Search results

I don't think anyone gets upset about grain-free movies that never had grain in the first place. It's the negative issues connected to the removal of grain that create the concerns. I remember either Harrison or McCartney commenting that there was no hiss in the studio so hiss removal was cool...

Or yer reviewing it and paying close attention to PQ! :D As mentioned earlier, the "Jurassic Park" face replacement predates "Titanic". No idea if that was the first one, though.

Oh yeah - I get that! That's why I used a ":D" when I first mentioned it. Inevitably 4K reveals flaws we didn't really notice previously. Not that the face replacement wasn't always noticeable, but it just looks more obvious now. Also, I suspect that we're more likely to notice details like...

Exactly! Except the shot in "Titanic" lasts a little longer so it's even more obvious.

There's a scene late in the film where Jack and Rose run to escape onrushing water. They used face replacement to hide the use of stunt doubles. It's not pretty.

I admit I likely scrutinized this one even more than normal because your review prompted me to expect the most dazzling 4K ever! :) And I go into Cameron releases with the proverbial raised eyebrow. Dude tinkers too much for me to not enter with skepticism.

I think most of it looks terrific but some shots just seem... off. Some that seem too smooth... and others that seem unnaturally sharp. Perhaps because the fast pace of the 2nd half doesn't allow the shots to linger, the majority of the "off" shots appear in the 1st half. Usually interiors...

To clarify: are you saying you suspect degraining and then an added layer of fake grain? And perhaps some artificial sharpening - ie, the "crispier" comment?

I guess you got the standard 4K release and not the "Collector's Edition"?