Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Titanic IMAX 3D


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
138 replies to this topic

#1 of 139 ONLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,594 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted April 04 2012 - 11:58 AM

Caught the first showing today of Titanic in IMAX 3D at my local theater. I thought it was a spectacular presentation. The 3D conversion was excellent. No cheapo post conversion here. The depth present in some of the shots was very impressive. I kept looking for flaws and couldn't find any. The soundtrack seems to have been remastered as it was crisper and cleaner (and louder) than I have ever heard before in the many times I saw it theatrically in 1997 and 1998. For instance, during the post sinking scene with all the passengers in the water, cries for help were heard from all directions and you could clearly hear what they were crying. The film itself holds up extremely well. I thought perhaps it would feel somewhat dated in the 15 years since it's release, but was I pleasantly surprised at how briskly the time flew by. A note on the IMAX AR. I was expecting a 2.35:1 ratio on the IMAX 1.44:1 but was surprised to see it projected at approx 1.33:1 almost completely filling up the IMAX screen. I believe the film was shot in Super 35 so Mr. Cameron apparently opened up the frame for IMAX. I didn't notice any picture loss and I know the film pretty well but I'm not sure. Nevertheless it worked and looked great. Definitely worth seeing if you're a fan, or have never seen it theatrically.
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#2 of 139 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,320 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 04 2012 - 01:47 PM

The 3D conversion was excellent. No cheapo post conversion here. The depth present in some of the shots was very impressive. I kept looking for flaws and couldn't find any.

I was shocked by how great the 3-D looked. Based on the trailer, I thought the conversion would look decent but I've seen much worse 3-D in movies shot with 3-D cameras. Hugo and Avatar are probably the only two better examples of 3-D that I've seen.

#3 of 139 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted April 04 2012 - 09:50 PM

I've seen it in 3D widescreen 2.35:1 (original format), but not IMAX yet. Are you sure it's 1.37:1 ? Cameron said it would be 1.77:1, but then, Avatar was also in near square format in IMAX (I would say 1.44:1). The full Aperture used for the conversion was 1.70, according to the recently uploaded documentary.

#4 of 139 OFFLINE   Mikael Soderholm

Mikael Soderholm

    Second Unit



  • 474 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 1999
  • Real Name:Mikael Söderholm
  • LocationStockholm, SWEDEN

Posted April 05 2012 - 03:05 AM

A note on the IMAX AR. I was expecting a 2.35:1 ratio on the IMAX 1.44:1 but was surprised to see it projected at approx 1.33:1 almost completely filling up the IMAX screen. I believe the film was shot in Super 35 so Mr. Cameron apparently opened up the frame for IMAX. I didn't notice any picture loss and I know the film pretty well but I'm not sure. Nevertheless it worked and looked great. Definitely worth seeing if you're a fan, or have never seen it theatrically.

But did you see a lot more sky and/or sea? If the Super35 frame was opened up from the OAR, it seems there would be a whole lot of sky and sea there, almost to the point of making the center of the frame too small... Unfortunately, here in Stockholm, there is no Imax showing for Titanic, only 3D, which I will see tomorrow, my first time seeing Titanic on the big screen, ever :)
/Mikael

- "Do you indulge in any form of worship?"
-"Life. I love life, very much indeed."
David Bowie interviewed by Russell Harty, 1973

#5 of 139 OFFLINE   Simon Massey

Simon Massey

    Screenwriter



  • 2,113 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted April 05 2012 - 11:00 AM

Just seen a normal 3D version rather than the IMAX. Have to say the 3D is very impressive - didn't tire my eyes at all and it was just simply added depth to the screen rather than being flashy about it. Very well done indeed As to the film itself, Im very glad I saw it again. After seeing this several times at the cinema in 97/98 and then watching it on DVD etc I have to say my initial positive reaction to the film had waned somewhat in the face of what is sometimes laughable dialogue and way over the top villains (Billy Zane, Frances Fisher and David Warner). That is still there but DiCaprio and Winslet overcome this to make the first half of the film enjoyable enough. Also like Gloria Stuart in this. Once the iceberg shows up though, I was more reminded how this is one of those films that needs watching on the biggest cinema screen you can find. There is something about this kind of film at the cinema which watching at home cannot replicate. It says a lot about the power of the last hour that I you kind of forget about the 3D and just enjoy Cameron doing what he does best. It had been a while since I had watched the film and that last 90 odd minutes just flies by. Since I was hugely disappointed by Avatar, Im pretty depressed that the man who made this, Aliens and the good Terminator films is now going to be spending the next 5 years devoted to Avatar. Come on Cameron, do something else please !!!! :) **** out of *****

#6 of 139 ONLINE   Wayne_j

Wayne_j

    Supporting Actor



  • 639 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 07 2006
  • Real Name:Wayne

Posted April 05 2012 - 12:15 PM

Just saw it in Digital IMAX 3D. I agree wtih everyone else that the 3D was the best I've seen on a conversion. I was about to come on and say that the AR was about 1.77, so 1.70 is probably about right. I haven't seen the film in a while, so I'm not sure how much the framing changed. As long as Paramount treats this as a new release and does there normal DI to Blu-Ray conversion it should look excellent on disc.

