Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[blakninja]

They should have screenings with Intermission and screenings without and let people choose. Only for long and big movies tho.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

A good solution would be to have an intermission for long movies (maybe over 2.5 hours?).

Would it really ruin the experience for you? Would it ruin it enough for you that you'd want others with conditions that you don't have to be uncomfortable?

I'm personally in favor of doing a little extra to make things more accessible for a larger number of people.

OK, but there's a bit of a problem with that. ALL the theaters in my area that I've been to have the bathrooms between the outer doors and the ticket checkers. So now you have 700 people leaving the theater to pee in a span of 10 minutes or so, and how do you make sure these people aren't theater hopping?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It seems, yes, Nolan's IMAX prints are struck directly off the negatives, but as per VariTimo on reddit, the 70mm 5-perf and the 35mm anamorphic prints are made from dupes. Both 65mm and 35mm release prints need cropping to their respective formats, so that's understandable. What I don't understand is if they use the negative for every time a 70mm IMAX release print is made, won't it increase the possibility of damaging the negative?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommu...ished_on_film/

As for Cameron, click on that ASC link (see below). There it is clearly mentioned that both the 35mm and the 70mm prints of Titanic were struck from the Internegative. Remember, the negative is in a 4:3 aspect ratio, with effects shots in 16:9 (approx) and underwater shots in Techniscope 2.33:1. All that has to be cropped/resized to 2.20:1 (actually taller on the prints)and 2.39:1 for anamorphic 35mm.

Attachment 298115

https://theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm



Eh, the aspect ratio of 35 anamorph is 2.39:1 and 5-perf 70 is 2.28:1. Not much difference. However, the 70mm prints of Titanic are taller and the printed image varies between 2.11:1 and 2.25:1 inside the 2.28:1 image area. The projection is around 2.11:1 as well for some reason and not 2.20:1. I checked some videos recorded inside the 70mm screen at the The Ritz in Sydney. The projected image dimensions suggest about 2.11:1. Coincidentally, I saw Interstellar on 35mm in 2018, with Nolan in the audience. The theatre houses a 70mm screen as they had 70mm projectors once. The aspect ratio of that screen was ALSO 2.11:1, which is how Interstellar was projected off the anamorph print. I could see the bottom of the previous frame at the top of the image. So, proper masking was not done. But, it's curious that on more than one occasion, 70mm screens have been found to be taller than 2.20:1.

Thanks for the clarification: re Titanic's 70s coming from the pre-formatted IN but technically there's nothing to stop them doing a 70 straight from the 1.33 neg because there's no anamorphosis needed. They can reposition it shot by shot while doing the print and the VFX being in 1.85-ish doesn't matter because it could also be repositioned on the fly. BUT that's a lot of work for just one print, they'd have to do it all over again for each print so yes, using an IN makes much more sense! (Though for anamorphic shows they could and did just lift those directly from the OG neg, usually in a wetgate to reduce wear.)

[deeppurpleman]

Saw this today about intermissions:

https://thetakeout.com/long-movie-ru...ons-1851099805

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by deeppurpleman

Saw this today about intermissions:

https://thetakeout.com/long-movie-ru...ons-1851099805

Intermissions are very common in India. Almost 99% of the films have an intermission as its been this way since the beginning. This way many are able to quickly visit the loo and relieve themselves lol.

[Pocketkid2]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

The HFR showings never actually happened.

I could have sworn some shots in my 3D showing back in February had HFR, just like the two recent Avatar 3D releases

[apricissimus]

Originally Posted by starmike

OK, but there's a bit of a problem with that. ALL the theaters in my area that I've been to have the bathrooms between the outer doors and the ticket checkers. So now you have 700 people leaving the theater to pee in a span of 10 minutes or so, and how do you make sure these people aren't theater hopping?

I don't think many people will theater hop, skipping the last half of a movie to see something else. I guess I'm not seeing the issue. Maybe there will be lines for the bathrooms that take a while to get through and that could delay things.

Long American and British movies used to have intermissions. And we've heard in this thread that all movies in India have intermissions. It's doable.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by mar3o

[Show spoiler]Seriously? This argument again? I've had this argument before in other threads and it baffles me.

Are you aware that different people suffer from different conditions, and sometimes holding it in for 3+ hours IS NOT AN OPTION? Even just getting older often means more rest room trips. I took my grandfather to see this in the theatre because he loved history.

There are lots of conditions that result in having to go to the bathroom more frequently. Diabetes for one, which is one of the most common conditions in the US. You can have diabetes and not be overweight by the way. And drinking lots of drinks beforehand has nothing to do with it. Lots of other conditions also mean more bathroom breaks. That doesn't mean they can't get out and have a life. Just that 3 1/2 hours in a seat is a long time to stretch it. It just leads to discomfort.

No matter what you do, you will never please or accommodate everyone, regardless of how heartbreaking the plight. 3D, surround sound, smell-o-vision, HFR, HDR... they all exclude someone. (I have a vision-impaired friend who cannot watch any large-format or even modestly-sized "normal" screen without getting motion sickness) This road leads to pain and suffering. Turn back while you still can and just let the movie get made and presented as intended.

