Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by jrod8

I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm absolutely SHOCKED at the 5-star rating from the reviewer on this. Half the time I wondered if I was somehow watching an upscaled DVD the sharpening and filtering is so distracting. How can Cameron be such an incredible technologist with one groundbreaking use of VFX after another, and somehow totally botch one transfer after another? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt with T2 (potentially great transfer ruined by excessive DNR which one *could* argue was for the 3D transfer and then that's the one that ended up on disc) but it's impossible to overlook the fact that he seems to have forgotten what FILM looks like after all the time he's been spending in digital land.

Pick any shot at random, and actors' hair looks so processed, their faces go from smooth to natural to sharpened. Did Cameron watch and tweak this on an ipad or something? This is the biggest disappointment since the trash that Jackson and WB called a 4K transfer of LOTR. I doubt I'll ever watch this 4K disc again, sticking with the Blu-ray which I don't remember having these issues. Reminds me of the early 4K release of Gladiator, but at least they had the sense to reissue that one. For a film like this with literally no excuse to look like a 20 year old video master, 2.5 star video at best. A complete and utter shame to allow this to be the release of a movie this huge.

At least we can all be happy it doesn't have the random HFR transitions like it did in its brief re-release before Avatar 2 came out.

It feels like the industry is supposed to press this one honestly. The price is pretty big for a Universal disc, and I bet you they have some marketing money out there too.

And obviously some people just literally don't care. I'm honestly super disappointed they messed with this disc. I have no issues going back to redo FX and maintaining consistent grain with very low DNR, but this is just too much, and I seriously fear for the other releases at this point in time.

[happydood]

Weeeeeeeeell.... I took a look. I was ready to hate it and was expecting a processed mess, but it looked super-impressive to my eyes. I agree it doesn't look like a film shot in 1997. This is something else. I absolutely get why purists are balking, but I've kinda considered 4k discs in general to not really replicate the theatrical experience but to be a new experience altogether with some being more faithful to the theatrical presentation than others and this disc is a case in point. When people say it looks like it was shot yesterday, I can absolutely agree with that. I know that's anathema to many folks here, but I think I'm going to send the old blu-ray on its way to someone else as the richness of this image has totally spoiled me.

I'm considering picking up Avatar and the 2nd one since I don't have them yet, but I'm pretty hesitant in regards to the other titles coming...

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

This is very surprising, but welcome, considering Jim's conservative approach to HDR.

From MediaInfo:

Maximum Content Light Level : 283 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 196 cd/m2

Still conservative but typical of JC movies on 4K till date but APL is high which gives the impression as if HDR is juiced up which is not.

I remember reading a post where one claimed Avatar WoTW looked exceptionally bright on his ultra bright LCD and was bragging how OLEDs couldn't reproduce such brightness when it peaks at under 300 nits and has a median brightness of around 200 nits lol.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by happydood

I agree it doesn't look like a film shot in 1997. This is something else.

If I'm being honest the Blu-ray doesn't exactly look like a film shot in 1997 either. It's more film-like than the 4K because of more pronounced grain, but when I was comparing it with the 4K, it struck me how sharp and detailed some of the shots are. Some of them, which are EXTRA sharp on the 4K, were already verrry impressive on the BD. It's a stunning quality for both 1997 film AND 1080p presentation.

[Pagey123]

I had the exact same thought, Mierzwiak. I went back and watched my BD yesterday to see how different they were...and I was also shocked at how sharp and detailed the 2012 BD was/is. They're both stunning images, but I would have suffered from failed/incorrect memory if you had asked me if the BD was way, way more film like.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

I guess some people are going to be more sensitive to the AI sharpening than others. When I first watched my copy, I thought the transfer was really stunning (and still do to some extent). I did feel like it looked a little oversharpened and the contrast felt a little unnatural at times but overall, it was the best I've ever seen it look or sound.

It was after the fact that I found out there was a 35mm rip floating around and that Cameron used AI for the UHD restoration. Comparing the two side by side, now I can't unsee the AI and it annoys me. It absolutely looks like taking a pic or a video and throwing it in an AI upscaler.

Thankfully, it does feel like the AI was set to "low" and the effect is fairly minimal. Do I wish that they would have simply left it alone and had it mirror the 35mm as closely as possible? Yep. Is it a crime against humanity? No.

I think if you have an extra critical eye for these things, it will probably bug you but if you are just simply a fan of the movie, you'll be happy with how nice it looks overall. Despite the AI tampering, it doesnt loook like True Lies (which feels like AI is set to max) and I could never see myself going back to the Blu-ray version.

That's the key here and I agree - I can't see myself ever watching the blu-ray again. I'll certainly watch the 3D version, and the extended fanedit if I'm in the mood for the full extended version, but for the 2D theatrical, the UHD will be my choice going forward.

[Matt89]

I held onto my BD for some of the missing extras, plus I wanted to have a 1080p copy of the movie (thanks Paramount for not making this a 3-disc set like overseas lol) and maybe I'll be crucified for this but...

I'm not hating how this looks in 4K. Like I don't think I can go back to the BD after watching it in UHD.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by INdetectableMAN

The first image shows what crazy AI can do to emphasize facial features in a close-up.