#7 of 139 ONLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,594 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted April 05 2012 - 01:56 PM

I just watched my Titanic special edition DVD to compare. The IMAX version definitely has more picture information. More headroom, legroom and Winslet nudity:D. The presentation I saw was very slightly window boxed within the IMAX frame hence my assumption that it was 1.33:1. Will probably see it a few more times before it leaves theaters. Doubt I'll be around for the 200th anniversary holographic on site presentation. :cool:
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#8 of 139 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,320 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 06 2012 - 12:12 AM

As long as Paramount treats this as a new release and does there normal DI to Blu-Ray conversion it should look excellent on disc.

Cameron said that they created a new 4K master for this release so I'd imagine that the disc will look great.

#9 of 139 OFFLINE   Mikael Soderholm

Mikael Soderholm

    Second Unit



  • 474 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 1999
  • Real Name:Mikael Söderholm
  • LocationStockholm, SWEDEN

Posted April 06 2012 - 07:00 AM

OK, just back from my frst time seeing Titanic on the big screen, and MAN, was that an experience! Totally awesome movie, the details when watched on the big screen are just amazing, and the 3D worked pretty well, for the most part, surprisingly well for being retro-fitted; some scenes were very good, some were mostly unnoticeable, and some were distracting, but on the whole, the movie is still quite amazing, one of my absolute favourites. Can't wait for the blu.
/Mikael

- "Do you indulge in any form of worship?"
-"Life. I love life, very much indeed."
David Bowie interviewed by Russell Harty, 1973

#10 of 139 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor



  • 7,996 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted April 06 2012 - 11:46 AM

Just like saying Candyman three times...if you start a thread on Titanic in Movies, I will appear! My wife and I met in the fall of 1998, thanks to a mutual friend (my sister) and a vocal appreciation of the film Titanic expressed to said friend.  I am not certain we ever saw the film together, even on video, though I know we watched bits and pieces of the film on TV and that it was the subject of our very first conversation. The films re-release into theaters is something I have anticipated for years and something I have concretely looked forward to for 2.5 years, ever since it was announced a few months after Avatar became an enormous hit.  So naturally, I made a date and took my wife to see it on the biggest screen showing it near me.  Fortunately it was a baby IMAX at a local AMC, showing the film in 3D. I have spoken ad nauseum and at length on the movie and the cultural and personal impact it had on me.  So I’ll refrain from reminiscing and review the movie I saw last night.  Except to preface the review with a note that it was my 6th theatrical viewing of the film in total, but my first viewing of the film in total since 1999 or so (dts Laserdisc that I still have).  I haven’t even watched the DVD start to finish, though I sampled the heck out of it when it released. It is absolutely a film to be seen on the big screen.  Even with my large TV and great little HT system, Titanic absolutely loses something essential in the translation downward.  I mean that as a compliment, rather than as a detraction.  I hope they release it in theaters even decade or so.  I promise I’ll go every time, at least once. As Tino said, the presented ratio was somewhere between 1.33:1 and 1.78:1.  There was substantially more information visually.  A few times early on, I was certain I was seeing a new scene (and I was not).  It looked astounding, a clean and warm image that felt spectacular without being hard-edged.  The sound was amped up a bit (thanks to baby IMAX speakers) with all of the fidelity I remember (and the score sounded tremendous).  I appreciated the 3-D, with the added depth being subtle but meaningful.  I probably would have been almost as happy in 2D, provided the screen was just as large.  Some of the shots looked great in 3D as well.  One oddity, when the footage was presented as from a camcorder (like on the Keldysh’s deck), seeing THAT in 3D seemed very odd, or on the screen behind Rose.  It seems that should have remained 2D.  I also thought the performances of the young actors (who are about my age, but I'm a lot older now and they are still early twenties in the film :D ) were quite good.  Better than I remembered.  It was fun to see them both on the cusp of stardom, and clearly very talented and not as experienced as they are now. As for the film itself, my superlatives all remain.  I’m glad I hadn’t seen it in a long while.  Beyond my inherent nostalgia for the film, the film itself holds up beautifully.  It retains every bit of its not inconsiderable potency and power.  It is exhausting and beautiful, and I always feel a little different on the other side of it.  It is occasionally corny and slightly overcooked, but the overall effect is still wonderful.  To put that another way, I hope everyone loves their favorite movies as much as I love this one.  Seeing it in a theater with an audience is truly how it should be seen.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#11 of 139 OFFLINE   Greg Kettell

