Search results

Yes, of course, but I feel that those who don't like the revisionism that has been applied also have the right to express their opinions, specially in a forum devoted to films in Blu-ray and UHD.

I agree with you, but bear in mind "TITANIC" wasn't shot only on EXR 5245 (50 ASA) stock, which was balanced for daylight and had very low sensitivity (and thus, very fine grain). 5245 was used for the daylight outdoor scenes. 7245 was the same stock in 16mm, and it wasn't used on this film...

I've just seen some screencaps from "TRUE LIES" and all the detail is gone. Jamie Lee Curtis has received half of "The Irishman" face lifting process for some reason. While some people may be happy with the film looking very crisp and "prettier", for me just a 4K scan of the OCN, some cleaning...

Yes, it probably does. TITANIC was an optical blow up from Super 35 to 35mm anamorphic (sometime before the advent of Digital Intermediates). And a 4K direct scan from the OCN does matter, and I support that, of course. It’s kind like watching the original negative, timed, with all its info...

I have finally seen TITANIC in UHD and agree with most comments. It looks very good but it's a processed look and overall no longer resembles what we saw in theaters 25 years ago. Some close-ups are a little waxy and the whole thing has an oversharpened appeareance. In 35mm this was a very fine...

The face replacement was pretty obvious in the original 35mm prints, IMHO.

I've always regarded "Titanic" as one of the sharpest 35mm spherical films I've ever seen at the theater. The daylight scenes shot on 50 ASA stock were astonishing, particularly the sunset scenes on the deck between Kate Winslet and Leonardo Di Caprio. It was a great optical blow-up from Super...