A Few Words About A few words about...™ Titanic -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[NY2LA]

FWIW I was around the studio when this came out and also around in general when it first came to Video. Some of you may remember Cameron wrote an essay called The Letterbox Heresies in which he takes some of us OAR sticklers to task and goes on about how he shot the film and why, saying IIRC that he actually preferred the 4x3 version he had made for Homevid. I think his argument was, "this is not the movie, never will be, it's just a (some phrase like souvenir or postcard) of it"
While I never liked the 4x3 version, and prefer the 2.35, I would be curious about the 16x9 version, too, I just would not be crazy about a film made intentionally without an intermission being broken up in two parts. Cameron's attitude seemed again that he didn't care if or when it was spilt up, presumably due to that feeling that this wasn't really the film, anyway.
Update: here it is: http://www.sarkapro.com/TheLetterboxHeresies_by_JamesCameron.html

 

[Geoff_D]

The 15/70 IMAX 3D version had an intermission, right where the SE DVD split (and indeed the laserdisc disc change) was. Never bothered me then, doesn't bother me now. The 1.78 image isn't framed as tightly as one might remember, but rarely does it look out of place, and the tighter effects shots give that beautiful ship even more visual impact.

 

[NY2LA]

The 15/70 IMAX 3D version had an intermission, right where the SE DVD split (and indeed the laserdisc disc change) was. Never bothered me then, doesn't bother me now. The 1.78 image isn't framed as tightly as one might remember, but rarely does it look out of place, and the tighter effects shots give that beautiful ship even more visual impact.

IIRC the VHS and first DVD stopped midscene at the same point, about the 2 hour mark. No editorial reason, no title card, etc... The Imax version would have to have an intermission as it wouldn't all fit on one Imax reel. If you're gonna have a break great - I like intermissions, but not in arbitrary places without titles, etc.

 

I've seen that break so many times on home video/dvd that I will almost be expecting it!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

"I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay"
Thats where the break is, and on the DVD commentary, Cameron says that if he had put in an intermission, thats where it would go. And that's where it went in the IMAX version I saw. I dont remember if the VHS tapes cut there as well, been too long since I replaced those with the LD...

 

I believe the vhs is the same. I'm just used to the old dvd freezing at that moment. It'll be nice to watch the 2D version without breaks. I was a projectionist when we had this and it was printed on a then new type of film that had a lot of static..the film kept flying off of the platter.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Update: here it is: http://www.sarkapro.com/TheLetterboxHeresies_by_JamesCameron.html

I'd be interested to hear Cameron's thoughts today and how they are altered by the current state of home tech (resolution over 300 lines, screens over 30", and no longer square)
If I remember this had to do with The Abyss. I remember he even designed a logo for his P&S which was a brain inside a 4x3 image, showing that it was intelligently altered for home viewing.

 

[TravisR]

I'd be interested to hear Cameron's thoughts today and how they are altered by the current state of home tech (resolution over 300 lines, screens over 30", and no longer square)

Yeah, I think in the twenty years since that was written, the increase in size and resolution of the average TV probably changed his thoughts on the subject.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Yeah, I think in the twenty years since that was written, the increase in size and resolution of the average TV probably changed his thoughts on the subject.

Cameron writes this towards the end of the paper:

At least until we get some kind of high-definition video. Then, of course,
the poor directors have to go back and transfer their movies all over
again. Oh well.

 

[NY2LA]

the tech may have changed, but I think his overall attitude of film v video is still going to be the same. obviously he had no problem opening up Titanic to a taller AR for imax. And I believe this was written at the time of Titanic as he refers to Abyss as a previous project. He seems so ambivalent to AR since he shoots in a format with so many options he sees it as malleable. I also wonder how much he is influenced by the fact that today's Cinemas don't do widescreen like they used to. For the same reasons he mentioned letterboxing not being the best choice, with most cinemas being top-masked if he chooses 2.40 it's gonna look like letterbox at the movies.

 

[TravisR]

obviously he had no problem opening up Titanic to a taller AR.

That's to best emulate the IMAX presentation though. The 2-D version is still only 2.35 and I'd be surprised if The Abyss or True Lies or a future version of Terminator 2 are anything but 2.35.

And I believe this was written at the time of Titanic as he refers to Abyss as a previous project.

