Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[MR THX]

Iam still unsure which version is the best, Paramount US or Disney UK.
Can anyone shed any light on this?

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by MR THX

Iam still unsure which version is the best, Paramount US or Disney UK.
Can anyone shed any light on this?

Right now, the Disney disc has one audio that works (the inferior one though).

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Harryhausen AF

The Blu is sharpened and none of the grain is natural it's just that it wasn't done as badly as it was on this new 4K transfer.

True, given what Cameron had said back then. But since the artificial enhancement and the sharpening was not as egregious as the UHD, it looked "filmic" enough. The digital noise on the 2012 Blu-ray is not floating above the image like it does on the UHD, or at least that's how it appeared to me on the 50" TV. On my 24" monitor, the UHD looks fine.

The lower resolution of the 2012 Blu-ray also helps soften the image, and film in its native state looks softer and less harsher than digital video.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

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.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It seems that for me at least, the best experience of the UHD is on my 24" monitor. Here I can easily tweak the image attributes to my liking and it looks gorgeous on the smaller screen; more refined than the crude presentation on the bigger TV.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

For me: Looks great on my 24" monitor. Looked poor on 50" LCD TV.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I does look quite harsh and unnatural on the 50" LCD TV where I saw it last night, but on my 24" calibrated monitor (see screenshots), it looks gorgeous to me, not as harsh or unnatural.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It looked pretty processed and noisy on the 50" LCD HDR TV I saw the copy in, last night. I agree with more or less everything you said. ...However, it looks really, really good on my 24" calibrated monitor. I think the smaller screen hides those excessive processing artefacts rather well.

So, maybe it's safe to say that if the intention of this 4K disc was to make it look great on big TVs, it did not succeed in that regard (in my limited experience), but on smaller displays like 24" monitors, it looks GORGEOUS!

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The digital noise on the 2012 Blu-ray is not floating above the image like it does on the UHD, or at least that's how it appeared to me on the 50" TV. On my 24" monitor, the UHD looks fine.

OK, that's fine, but does it have a blanket of teal?

[INdetectableMAN]

Bluray is definitely a much more representative experience of the original elements of the film than is 4K/UHD, which is an experiment with a worrying degree of artificiality.

The problem here is that Cameron denies Titanic 1997. This is obvious, so he will apply to his films everything that the most avant-garde technology in digital image manipulation allows, and on the other hand he is giving the public what they demand, which is cleaner, sharper and more detailed images. Pristine images lush with detail and definition. And if he could manipulate more Titanic, the more he would manipulate it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

OK, that's fine, but does it have a blanket of teal?

Thanks for keeping track of my posts here. My perceptions have changed based on the display. As I said, it looks great on my colour accurate 24" monitor. But, on the 50" LCD TV, it looks very harsh and unnatural. I don't have an OLED or a projector. The sharpness and digital noise is amplified on the bigger TV and detracts from the visual experience. The colour is mighty fine. Much more balanced tonally than the 2012 grading. I did not notice any teal blanket. The blues look blue this time. This is the best the colour has looked and I suspect, its the closest to the projected 35mm/70mm prints. Then again, I always tweak the contrast, brightness, colour and gamma to my liking.

Originally Posted by INdetectableMAN

Bluray is definitely a much more representative experience of the original elements of the film than is 4K/UHD, which is an experiment with a worrying degree of artificiality.

The problem here is that Cameron denies Titanic 1997. This is obvious, so he will apply to his films everything that the most avant-garde technology in digital image manipulation allows, and on the other hand he is giving the public what they demand, which is cleaner, sharper and more detailed images. Pristine images lush with detail and definition. And if he could manipulate more Titanic, the more he would manipulate it.

The Blu-ray is very good, but it does have a blanket yellow grading, which leads to loss of colour separation, to some extent. Yet, it's still mostly faithful to the theatrical look. Texturally, it's closer to the theatrical prints owing to the softness in the picture, yes. The 4K UHD looks impressive in terms of sheer details visible, but the downside is the harsh/sharp look. It looks more like 8K than 4K. So, if 8K video becomes a home standard in the near future, I suspect Cameron will once again manipulate the image to make it look "better" for that resolution. What happens then is anyone's guess. A well-shot Super 35mm negative might yield about an equivalent of 6K digital resolution, I read somewhere. But even at 4K, Titanic seems to have reached its peak clarity. And it's not necessarily a good thing, neither an altogether dud, I feel.

