that, on the 4K/UHD, is crazily exaggerated. It just doesn't quite look natural. Lines in faces have something going on with the AI enhancement as well. It's not enough to ruin the movie (for me), but it's definitely enough to catch the eye. Hopefully future algorithms, if we continue to see their use, fix this or dial it back.

The AI enhancements definitely seem to "enhance" every small detail, to the point where it seems to sometimes exaggerate skin details and make them appear more pronounced. It also seems to make skin appear a bit greasy, like sweat ends up looking more like petroleum jelly.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

This entire "Freud" scene shows frozen grain in the actors' faces and on just about everything in the background. On film, the grains would be random and would change per frame. Here the "grains" are just static and don't even flicker. The are just stuck motionless all over the frame.

[Show spoiler]Attachment 298091

I just watched that scene up-close and did not notice any frozen grain on faces or backgrounds.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

but Aliens and True Lies were upsc-AI-led from their 2K versions, that's why they look so much worse and aggressively enhanced. I don't know about The Abyss, I hope I could check it soon.

Think i'm gonna just get the 30th Anniversary Blu-Ray of Aliens (just for the isolated score and for the new artwork) and keep the LD 1080p rip and Spanish Blu-Ray of True Lies.
For T2, I already have the Skynet Edition other than the Lionsgate 2015 Blu-Ray edition.
For The Abyss, I don't care that much for that one.
Avatar 4K, the same (I already have the Extended Collector's Edition, other than the 3D Blu).
So i'm pretty much done with Cameron movies.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by escvnte

... So i'm pretty much done with Cameron movies.

Cameron ain't done with us ...

[blakninja]

He'll be back.

[blakninja]

Which audio soundtrack (VHS, DVD, LD, BR, 4K) is the most truthful to the original theatrical soundtrack?

[mar3o]

What's with the scene when Rose is setting her pictures up near the beginning? There's a couple shots where there are some ghost/double images, especially around Billly Zane. I've noticed this in other versions too. It's visible in one of the 180p fan extended versions out there. It almost looks like it's a leftover from the 3D conversion. Is that what this is? Surprised to see it on the UHD.

[caztia]

I watched my bluray last night and perfectly happy with it ��

[dorian]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Since Titanic was filmed in 35mm, would a 70mm print be just blown up or do you really gain a LOT more details compared to a 35mm print?

The 70mm print would exhibit less grain as it isn't enlarged as much. I'm not sure whether or not a 70mm blow up would retain as much information as a 35mm contact print.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Which audio soundtrack (VHS, DVD, LD, BR, 4K) is the most truthful to the original theatrical soundtrack?

The DTS/AC3 Laserdisc as well the very first 1999 Region 1 DVD have the original untouched theatrical audio (as heard in theaters).

Anything from the 2005 DVD up to the 4K is a remix/re-encode.

[KamomeShokudo]

Originally Posted by scififan73

Have you ever retired a perfectly good 4k transfer by mistake?

No.

[LordoftheRings]

We are inside a serious discussion

▪︎ Image – 10 (Dolby Vision)
▪︎ Audio – 10 (Dolby Atmos)
▪︎ Pass / Fail – Pass
▪︎ Plays nicely with projectors - Yes
▪︎ Makes use of and works well in 4k - 10
▪︎ Worth your attention - 10
▪︎ Slipcover rating - 3.75
▪︎ Very Highly Recommended

RAH

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by dorian

The 70mm print would exhibit less grain as it isn't enlarged as much. I'm not sure whether or not a 70mm blow up would retain as much information as a 35mm contact print.

No 35mm contact prints were made back in the '90s. Even Nolan's movies don't get direct contact prints off the negative. For digitally graded movies, the negative is scanned first, inverted digitally, colour graded and then lasered onto prints. So, that too is not direct contact printing. The 70mm prints for titanic, and all of Cameron's Super35mm films were made by contact printing the Internegative (IN), which was three generations removed from the original negative (OCN-IP-IN-70mm print). The 35mm was also made from the same IN. This is because The Super 35mm 4-perf image with its 1.33:1 aspect ratio (and Techniscope 2-perf underwater shots) would first need to be brought to a uniform aspect ratio to fit the 70mm and 35mmm anamorphic squeeze prints. For Titanic, the 70mm prints were printed to an aspect ratio of roughly 2.25:1. The grain might be a bit exaggerated due to the generational difference, or not.

Titanic-Eternal-Romance-Edition-70MM-Film-Cell (2) extract.jpg

Cameron flooded Titanic's negative with light during shooting to reduce visible grain. If the movie was shot anamorphic or on 65mm film to begin with, then they could have directly contact printed off the negative as they wouldn't have needed to re-frame the film for the different deliverables. However, when a large number of prints get made, the negative can get damaged. So, it's safer to use the Internegative that is struck off the Interpositive.

Read more here - https://theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm