Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Geoff D]

Working Girl looks amazing, yep. But again, don't discount how much work would've gone into inspecting the element, scanning, conform, clean up (dirt/scratch removal, plus image stabilisation) and grading. It didn't need emulsional rescue but nor did it take them a day to do it, you know?

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I was absolutely floored when I bought Fox's BD of Working Girl, to give another example. It was clearly a new 4K scan of the negative. That's another minor catalog title like Green Card where there's no way they did some expensive and time-consuming digital work, and there's no way they needed to. They'd have just pulled the negative, scanned it, and done some fairly basic color timing and dirt cleanups, right?

You have totally false idea about negatives being PERFECT and them just doing scan, basic (what?) color timing and voila.

Watch this video from 16:10:

Astérix & Obélix : Mission Cléopâtre The Restoration - YouTube

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Working Girl looks amazing, yep. But again, don't discount how much work would've gone into inspecting the element, scanning, conform, clean up (dirt/scratch removal, plus image stabilisation) and grading. It didn't need emulsional rescue but nor did it take them a day to do it, you know?

Gotcha, I only meant to bring it back to the original discussion about whether studios might start just upscaling old masters because creating new ones is too expensive and time-consuming.

It seems unlikely that studios will abandon properly scanning their catalog at 4K any time soon, and I suspect far, far, far more titles have been scanned and remastered at 4K than we even know about.

I'll bet Disney is sitting on an absolute TON of finished Fox titles, for example. Soderbergh said in an interview that he oversaw the 4K HDR remaster of Solaris, just before Fox went under, and if they remastered a financial disaster like that, I can only imagine how many titles they did first.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

@James Luckard

You have totally false idea about negatives being PERFECT and them just doing scan, basic (what?) color timing and voila.

Watch this video from 16:10:

Astérix & Obélix : Mission Cléopâtre The Restoration - YouTube

I watched the portion of the video. That's a film that was finished in the unfortunate era of the 2K DI, so it had no finished cut 35mm negative.

Because it's such a major European title, they chose to entirely recreate the film from scratch, from the original raw film material, like The Pianist. That's a true restoration, and I appreciate the effort involved in such an effort, but it's hugely rare.

Films from that era are in an awful bind. The vast majority will either have the 2K DI upscaled, or have the 35mm filmout scanned at 4K. A tiny few will have money and time lavished on them and be rebuilt entirely, like this one.

I've been talking about films that had a finished 35mm cut negative, however.

[Mierzwiak]

So ignore the fact that Asterix... didn't have the conformed negative and focus on all the work that still need to be performed.

It's not as quick and easy as you think and - that was my main problem with your earlier post - scanning costs have nothing to do with it.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

So ignore the fact that Asterix... didn't have the conformed negative and focus on all the work that still need to be performed.

It's not as quick and easy as you think and - that was my main problem with your earlier post - scanning costs have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but, aside from a brief section about cleaning the film, most of the work in the portion of the video you mentioned, starting at 16:10 and titled "Restoration," had to be done precisely because there was no conformed negative.

Most of what they talk about in the video is hugely expensive, time-consuming work, done on a flagship blockbuster title that had to be rebuilt from scratch.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Working Girl looks amazing, yep. But again, don't discount how much work would've gone into inspecting the element, scanning, conform, clean up (dirt/scratch removal, plus image stabilisation) and grading. It didn't need emulsional rescue but nor did it take them a day to do it, you know?

In your experience, can you tell us a little about how much actually goes into remastering a run-of-the-mill, un-extraordinary studio catalog title with a well-maintained conformed negative, like Working Girl or Green Card?

It can't possibly be as involved and expensive a process as restoring Lawrence, or overhauling Titanic, or rebuilding a 2K DI film like Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, right?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

In your experience, can you tell us a little about how much actually goes into remastering a run-of-the-mill, un-extraordinary studio catalog title with a well-maintained conformed negative, like Working Girl or Green Card?

It can't possibly be as involved and expensive a process as restoring Lawrence, or overhauling Titanic, or rebuilding a 2K DI film like Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, right?