[d3nt0n]

Originally Posted by starmike

I just had a thought - is this degraining and such the modern version of B&W colorization?

Even back in the day you could turn the color all the down and fix that. Once you destroy fine detail like this there's no way to get it back.

[Harryhausen AF]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

True, given what Cameron had said back then. But since the artificial enhancement and the sharpening was not as egregious as the UHD, it looked "filmic" enough. The digital noise on the 2012 Blu-ray is not floating above the image like it does on the UHD, or at least that's how it appeared to me on the 50" TV. On my 24" monitor, the UHD looks fine.

The lower resolution of the 2012 Blu-ray also helps soften the image, and film in its native state looks softer and less harsher than digital video.

As you said tho the Blu suffers from a blanket tint. This movie needs a preservation.

[Modren]

A transfer having non-ideal color grading doesn't need a movie needs "preservation."

[Riddhi2011]

The UHD has improved colour grading. A preservation means going back to the 1997 cut of the film with all the goofs like studio lighting equipment, wrong smokestacks, etc., left untouched. I am not sure Cameron would ever do or allow that. Those corrections are here to stay. The ideal situation would be if Cameron also gives us the unaltered 1997 theatrical cut as an extra, but whether he will, I cannot tell. The original negative is already preserved. Nothing is altered in that one.

By the way, which region apart from UK sells the Titanic UHD with the Fox logo instead of the Paramount one? The UK UHD has too many film certification logos on top of the artwork and the discs, which I don't like.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

By the way, which region apart from UK sells the Titanic UHD with the Fox logo instead of the Paramount one? The UK UHD has too many film certification logos on top of the artwork and the discs, which I don't like.

Every release outside of North America. Take into consideration that it's the new 20th Century intro.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Farerb

Every release outside of North America. Take into consideration that it's the new 20th Century intro.

I know. I grew up seeing/hearing the 20th century Fox logo before Titanic. The movie was broadcast in India on Star Movies cable channel, every year, on December 25 or December 31 night, for many decades. So, that fanfare alone is enough to create the familiarity I want, regardless of whether it's a new logo.

[blakninja]

So they kept the original Paramount logo (it was redone for the 2012 version) but redid the Fox logo (20th Studio) instead of keeping the original 20th Fox logo? Strange.

I never noticed any goof, so for me, a preservation of the 1997 version would be great if it can exist (but it won't).

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The ideal situation would be if Cameron also gives us the unaltered 1997 theatrical cut as an extra

As a non-anamorphic DVD based on the Laserdisc edition

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by blakninja

So they kept the original Paramount logo (it was redone for the 2012 version) but redid the Fox logo (20th Studio) instead of keeping the original 20th Fox logo? Strange.

I never noticed any goof, so for me, a preservation of the 1997 version would be great if it can exist (but it won't).

The 1997 cut, with all the goofs, exists on the excellent 2005 DVD and unofficially, on the HDTV version and the 35mm scan. Only the smokestack, missing the black paint on the top is noticeable.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

As a non-anamorphic DVD based on the Laserdisc edition

I got that reference.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

As a non-anamorphic DVD based on the Laserdisc edition

Oh now I get it! You were referencing the Star Wars theatrical cut situation, which only exist as non-anamorphic DVDs.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by Harryhausen AF

As you said tho the Blu suffers from a blanket tint. This movie needs a preservation.

There is a tint? Please, explain further.
Also, are the blankets warm?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Oh now I get it! You were referencing the Star Wars theatrical cut situation, which only exist as non-anamorphic DVDs.

More like they used a LD master. Paramount for a time went back from 16x9 enhanced (anamorphic) DVDs to letterboxed 4x3 discs until about late-1998 or so. The first Titanic DVD fell into that period before they went back to 16x9.

[Riddhi2011]

The trouser straps on Jack's shoulders disappear in two shots and then return again.

Titanic UHD Jack strap goes missing.jpg