Originally Posted by starmike

[Show spoiler]OK, so what's the solution? Intermissions are a thing of the past in the US. In this day and age you can determine exactly how long a movie is before you go see it. If someone has a condition they're aware of, there's nothing that can be done to make everyone happy.

Sounds like this would be a perfect opportunity for some kind of subreddit for people that need to know when the best time to get up during a movie is, unless they feel they need to go to the first day's showing.

One of the little tidbits I've picked up on my interweb journeys: https://runpee.com/

Originally Posted by apricissimus

A good solution would be to have an intermission for long movies (maybe over 2.5 hours?).

[Show spoiler]

Would it really ruin the experience for you? Would it ruin it enough for you that you'd want others with conditions that you don't have to be uncomfortable?

I'm personally in favor of doing a little extra to make things more accessible for a larger number of people.

You cannot blanket-insert this on everything. It needs to be planned as part of the production and not added after the movie is completed... Have an overture, create an event in the intermission, but don't just force it because the movie hit X length.

[apricissimus]

Originally Posted by sojrner

You cannot blanket-insert this on everything. It needs to be planned as part of the production and not added after the movie is completed... Have an overture, create an event in the intermission, but don't just force it because the movie hit X length.

Why not? I pause movies at home all the time. Find a good scene/act break; insert intermission. Boom. Done.

[escvnte]

I think an intermission would work best with Horror movies, specially if they contain a lot of gore right from the start, which might be "too much", for some, to stomach.

When I saw SAW III in theaters (and by that point I already saw most Horror movies, including the first 2 SAW movies), I couldn't stand watching the very first 15 minutes of gore-madness, without looking away when things got "rough".
Some people even walked out from the theater, right after Troy's game.
And this was the R-Rated version, not the Director's Cut which contain A LOT more of gore frames.

So, yeah.
I think an intermission of some sort would work best with Horror/Slasher movies than anything else.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Really? I saw the '4K 3D' remaster in February and several bits looked weirdly smooth to me.

Even if no 2K48 DCPs went out to theaters, Titanic *did* get a HFR upgrade nonetheless: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301588450.html

Yup, I went to a 4K IMAX (2D) screening back in February and there was def some of that HFR bullshit going on in several places.

[cuzzin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Really? I saw the '4K 3D' remaster in February and several bits looked weirdly smooth to me.

Even if no 2K48 DCPs went out to theaters, Titanic *did* get a HFR upgrade nonetheless: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301588450.html

I can't seem to find any hard evidence one way or the other right now, but this reddit thread has some useful bits of information.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

I can't seem to find any hard evidence one way or the other right now, but this reddit thread has some useful bits of information.

I don't know what happened with Regal, but I saw it in IMAX at a Marcus theater and there was absolutely some HFR "enhancement." A really obvious example was the shot of Jack and Fabrizio running through the crowd towards the Titanic; they looked like they were moving at 24fps, but the camera movement was at 48fps. It was a really weird effect, which is why I remember it so distinctly.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

I can't seem to find any hard evidence one way or the other right now, but this reddit thread has some useful bits of information.

If it got dumped across the board then fair enough, though that could've just been for the US, or maybe just certain chains?

Even so, there's a reason why video-shot stuff still looks like video in 24p, if they'd done a quick 24fps downconvert of the 48fps rejigged version it might still carry some vestige of that smoother processing.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

Long American and British movies used to have intermissions. And we've heard in this thread that all movies in India have intermissions. It's doable.

Problem is the megaplexes with multiple theaters.

Cinemas used to be one giant screen. There wasn't anything to hop to.

[Geoff D]

I saw Titanic with an intermission...but that's because it was the 2012 IMAX print and the movie is too long to fit on the 15/70 platters (at 194 minutes it still is AFAIK).

[Modren]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I saw Titanic with an intermission...but that's because it was the 2012 IMAX print and the movie is too long to fit on the 15/70 platters (at 194 minutes it still is AFAIK).

Yeah, I think the new limit is 180 minutes with Oppenheimer and that required modifying the platters to accommodate the film.

Honestly, I do think long movies could benefit from an intermission. But they could also benefit from not having a half hour of trailers and commercials before they start, and obviously that won't change anytime soon

[starmike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3KcL-1Te6g

[cybersoga]

Titanic UHD blu-ray arrived today, had a quick scan through it comparing it with the old blu-ray.
I think it looks better and the sharpening artefacts are barely noticeable. I look forward to watching it properly soon.

[happydood]

This will be my guinea pig since I don't have either of the Avatar 4k's. Had a credit and my curiosity is getting the better of me. From what I've seen I'm going to stick with my blu-ray of Aliens. There's a part of me that thinks I've lived without True Lies and The Abyss for so long, I'm not sure I'm gonna bother if they're as bad as folks are saying.