I'm pretty sure that it was written and included with The Abyss laserdisc SE in 1992 or 93. I've still got the boxset buried somewhere but I'm too lazy to dig it out.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

the tech may have changed, but I think his overall attitude of film v video is still going to be the same. obviously he had no problem opening up Titanic to a taller AR for imax. And I believe this was written at the time of Titanic as he refers to Abyss as a previous project. He seems so ambivalent to AR since he shoots in a format with so many options he sees it as malleable. I also wonder how much he is influenced by the fact that today's Cinemas don't do widescreen like they used to. For the same reasons he mentioned letterboxing not being the best choice, with most cinemas being top-masked if he chooses 2.40 it's gonna look like letterbox at the movies.

Travis is right, that was written for the Abyss SE LD, which was completed after T2. True Lies and Titanic are not mentioned.
I think with 1.78 native home screens, at triple the resolution, and at FAR larger sizes than 30" alter the dynamics of his argument, and I think he would agree.
Again, the director can do what they want with/to any film, but Titanic (to my eyes) is much better looking in terms of composition at 2.35, and I'm sad that I won't get to experience both 3-D and superior composition at the same time.

 

[DVDvision]

There is already a 1.77:1 "opened" up version of True Lies that is the prefered version that HD channels runs (I have a recording of it). Also Abyss exists on DVD in full screen (1.33:1) director's Pan & Scan, and that is the best looking transfert available right now on DVD.

Note also that the original LD release of the Abyss was in 1.95:1 format instead of 2.35:1, because, if I'm correct, Cameron thought the 2.35:1 was too tight and the movie worked better with a little opening up.

If T2 get the 3D treatment, then this probably also will be the same as for Titanic (1.77:1 3D Blu-ray).

Note also that last century, T2 and True Lies and Titanic existed in opened / reframed 4/3 full screen too on laserdisc. I'm betting that the other Super 35 Cameron films (The Abyss, Terminator 2, True Lies) all will have the alternate 1.77:1 aspect ratio, be it released on 3D Blu-ray if conversions occurs, or shown that way on HDTV.

I myself prefer the modified versions, they are really optimised for home-theater displays.

 

[JamesNelson]

Removed by OP.

 

[FoxyMulder]

There does exist an anamorphic edition of The Abyss on DVD, it's from China though, no it's not a bootleg, it's a proper release, more information in the link below, personally on a projection setup i think 2.35:1 looks great, i prefer the wider aspect and the image looks more cinematic to me.

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=21

 

[DVDvision]

Yes I have that one too thought we're not sure it's genuine (it's been discussed here in the Van Ling section). They did a nice job upscaling the video and sound, but I'm certain a proper remastering will make this obsolete

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Yes I have that one too thought we're not sure it's genuine (it's been discussed here in the Van Ling section). They did a nice job upscaling the video and sound, but I'm certain a proper remastering will make this obsolete  

I think I read somewhere that both "The Abyss" and "True Lives" were coming next year to Blu-ray so perhaps we'll have definitive answers to these aspect ratio questions then. I run a "semi-constant height" system (all transfers -- from 1.78:1 through 2.35:1 -- are displayed at 2.20:1) so I'm currently ambivalent regarding the aspect ratio. I just want a good presentation.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bolus /t/323412/a-few-words-about-titanic-in-blu-ray/30#post_3971046
I think I read somewhere that both "The Abyss" and "True Lives" were coming next year to Blu-ray so perhaps we'll have definitive answers to these aspect ratio questions then. I run a "semi-constant height" system (all transfers -- from 1.78:1 through 2.35:1 -- are displayed at 2.20:1) so I'm currently ambivalent regarding the aspect ratio. I just want a good presentation.

You watch all transfers at 2.20:1, that has to do damage to some films shot in 1.85:1.

 

[Doctorossi]

I run a "semi-constant height" system (all transfers -- from 1.78:1 through 2.35:1 -- are displayed at 2.20:1) so I'm currently ambivalent regarding the aspect ratio. I just want a good presentation.

You and I have very different definitions of the term, "a good presentation".

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Heh ... I know utilizing a 2.20:1 aspect ratio for everything is a little controversial, but to me it provides a more cinematic feel to 1.85:1 transfers (slight cropping of the top and bottom) and puts 2.35:1 transfers more "in your face" (slight overscan to fill the 2.20:1 screen area). My projector, the Optoma HD-65, actually has a setting called "SuperWide" which automatically provides the requisite cropping and/or overscan based on the aspect ratio of the transfer. And it does this without inserting any digital artifacts.
Cameron's own Terminator and Avatar movies both have a much more "cinematic" quality to them at the 2.20:1 aspect ratio --- and seemingly without sacrificing anything of importance in the presentation.
BTW, all I have to do to see *everything* is just roll the screen up and switch "SuperWide" off on the projector.