Search results

Maybe 3rd time will be the charm? ;):lol::D _Man_

Hmmm... from where are you renting it (may I ask)? _Man_

Right... and as RAH actually pointed out near-ish the beginning of all this back-and forth, issues of preservation and restoration are most relevant/critical for the actual source elements, likely including all the facts, etc necessary to (re)create a reference quality, final intermediate and...

Precisely... as Mark also alluded earlier... And none of those reproductions would be considered equal to the original at all, but just as best as we can feasibly do to allow more people to appreciate. OTOH, pretty sure any 4K release of Titanic, no matter its quality, won't meaningfully...

You do realize that's actually the exact kinda thinking/rationale employed all the time probably for as long as we have any memories (recorded or not) probably across just about all artforms and even historical (and religious) writings too. That's largely why we have so many different enough...

I'm not sure about that. Well, I don't get upset per se... but I do at least sometimes find them odd or moderately offputting or unsatisfying... though there could also be other (purely visual) attributes contributing towards that besides the lack of grain -- I'm certainly not (quite?) very...

But if you were not privy to the process and there was never a version of the results presented as completed w/ grain (or whatever other attributes), would you still oppose to the degrained image as the original product/result? You might still not like its aesthetics of course (perhaps because...

I was just following up on @Worth's "flat and dead" remark about degrained images. I (and pretty clearly very many others) don't believe they're necessarily flat and dead looking if done well. I'd agree they certainly can be flat and dead if done poorly, which was certainly the case in the...

Anyway, bringing this back to Titanic in 4K (and whatever other related, recent/new releases of Cameron's films), the look we're getting (whether one likes it or not) is really Cameron's choice. He doesn't seem interested in staying w/ the original filmic look, but wants this more highly...

Yes, I'm aware that's what you meant... and I was actually following up on that. Much of that is just the process/processing involved... some of which is by choice (though often deemed practically needed even if not absolutely so, eg. exactly how many generations in practice is usually chosen...

^I suspect it's more just that we're all so very used to seeing grain in (at least 2D) photographic imagery than anything. There's no grain in the visible real life/world that we experience 24/7 all our lives afterall, and we don't generally find it lifeless or dead at all. And paintings of...

Again, some of what you may be describing is you're probably getting too close to the image and discerning/seeing pixel structure in the digital presentation on top of whatever qualities, so of course, you won't see that w/ film, especially film that never involved any digital processing/FX...

Again, that's largely an issue of the processing itself, not necessarily that film can't be as sharp as digital in an absolute sense -- and yes, in (good) practice, film generally requires such additional processing that digital doesn't quite as much (in that sense)... though digital actually...

That's because you're probably a unicorn, LOL! ;):lol: See, that's where you're wrong. You're assuming the crowd here should/must be the same as on BR.com -- and I can assure you we mostly are not... and some here would probably even loathe to be thought of that way, LOL. ;) There isn't just...

To be clear, digital can have a range of appearance from soft to garrishly sharp (w/in certain limitations I mentioned/described earlier). When you say you haven't seen projected film as sharp as digital... presumably, you mean a vast majority of digital presentations you've experienced, but...

Not sure it's all that accurate (enough) to describe film vs digital that way, especially if we really wanna understand what's going on. Film can certainly be "sharp" (or highly detailed/resolving) while digital can also be "soft" in some ways OTOH. Really depends. What's more likely the real...

Well, no clear idea if it's (AI or not) emulated -- that's merely a possibility. As indicated before, really matters little how that resulted (for you and most others anyway), especially if it detracts badly for you... unless knowing can somehow help you address/solve the issue -- and I'm not...

Why do you assume "digital noise" can't be random looking? That may well be a too oft-repeated fallacy/falsehood me thinks. Yes, some kinds of digital noise are static... but not sure about all kinds though, especially including what's often called the "mosquito noise" variety... and...

Well, clearly, Cameron wants that kinda processed look, so... not much we can do about that. Maybe someday the processing will be good enough that they don't actually remove too much original grain... and/or Cameron (or whichever other filmmakers, et al) reverses course on that look... but that...

Presumably, as processing technique (AI or not) improves, they can emulate film grain better. That might be what you're seeing. But it's probably anyone's guess... and as long as you're satisfied/happy w/ the look, does it really matter? I mean... sure, would be nice to know/understand better...

Remy, I respect (and largely agree w/) your (technical) points, etc, BUT the vast majority of us are not in this hobby to pixel-peep (so to speak), but enjoy what's actually on our screens in our own HTs (as RAH puts it at "nominal distance"). You (and a few naysayers) seem to continually...

Unobtainium indeed, LOL! :laugh::laugh::laugh: Some of us just wish it remained that for JC (and probably a few others too), LOL... but then again, that would probably also mean no Avatar, so... :P;):D IF only we had at least already gotten good BD releases of The Abyss and especially True...

I agree w/ maybe ~90-95% of that (depending on how this following qualification counts), but that 1st camp seems to want more than preserving the "original theatrical experience" though. They too want some other idealized variation on that instead of actually preserving the original as others...

At the moment, I'm not able to properly edit my previous post to adequately follow up on this specific point, so adding a separate reply... probably best that way anyway... Anyway, notice you're now talking about what you personally experienced and feel/believe about it. That is a subjective...

What are you trying to insinuate though? That the various reviewers aren't as experienced as your forum posting horde or have gone blind or are just lying or what? OR are you merely confused and/or simply can't understand why they would rate this release as they do? I suspect it's really just...

Since that's where the debate is probably heading... The principle in this sig is highly debatable (and likely erroneous or easily misapplied to some extent) and may well be at the center of all this me thinks. For instance, re: Titanic, what exactly would "original elements" actually even...

I suspect there's also possibly a tad bit of "lost in translation" going on w/ their use of "correct" -- at least some of them may know/use English as a 2nd language and not quite as fluent and literate in it as desirable for that kinda criticism, debate, etc. But yeah, it does sound like...

I think some are not recognizing their own biases/subjectivity (or perhaps motivations hidden even to themselves) in all that... and also might not actually understand imaging tech and processing (and the art and craft and real-world practicality/application) as much as they'd like to think...

As has been noted (repeatedly) already, you do have to recognize/remember that this particular case (and upcoming releases for his other films) is specific to Cameron. Likewise for a few other filmmakers who love to make such (and whatever other) revisions/alterations. Not saying we should...

Oh, I suspect it is indeed the best it's ever looked... and I don't believe anyone's actually said otherwise, including Rémy (ie. @tenia) in this thread. A few are complaining about how it could/should be even better me thinks despite this pretty clearly being how Cameron wants it to look --...