Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[admccroan]

Originally Posted by starmike

I don't know what's old and what's new, so I'm just showing what's there.

That’s the old one, which is what mine shows. So it’s not just me

Here’s the new artwork:

Originally Posted by Jim Collins

The iTunes artwork has been updated!

[Jim Collins]

Originally Posted by admccroan

That’s the old one, which is what mine shows. So it’s not just me

The new cover is only available in the US!
The rest of the world will likely get updated artwork once the movie is released digitally in 4K.

[Bunnycj]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Original 2.35:1

They have not mentioned regarding aspect ratio on cover as everyone does on bluray cover. its only mentioned as widescreen. I hope the remaster is done on a open matte version. That would fill entire TV with HDR and Dolby Vision

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Bunnycj

They have not mentioned regarding aspect ratio on cover as everyone does on bluray cover. its only mentioned as widescreen. I hope the remaster is done on a open matte version. That would fill entire TV with HDR and Dolby Vision

No. It is going to be the original 1997 aspect ratio, the 1.78 open-matte/pan & scan is just for 3D.

[Socko]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

No. It is going to be the original 1997 aspect ratio, the 1.78 open-matte/pan & scan is just for 3D.

Strangely, he didn't do that with T2.
Probably because it was a rush job and it would reveal way too many mistakes of crew and equipment or SFX rigs being visible.

[JohanBoskamp]

Originally Posted by Jim Collins

The new cover is only available in the US!
The rest of the world will likely get updated artwork once the movie is released digitally in 4K.

I bought it 2 weeks ago on iTunes and it already had the new artwork. My iTunes region is Belgium.

[admccroan]

Originally Posted by Jim Collins

The new cover is only available in the US!
The rest of the world will likely get updated artwork once the movie is released digitally in 4K.

I’m in the US and had bought it years ago. I see the new artwork in the store but my library still shows the old artwork.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Socko

Strangely, he didn't do that with T2.
Probably because it was a rush job and it would reveal way too many mistakes of crew and equipment or SFX rigs being visible.

The T2 conversion cost around $7-$8 million USD, while Titanic cost around $18 million USD. T2 took around 8-9 months to restore and convert. Titanic took over 15 months. Both conversions were overseen by Stereo-D and had different approaches, but you can really see the difference in quality between the two efforts and it shows that you really do get what you pay for. For Titanic, he had a lot of beautiful wide shots to play with, with exciting 3D pop. For T2, it was very much the opposite.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

The T2 conversion cost around $7-$8 million USD, while Titanic cost around $18 million USD. T2 took around 8-9 months to restore and convert. Titanic took over 15 months. Both conversions were overseen by Stereo-D and had different approaches, but you can really see the difference in quality between the two efforts and it shows that you really do get what you pay for. For Titanic, he had a lot of beautiful wide shots to play with, with exciting 3D pop. For T2, it was very much the opposite.

Hmmm. T2's imagery doesn't necessarily have the scope and sweep of Titanic's ocean-going vistas, for what I hope are patently obvious reasons, but it's still a decent little conversion in its own right. Funnily enough the 3D crowd don't rate Titanic all that highly, chiefly because it's a conversion and is therefore the Devil's work, but also because Cameron doesn't like to do a lot of pop-outs and prefers depth and naturalism rather than shoving things in your face every 5 seconds just to shill a format.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Cameron doesn't like to do a lot of pop-outs and prefers depth and naturalism rather than shoving things in your face every 5 seconds just to shill a format.

True and it's even harder to do when you take an older movie which wasn't even shot with 3D in mind.

Although it's funny that even with this approach to 3D there are two or three in-your-face shots in the first Avatar, but I can't recall any from The Way of Water.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

True and it's even harder to do when you take an older movie which wasn't even shot with 3D in mind.

Although it's funny that even with this approach to 3D there are two or three in-your-face shots in the first Avatar, but I can't recall any from The Way of Water.

Yeah, it's not like there are none (in the first Avatar, anyway) but they're not happening every 5 seconds just for the sake of it. Hate that kind of gimmicky 3D, but to some it's the only thing that they want from the format. Just like with "pop" (ugh), I think I'll need to add the required suffix whenever I mention "pop-outs" (ugh).

