Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Neil Middlemiss, Sep 6, 2012.
I agree. BTW, Mike, would you have said the same to Neil, face-to-face?
Yes he would!
Sometimes the anonymity of the internet really does lower the quality of public discourse...
I can't help but point out Mike wasn't just rude to Neil, he was rude to all the reviewers here by suggesting none of us proof our material.
I don't know if I'm interested in explaining what's polite to someone who doesn't have a working knowledge of what that entails.
Indeed...there's constructive criticism, then there's what was done to Mr. Middlemiss and your other colleagues, Cameron...blatantly insulting outright dismissal of your hard work. I for one, have no use for it...
Yes, there are a few posters who do nothing but complain. I would just ignore their posts and maybe they will go away.
'Titanic' has never been a favorite film of mine either. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy it, just the Billy Zane love triangle was a bit much for me. I always felt it would be so much more powerfu if it was just a simple boy meets girl tragic story. It didn't need an enemy, in my opinion the ship was the enemy. But I guess it wouldn't be a James Cameron film without a little action in between.
However after reading Neil's review, and your recommendation I am going to buy a copy of this for future use. Plan on getting a 3-D projector down the line, and this will be the film I test it with.
This is the finest upconverted 3D film I have ever watched, specifically for new aspect ratio.
Here's an overview of the new and prevsiously formats:
new 3D version - 16:9
2.39 version (it seems that we have less picture in 2.39 than 16:9)
classic 4:3 version from TV
and new leaked shot from original panavision camera
Thankx, what is the source of the Panavision shot?
Titanic was shot in Super35 so it does make sense that the 2.39 version will have "less picture" than the others. However Cameron was fully aware of what scope he was shooting for theatrically (there are guide bars on the monitors showing him the 2.39 frame) and he no doubt composited for it, so there should be no feeling of "loss of picture" viewing it at 2.39. I recall reading [back in the day] that most of the effects were finished initially only at 2.39 which is why previous home video pan and scan versions of Titanic actually panned and scanned instead of just revealing the entire original frame because the effects wouldn't be there.
Given the amount of time and money that went into the 3D version, I'm hoping they extended the effects to fill the 1.78 frame so that the entire film is opened up instead of going back to pan and scan during the effects shots.
The effects shots were finished at 2:1 and cropped a bit to 1.78:1 for the 3D version. 2-perf footage of the actual wreck would also be cropped.
Caps-a-holic has a 1.78 to 2.35 comparison
Actually, I found it on official fb page of the movie.
Panavision (Super35) became popular from 90s.
As a matter of fact, photography directors set the camera originally for 2.39 theatrical picture with consistent coordinates on camera.
This images from T2, explaining how the Super35 process works.