No it doesn't. But without wanting to sound too flippant (because I like you) it doesn't magically appear in finished form when they just scan the negative. Plenty of work is still involved, as mentioned in the quoted post, and using the same suites of digital tools used to restore much more troubled shows.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No it doesn't. But without wanting to sound too flippant (because I like you) it doesn't magically appear in finished form when they just scan the negative. Plenty of work is still involved, as mentioned in the quoted post, and using the same suites of digital tools used to restore much more troubled shows.

I apologize if it came across like I was suggesting that a new master involves just quickly running a negative through a scanner, or anything like that. I didn't mean to denigrate the work you and others do.

I was only curious because the sheer number of minor catalog titles that have already been remastered in 4K makes me think it's not an impossibly expensive, burdensome task for each individual title.

Are the studios basically at the point where it's financially feasible to just have huge portions of their back catalog remastered in 4K, so they'll have those masters on hand for eventual streaming/digital use and possible release on disc to collectors like us? That's what it seems like.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think you're putting two and two together and getting five. What does shooting/printing on film have to do with scanning dying out or becoming obsolete? And since when did it become a "limited activity" anyway? Yes, the need for DI film scanning came and went years ago as digital cameras took over. But there are still beaucoup scanners out there like the Imagicas used by IMAX, the ARRISCAN, the Northlight series, Scanity, LaserGraphics, GoldenEye and more. As James said, where do you think all these new transfers from studios and indies alike keep coming from?

Film scanning for transfer/archival purposes has been around for decades and will be a thing for as long as film exists, and I mean film in the sense of the format itself, all those billions of feet of film sitting in vaults and salt mines all over the world. Even if no one shot another frame of film ever again that would not affect the demand to have existing content transferred anew, simply because those still shooting film are not drivers of that scanning market and have not been for many years. Even our filmic lord and saviour Nolan hates scanning his negatives. Hates it.

What Cameron has done might seem scary but hey, it's Cameron: he will march to the beat of his own drum and no one else's, if he wants to uprez old (but good) transfers of his own work that's up to him, but any sane filmmaker/studio/label will continue to return to as high a generational source as possible to create a new transfer from. And even in Cameron's case he basically sees these existing transfers as being archival versions of his work even if they were only done at 2K (Titanic was done in 4K at the time), and as he doesn't give a hoot about HDR he doesn't need any more dynamic range which a new scan would provide. But at the same time we're not talking about him grabbing some old-ass telecine off the shelf and uprezzing that (though some have tried, turbine in Germany have done several such 'remasters').

I was talking about the possibility of advancements in AI giving the excuse to producers to just use older masters to upres movies and call it a day. AI will learn rapidly and might be able to create fake 4K detail from HD telecine masters that the average streaming viewer won't notice or care, as long as they appear sharp and clear to them. It's only the pixel peepers in these forums who will notice and complain and that won't be enough to sway the decisions taken by such producers willing to take a shortcut. That's the fear.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Everything that involves computers becomes cheaper as time passes. I'm no expert in the field, and I'd love it if someone who works in film scanning for the studios could chime in, but it seems reasonable that the costs involved will only go down.

But scanning negatives involves precision handling and expertise. It's not automated. Somebody has to handle the negative, inspect it, feed it into the scanner, etc.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by mar3o

But scanning negatives involves precision handling and expertise. It's not automated. Somebody has to handle the negative, inspect it, feed it into the scanner, etc.

That's exactly what I was saying.

It's soooo annoying when people talk about AI and computers as if they were androids or something who can do everything by themselves.

[LordoftheRings]

In the future can we expect a Titanic remastered 3D version? ...With AI improvement, and Atomas sound.

Too expensive compared to Avatar remastered 3D?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I was talking about the possibility of advancements in AI giving the excuse to producers to just use older masters to upres movies and call it a day. AI will learn rapidly and might be able to create fake 4K detail from HD telecine masters that the average streaming viewer won't notice or care, as long as they appear sharp and clear to them. It's only the pixel peepers in these forums who will notice and complain and that won't be enough to sway the decisions taken by such producers willing to take a shortcut. That's the fear.