[zetruz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hmmm. T2's imagery doesn't necessarily have the scope and sweep of Titanic's ocean-going vistas, for what I hope are patently obvious reasons, but it's still a decent little conversion in its own right. Funnily enough the 3D crowd don't rate Titanic all that highly, chiefly because it's a conversion and is therefore the Devil's work, but also because Cameron doesn't like to do a lot of pop-outs and prefers depth and naturalism rather than shoving things in your face every 5 seconds just to shill a format.

Yes, I was very impressed with TWoW's 3D. I didn't like the movie (also don't like Avatar 1), but the technology is obviously absolutely astonishing, and the 3D was very tastefully done. It genuinely added to the immersion rather than, err, "pop".
The HFR was more jarring, that didn't quite gel. I do believe HFR+VRR will improve movies, but it'll take a lot of development.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Socko

Strangely, he didn't do that with T2.
Probably because it was a rush job and it would reveal way too many mistakes of crew and equipment or SFX rigs being visible.

Also the ILM VFX were rendered out a maximum of 2:1

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by zetruz

Yes, I was very impressed with TWoW's 3D. I didn't like the movie (also don't like Avatar 1), but the technology is obviously absolutely astonishing, and the 3D was very tastefully done. It genuinely added to the immersion rather than, err, "pop".
The HFR was more jarring, that didn't quite gel. I do believe HFR+VRR will improve movies, but it'll take a lot of development.

I don't think HFR has a place in narrative films, only for stuff like Koyaanisqatsi, or the recent Aronofsky 18K movie Postcard Of Earth.

That said, the HFR implementation in Avatar 2 couldn't have been worse. It honestly makes me doubt the idea that James Cameron is actually a perfectionist. There was no rhyme or reason for when the HFR was used! It was random!

The only good thing I can say about the HFR in Avatar 2 is that it looked great in underwater scenes. That was the one consistent use of HFR, and it looked beautiful, ethereal, other-worldly almost. I can't exactly put my finger on why HFR in narrative films doesn't seem jarring in underwater scenes.

I was able to watch a HFR screening of Avatar 2 (though it was not advertized as such anywhere here in Brazil, I wonder how many people in the theater might have thought that something looked off, but they couldn't quite put their finger on what or why, so they just shrugged it off, because the public doesn't really know about frame rates).

This is a great video.

YouTube

[Infallible Presence]

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Bunnycj

They have not mentioned regarding aspect ratio on cover as everyone does on bluray cover. its only mentioned as widescreen. I hope the remaster is done on a open matte version. That would fill entire TV with HDR and Dolby Vision

Not everyone shows movies on TVs.

[escvnte]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

True and it's even harder to do when you take an older movie which wasn't even shot with 3D in mind.

Although it's funny that even with this approach to 3D there are two or three in-your-face shots in the first Avatar, but I can't recall any from The Way of Water.

It's all about "immersion", not having any gimmick that detracts from the experience.
I personally loved the efforts Cameron put to make this happen.

Those who say that post-converted 3D movies look like crap, they seriously need to watch either TITANIC or Jurassic Park 3D with a VR headset.

They looked amazing on my old Bravia TV, and they looked even better on my Quest VR.
Seriously, 3D movies on a VR headset look even better than on a 3D TV with backlight bleeding issues or ghosting.

The Image is crystal clear and bright, and there are no distractions "interfering" with your vision.
Best 3D experience you can get.

[starmike]

I got into arguments with someone because he thought conversions weren't "real 3d". And so I tried to explain the process and he didn't care, but then he pushed back against Tron: Legacy which WAS filmed with two cameras and then I knew it was a lost cause.

[Ben_UK]

I’m just glad that 3D is no longer a thing, the films inherently are compromised in terms of shot composition and other visual aspects.

[Mierzwiak]

It's on Disney+ in Europe now, but 1080p SDR only. No remaster, just the same version as the 2012 Blu-ray.