Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[Riddhi2011]

Titanic's 4K UHD framing is different than the projected 35mm print. The 35mm is framed higher and has slightly more image at the sides, compared to the UHD, which is framed lower and has a sliver extra line at the bottom, but less image at the sides.

UHD (left) vs 35mm (right) -



35mm source - https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/com...a_cinema_last/

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Titanic's 4K UHD framing is different than a projected 35mm print.

Projectors have several variables. As far as aspect ration there are two important ones:

Framing knob
Aspect ratio aperture plate

If either are wrong, you'll get what's shown here.

Did anyone ask the projectionist what aperture plate they used? Did they check the framing with the framing tests at the beginning of reel 1? If not, this is just a fluke or the projectionist didn't know what they were doing.

Sometimes distributors and/or studios give instructions to the projectionist. Were they followed?

[KcMsterpce]

When it comes to the 'more purest of pure aspect ratio' arguments - and trying to justify 6 pixels higher in the same frame to another frame that is six pixels to the LEFT of their so-called "reference" frame is quite tedious, and pointless.
If you go to any theater - especially in the 90s and before - and watched the same movie, doing a framing comparison and analysis - you will likely notice very quickly that no single framing is completely correct.
If you watched it in 50 different theaters, and you paid attention, you'd probably realize that there would be at least a dozen different "reference framing" options available to post about on a website forum 30+ years later to prove a point.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

When it comes to the 'more purest of pure aspect ratio' arguments - and trying to justify 6 pixels higher in the same frame to another frame that is six pixels to the LEFT of their so-called "reference" frame is quite tedious, and pointless.
If you go to any theater - especially in the 90s and before - and watched the same movie, doing a framing comparison and analysis - you will likely notice very quickly that no single framing is completely correct.
If you watched it in 50 different theaters, and you paid attention, you'd probably realize that there would be at least a dozen different "reference framing" options available to post about on a website forum 30+ years later to prove a point.

At our theater, we had SEVERAL aperture plates for the same aspect ratio. Nobody sat there with a ruler checking how accurate each one was.

Case in point - one thing I check for on The Empire Strikes Back is when Chewie is choking Lando and Leia says "What?" because her chin is NEVER, EVER in the same framing twice. It's just a fun thing I do. it doesn't mean anything, and I don't care either way, but it's fun to play "where will Carrie's chin be in this release?".

Point is - framing changes from release to release. If it's. few pixels here or there, who cares?

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by starmike

... one thing I check for on The Empire Strikes Back is when Chewie is choking Lando and Leia says "What?" because her chin is NEVER, EVER in the same framing twice. It's just a fun thing I do. it doesn't mean anything, and I don't care either way [blah blah doesn't matter what comes next because my spine tingled with a strange sensation of deja vu or 'that's freaky shit' or whatever vibes]...

Wow, you freaked me out a bit.
I have watched that shot and its framing so many times, and I noticed that her chin was maybe in frame, then NOT in frame, and so on... for years and years. It's like a bouncing ball of "is it gonna land this time, or float above it for a moment?" event when I see that one second.
What is weird, though, is that there are only about four other reference points for blocking and framing that make me go "Is that... different?" that I look at specifically from one release of a movie to another.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Wow, you freaked me out a bit.

My work here is done

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Projectors have several variables. As far as aspect ration there are two important ones:

Framing knob
Aspect ratio aperture plate

If either are wrong, you'll get what's shown here.

Did anyone ask the projectionist what aperture plate they used? Did they check the framing with the framing tests at the beginning of reel 1? If not, this is just a fluke or the projectionist didn't know what they were doing.

Sometimes distributors and/or studios give instructions to the projectionist. Were they followed?

I thought that since this is an anamorphic scope print, there would be very little room (unlike a 4-perf spherical print) to push the aperture plate up or down. The print is already in a 2.35:1-ish ratio. Pushing the frame up or down would reveal the upper or lower part of the previous or following frame. And yet, no such error appears here. I know that the edge vignetting would get masked off and so will a bit from the top and bottom because the projection aperture shows less image at the edges compared to what's on the print. But, unlike a flat print, there's very little to none extra image area to reframe during projection. Hence, I felt anamorphic prints would look about the same everywhere.

Also, while the height might get re-adjusted how is the width going to vary. Aren't all scope aperture plates built with the same standards? There's a certain percentage that needs to be masked off at the edges. Does that percentage keep varying on different plates; like one aperture plate crops 5% from each side, while another crops 6% from each side?

Regardless of whether this particular 35mm projection is framed right or wrong, what I like here is that when Jack ad Rose kiss, Jack's head remains inside the frame while the camera pans to the left and tilts up. In the UHD, the top of Jack's head get's cropped for a second.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I thought that since this is an anamorphic scope print, there would be very little room (unlike a 4-perf spherical print) to push the aperture plate up or down. The print is already in a 2.35:1-ish ratio. Pushing the frame up or down would reveal the upper or lower part of the previous or following frame. And yet, no such error appears here. I know that the edge vignetting would get masked off and so will a bit from the top and bottom because the projection aperture shows less image at the edges compared to what's on the print. But, unlike a flat print, there's very little to none extra image area to reframe during projection. Hence, I felt anamorphic prints would look about the same everywhere.

Nope. See the conversation Kc and I have above about Carrie Fisher's chin in Empire. Just because a print is anamorphic doesn't mean there's no wiggle room. There is an absolute limit, yes, but an ever-so-slightly smaller aperture plate that crops 0.0whatever% of the frame gives you more wiggle room.