At this point I don't know how you're seeing it, but it seems quite unnatural to me. I've also seen the 4K/UHD web streaming version, and I haven't experienced potentially major differences.

I don't see how the first image looks AI enhanced. Sure, it could be and probably is, but it looks pretty natural in my 24" calibrated monitor.

However, here's something interesting that happened today. I checked the movie on a 50" 4K Redmi LCD TV. There it looked quite harsh. It did look artificially sharpened on that screen a lot more than on my monitor. Filmmaker mode was not available. Despite the details, it felt like I was watching something that is about 1080p, blown up to 4K. The grain on that TV looked like video noise, unlike how it looked in my calibrated monitor. The TV wasn't calibrated.

I think the disc looks different on different displays. These movies are colour graded on OLED displays, or so I read. If so, it might appear inferior on LCD or other inferior tech displays that are made with cheaper technology.

On my monitor it looks glorious though. Even the pics I've seen of the disc being projected look very good. Maybe my friend's TV was not a good system. Maybe it looks better on calibrated OLED TVs than on LCD TVs.

[The_Iceflash]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

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

I think this is a generational issue. The cinema and motion pictures in general mimicked the stage. Plays and musicals had intermissions in place long before the motion picture existed. They weren’t just thrown in there. The plays and musicals were crafted to include them. Just stopping and throwing an intermission card wherever in a film throws off the intended flow of the film. I would prefer a producer making a longer film to design their film to have it placed into it rather than put it in after the fact.

[Riddhi2011]

Another print scratch visible at the time when Murdoch sees the water tight doors have all closed and says "Note the time. Enter it into the log."

[Show spoiler]Titanic Log the time 4K UHD scratch.jpg

[Pieter V]

https://blu-ray-rezensionen.net/titanic-4k-uhd/

With sliders.

[Scott in UK]

In regards to intermissions, I dunno what people are on about with saying it should be part of the film instead of the film just being stopped at some point during it. And with lots of people all going to the bathroom at once, welI I dunno about other countrys, but certainly in my experience in the UK, it could be said that a break in the film wasn't so much done because of a bathroom break, it was done as an opportunity to get more snacks. As in a member of staff appeared down by the screen with snacks, for people to then walk down to the screen to get something. So also in that respect people didn't even have to leave the room.

Even though of course you could I suppose use the intermission as an opportunity to use the bathroom, it doesn't really make sence to think that's what an intermission was for, from the fact of that unless it was a cinema you was familiar with, you're not gonna even know if they are gonna have an intermission. Because not all cinemas did. Hence why people just get up to go to the bathroom whenever during a film.

[starmike]

Who spends 3x as much on theater snacks anyway? THAT baffles me.

[happydood]

People trying to keep theaters around as a thing, I reckon.

[dcx4610]

I like the idea of intermission during a long movie in theaters. The idea is to get up, use the restroom, refresh yourself and even talk among yourselves about what has happened so far. It's an interesting idea. At home, obviously you can just pause it so I don't think the need is there.

All of that said, the last movie I watched with an intermission was the 70mm screening of the Hateful Eight. What did people do during intermission? Bathroom and pulling out their phones.

Someone even went to the front of the room to take a picture because of how abdsurd it was of a room full of people in a sold out movie theater, all with their heads down looking at their phones.

[NJScorpio]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

I like the idea of intermission during a long movie in theaters. The idea is to get up, use the restroom, refresh yourself and even talk among yourselves about what has happened so far. It's an interesting idea. At home, obviously you can just pause it so I don't think the need is there.

All of that said, the last movie I watched with an intermission was the 70mm screening of the Hateful Eight. What did people do during intermission? Bathroom and pulling out their phones.

Someone even went to the front of the room to take a picture because of how abdsurd it was of a room full of people in a sold out movie theater, all with their heads down looking at their phones.

I know when a movie lets out, there is a run of folks going to the restrooms. I would imagine everyone taking a bathroom break at the same time, in the middle of a screening, could create lines.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by NJScorpio

I know when a movie lets out, there is a run of folks going to the restrooms. I would imagine everyone taking a bathroom break at the same time, in the middle of a screening, could create lines.

I think that all movie theatre seats should be functional commodes so that patrons never have to miss a minute of screen time if nature calls.

[NJScorpio]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I think that all movie theatre seats should be functional commodes so that patrons never have to miss a minute of screen time if nature calls.

My mind went to that silent scene in The Rise of Skywalker, and just hearing "plop".

[Riddhi2011]

Film archivist Robert Harris says that Titanic UHD does not have film grain left. It's just digital noise put above the artificially cleaned image to make it seem like grain is present. I find this quite baffling to be honest. This has soured my previous positive experience of the UHD on my monitor. Why would they add digital noise to simulate grain when they could have added actual film grain scans on the image? Does Cameron/Park Road Post not know the difference between film grain and digital noise or did they just take the cheap route out?

I now realise why it looks good on my 24" monitor but noisy on the 50" TV. Because digital noise looks bad, the bigger your screens are, unlike real film grain.

[yetanotherone]

You can't sharpen the image to the degree they did without removing the grain or you would get super sharp grain (and not even grain lovers would like that).