Search results

Interesting piece, with incorrect use of the word “restoration.”

One might be a bit more kind to not only yours truly, but to several friends. We, as influencers, have been imbued with the great kindness of the Holiday spirit because of our in-kind words and support to the studios. For me, it was Orca VI, a very nice 405 Conquest, due to dock in late April...

There is a danger here that involves studio suits. If anyone takes notice that Cameron films are being released in 4k, and if sales are good, that sends a message. The Message: People buying 4k do not want to see grain and like plasticky images. This could begin to affect the textures studio...

There are no problems with visibility of pixel structure or film grain (actual or emulated) in 4k. Can we please cease discussions of tech, and return to more serious issues - where your disc is in the delivery process, and tiny that bump on your steebook?

Let’s also keep in mind all those black frames between the one that you see.

True. From my perspective, and as pertains to my own work, we strive to create the illusion via digital, that one is viewing a film print, proper grain and all, sans cue marks, scratches, etc.

Your personal viewing problem may solved by lowering contrast, which affects perceived sharpness. As Christmas is approaching, I’ll through another round of .45 into the campfire. We can no longer use the words “film print” and fully understand what that terms means. There is no longer such a...

Just my opinion, but viewing on a smaller device would provide similar benefits to moving one’s seating distance a bit further away from a projection screen. I will admit there there were occasional discs for which the greater benefit would be the other side of a wall. Film, ie fillum or...

Could be either.

Digital film grain = programmed noise. I’d not get too caught up in it. It’s a pattern.

To create faux film grain.

There is no film grain. Only digital noise.

Precisely. The look of the film as a 4k disc was unobtainium in 1997. Although, I believe it was in 2007.

Yes, obviously.

I’m not understanding your comment. Is the “you” Cameron or someone else?

A presumption, but irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Hopefully not. It’s not simply a numerical rating. This review of Titanic might also have taken the same concept as Graffiti, but imho the levels were not reached to trigger the need. Titanic is a more cinema-centric thoughtful rendering of re-visualization.

Except that many of us would either prefer a pure Cinema version of a film or a choice alongside the re-imagining. WB has given that to the public with Oz. As noted, I would welcome a similar offering for Titanic and the other forthcoming Cameron productions.

Viable Facts: The new 4k UHD of Titanic is Not the 1997 film, and as such, a question might arise as to whether certain awards are still applicable to marketing of the disc. The new 4k should be viewed as an experimental vision, and a new, very different, yet potentially non-copyrightable...

No opinion as yet re True Lies, as I’ve not seen actual footage,

If comparing to fillum, please do not forget the lack of a shutter, and black frames as part of the illusion. The lack of those frames is probably the greatest single difference in projected images. It has been correctly noted that flat panels do not enter the equation.

And yet… This is precisely what the filmmakers desire the film to be seen in 4k. As I’ve said, the release is a bit of a balancing act. Long shots pick up measurable detail and overall resolution, while close-ups appear a bit overly processed, and far more detailed than necessary. This is all...

You are now being ignored.

A film is “re-visualized” because the owners of the IP desire it. May I ask on what device are you viewing Titanic, and what distance from the screen?

What you’re saying is absolutely correct. This has been one of the problems of some of the MGM b/w 4k scans via which the grain is so sharp it becomes a deficit. For the record the most recent appear more like prints as opposed to negatives, and are quite beautiful. My team uses grain...

You’re preaching to the choir. I agree with everything you say, except that you seem to be conflating archival with distribution. The film is perfectly preserved. The new 4k disc is NOT a restoration of any kind. It’s a re-visualization. A 4k UHD disc is a data transmission/distribution...

My screen is about ten feet in width, and for general viewing am twelve feet away.

The point of the rating in this situation sides with the filmmaker’s rights, and the fact that, imho, the film looks great from a nominal seating distance. Colors, densities, stability, black/white levels all appear fine. The changes, re-visualizations if you will, provide far more overall...

Well reasoned. It’s interesting to attempt to go in after viewing a visual entity that has been digitally affected - positively or negatively, in itself a matter of opinion - and attempt to unpack the myriad of processes literally baked in, layer upon layer. As noted, I felt that the processing...

Has Titanic been restored? What horrible fate befell the original film elements?