I would suggest running/owning a 35mm projector. It'll help you understand a LOT about how theaters properly and improperly show their films. Hell, I used to talk to managers about why they didn't turn on their digital sound because you hear that analog "pop" on film splices which you shouldn't hear on a digital audio track.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by starmike

Nope. See the conversation Kc and I have above about Carrie Fisher's chin in Empire. Just because a print is anamorphic doesn't mean there's no wiggle room. There is an absolute limit, yes, but an ever-so-slightly smaller aperture plate that crops 0.0whatever% of the frame gives you more wiggle room.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by starmike

I would suggest running/owning a 35mm projector. It'll help you understand a LOT about how theaters properly and improperly show their films. Hell, I used to talk to managers about why they didn't turn on their digital sound because you hear that analog "pop" on film splices which you shouldn't hear on a digital audio track.

Unlikely. At most, I could be allowed to look inside a projection booth real-time while a print is being projected. Owning a film projector would cost a fortune, I guess.

[blakninja]

Question for projectionists out there.

Do the colors that we see on the giant screen the same as the colors on the actual print? Or does the projector lamp somehow changes the color temperature of the resulting image on the giant screen?

For example, this is how it looks on the print.. will the colors on the giant screen be the same? It's very "golden" btw.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Question for projectionists out there.

Do the colors that we see on the giant screen the same as the colors on the actual print? Or does the projector lamp somehow changes the color temperature of the resulting image on the giant screen?

For example, this is how it looks on the print.. will the colors on the giant screen be the same? It's very "golden" btw.

Projection lamp can VERY much change the color temp. If you're using carbon arc like an older projector uses you'll get more of a bright white, but other types can tinge it into the yellow.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Question for projectionists out there.

Do the colors that we see on the giant screen the same as the colors on the actual print? Or does the projector lamp somehow changes the color temperature of the resulting image on the giant screen?

For example, this is how it looks on the print.. will the colors on the giant screen be the same? It's very "golden" btw.

The person who attended this 2024, 35mm screening, said the colours looked closer to the DVD.

Titanic 35mm print colours.jpg

That sort of gives credence to my own thoughts after comparing the 35mm film cell scans from dalemac with my DVD copy. Cameron did not alter the colours of the film on the DVD editions (and HDTV versions) as much as he did in 2012 and 2023 remasters. The original sunset was red, not orange like on the 2012 and 2023 versions. This is confirmed by Cameron in the commentary track, which was done for the 2005 DVD. It's also ironic hearing the 2005 commentary on the Blu-ray and UHD where Cameron says he won't go back and re-do shots, when he did just that.

[blakninja]

Did Leo skip the 1998 Academy Awards because he wasn't nominated?

[punisher]

No..he went to see The Hurt Locker and lost track of the time...lol

[Bernardo A.]

Sorry if it's been answered before, but...

Does the film starts with the Paramount logo or the one from the other studio?

Received my US gift-set yesterday, but haven't had the time to watch it. Pretty lackluster for its price tag ($70-80 would me more than fair), but charming nonetheless.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Bernardo A.

Sorry if it's been answered before, but...

Does the film starts with the Paramount logo or the one from the other studio?

Received my US gift-set yesterday, but haven't had the time to watch it. Pretty lackluster for its price tag ($70-80 would me more than fair), but charming nonetheless.

It begins with the Paramount 100th anniversary logo.

[dalemc]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Did Leo skip the 1998 Academy Awards because he wasn't nominated?

In a word - yes. He did sortof peace out from all things TITANIC since the academy awards and his non-nomination. He has every right to , but it does kindof suck when he was a huge part of the film, but never participates in anything related to it.
Anyway, Kate Winslet apparently had a conversation with him when he wasn't nominated, saying that his performance was no less important than anyone else's just because he wasn't nominated. I think he should've shown up to support them all though.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by dalemc

In a word - yes. He did sortof peace out from all things TITANIC since the academy awards and his non-nomination. He has every right to , but it does kindof suck when he was a huge part of the film, but never participates in anything related to it.
Anyway, Kate Winslet apparently had a conversation with him when he wasn't nominated, saying that his performance was no less important than anyone else's just because he wasn't nominated. I think he should've shown up to support them all though.

Yeah coz I heard he told James the day before that he wouldn't go and James described him as a little brat. Wonder if their relationship soured after that. Leo never mentions Titanic.. but he was the biggest part of it.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by blakninja

Yeah coz I heard he told James the day before that he wouldn't go and James described him as a little brat. Wonder if their relationship soured after that. Leo never mentions Titanic.. but he was the biggest part of it.

There was huge tension over this actually. James Cameron threatened to remove Leo's face from the film via digital tools but realizing it would take at least another 20 years for it to be convincing he didn't commit to it. A test run of the tech was completed though because part of it leaked on Liveleak around 12 years ago but it was pulled very fast. Supposedly Leo's face was crudely CG'd over with Brad Pitt. I used to have a screenshot of it but lost it. Interestingly enough, it wasn't Jim's lawyers who had the leak removed but Brad Pitt's; he was reportedly so embarrassed he swore to never work with James Cameron again.

[dontpokethebear3893]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

There was huge tension over this actually. James Cameron threatened to remove Leo's face from the film via digital tools but realizing it would take at least another 20 years for it to be convincing he didn't commit to it. A test run of the tech was completed though because part of it leaked on Liveleak around 12 years ago but it was pulled very fast. Supposedly Leo's face was crudely CG'd over with Brad Pitt. I used to have a screenshot of it but lost it. Interestingly enough, it wasn't Jim's lawyers who had the leak removed but Brad Pitt's; he was reportedly so embarrassed he swore to never work with James Cameron again.

That's crazy. Any screenshots or hints of that leak still exist?