Inevitable and lots of repetitive jobs will be gone followed by anarchy on the streets.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Inevitable and lots of repetitive jobs will be gone followed by anarchy on the streets.

It'll improve with man's evolution overtime, and the world population will adapt.
Without chaos there's no order.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I apologize if it came across like I was suggesting that a new master involves just quickly running a negative through a scanner, or anything like that. I didn't mean to denigrate the work you and others do.

I was only curious because the sheer number of minor catalog titles that have already been remastered in 4K makes me think it's not an impossibly expensive, burdensome task for each individual title.

Are the studios basically at the point where it's financially feasible to just have huge portions of their back catalog remastered in 4K, so they'll have those masters on hand for eventual streaming/digital use and possible release on disc to collectors like us? That's what it seems like.

No offence taken. I'd say it's more that the process has become more democratised as studios and labels have realised that there's gold (or rather silver ) in them thar cans. There are loads of post houses that can do this sort of work and some studios have their own facilities like Warners MPI, and costs have remained steady as competition for work increases, though HDR has brought more expense simply because you have to do multiple passes to create the various deliverables. And its not just 4K that studios have stockpiled as there are plenty of movies never released on Blu that have HD masters being used on streaming, broadcast, whatever.

It's still plenty of work, work done by humans at that, it's just not a lot of drama like you get with the big flagship shows of yestermillennium that were twin victims of the technology of the time and their own success (Lawrence's neg having been run something like >200 times according to RAH).

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No offence taken. I'd say it's more that the process has become more democratised as studios and labels have realised that there's gold (or rather silver ) in them thar cans. There are loads of post houses that can do this sort of work and some studios have their own facilities like Warners MPI, and costs have remained steady as competition for work increases, though HDR has brought more expense simply because you have to do multiple passes to create the various deliverables. And its not just 4K that studios have stockpiled as there are plenty of movies never released on Blu that have HD masters being used on streaming, broadcast, whatever.

It's still plenty of work, work done by humans at that, it's just not a lot of drama like you get with the big flagship shows of yestermillennium that were twin victims of the technology of the time and their own success (Lawrence's neg having been run something like >200 times according to RAH).

Excellent summary of things, thanks!!

It seems like we reached a point where pretty much every modern studio title has an HD master online, even if some never made it to disc (Swing Kids, Sabrina 1995, etc.)

Do you think we'll reach a point where the cost of both the work-hours/staff-hours (I'm not sure which is the preferred replacement for the old term man-hours) and the tech needed to do a 4K master will make it reasonable for the studios to similarly have 4K masters of the vast majorities of their catalogs?

It's interesting that the HDR element of things requires so much additional work. I kind of knew that, but didn't fully understand it.

[tankryankr19]

Oppenheimer, which is 14 minutes less than Titanic, has a much higher bitrate and expanding aspect ratios (61.41Mbps vs 49.80Mbps). Yikes Paramount

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

It'll improve with man's evolution overtime, and the world population will adapt.
Without chaos there's no order.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by tankryankr19

Oppenheimer, which is 14 minutes less than Titanic, has a much higher bitrate and expanding aspect ratios (61.41Mbps vs 49.80Mbps). Yikes Paramount

Oppenheimer's combined audio track bitrates: 5871 kbp/s

Titanic's audio track bitrates (Disnee UHD): 11776 kbp/s

Double the bitrate for audio means it takes up a chunk more space that could've been used for the video. But wait - the Paramount UHD version only has a few extra tracks, right? Yes Timmy, but as Disnee apparently did the UHD authoring themselves they ported over the video encode 'as is' and just changed out the Fox logo. But given how Paramount's authoring quality seems to depend on the flip of a coin, having Disnee's compression consistency in there is no bad thing.

Speaking of, is there a particular place on the Titanic UHD where you felt it really needed moar bits? Like where the compression visibly suffers? Just saying Oppenheimer looks betterer is irrelevant IMO because of its exclusive large format acquisition, it could have half the bitrate and still look subjectively "betterer" than the 35mm capture of Titanic.