Greg Kettell

    Screenwriter



  • 1,188 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 1998
  • Real Name:Greg K.
  • LocationNY Capital Region

Posted April 07 2012 - 04:40 AM

I wasn't as impressed with the 3D as some of you. IMO it worked best in the closeups but the wide shots seemed a little lacking. (Saw it on the new local Regal RPX screen) Still, it was good to see this on the big screen again.

#12 of 139 OFFLINE   NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter



  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted April 07 2012 - 05:49 AM

One oddity, when the footage was presented as from a camcorder (like on the Keldysh’s deck), seeing THAT in 3D seemed very odd, or on the screen behind Rose.  It seems that should have remained 2D.....  Seeing it in a theater with an audience is truly how it should be seen.

I've edited out the rest to isolate two comments I totally agree with. The video monitor shots would look 2D in real life so they should be 2D in the movie. I can see how the shots exploring the wreckage, if presented fullscreen as audience POV, would be preferable in 3D. Has anyone seen this at the Cinerama Dome in LA? Not only 3D dual projectors but on a 120 degree curve. And expensive as hell no doubt.

#13 of 139 ONLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,594 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted April 07 2012 - 01:26 PM

Chuck, are you sure the video footage was in 3D? I ask because to me it seemed as though it was in 2D. I'm seeing it again on Monday so I will confirm then. Like I really need another reason to see it again. :D
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#14 of 139 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer



  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted April 07 2012 - 01:40 PM

Hey what's up there, Tino! Long time no see hehe. I saw it today and it was every bit as spectacular as it's always been, Cameron spending all that dough on the conversion shows, it's quite simply the best conversion of a native 2D film to 3D ever attempted by anyone. It didn't hit you over the head, it was used rather sparingly to add a little extra pop where it was appropriate which is, IMO, how 3D should be used. The theater I saw it in left some to be desired, though, the image looked ever so SLIGHTLY out of focus and the audio appeared to come primarily from the screen which I was disappointed by, as soon as I got home I popped in the DTS 6.1 track on the DVD and was cranking out sound that surpassed what I heard today and that just isn't right lol. But, I'm seeing it again this weekend with a friend in a brand new state of the art theater near her so it'll be amazing there I'm sure. Sadly I couldn't see it in IMAX, I searched around and no IMAX theater has it either near me or her which really bummed me out but I had already read great things about the regular RealD 3D so that took some of the sting out of it. The three changes I'm glad he made were: He added the black top on the #1 funnel when it topples onto Fabrizio, it's no longer that odd buff-colored tube from the initial release. He digitally removed the string that tugs the glass off of the mantle in front of Thomas Andrews in the final moments of the sinking. He added a completely new star field for Rose to look up at while she's floating on the wood panel, removing the "mirrored sky" from the initial release. All that said, it seemed like 1997 all over again today, my audience was well behaved and reacted appropriately at the right times, it was great seeing teens in there (who actually managed to go three+ hours without checking their cell phones, impressive lol) who were probably no more than one or two years-old when it was initially released and they were probably seeing it for the very first time in a theater or perhaps ever ever. That did my heart good to see that, I don't know why lol. TITANIC is back!
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#15 of 139 ONLINE   Tino

Tino

    Producer



  • 5,594 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999
  • Real Name:Valentino
  • LocationMetro NYC

Posted April 07 2012 - 02:00 PM

Hi John. I knew it was only a matter of time before you popped in here. Good to hear from you buddy. Come to Jersey again and I'll treat you to an IMAX showing! I didn't think Cameron changed anything for this release. Although I could have sworn he digitally altered Kate Winslets mole on her face when she first steps out of the carriage to match the film flop he did for those scenes. More to pay attention to on my next viewing.
It's gonna be a hell of a ride. I'm ready. .

#16 of 139 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer



  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted April 07 2012 - 02:10 PM

Ahh, man, I'd love to take you up on that offer lol. I didn't notice the mole switch, I'll look for that this weekend. Cameron also added a lot more stars to the sky than there were before, not just in the wide shots but over the shoulders of characters, like when Cal hears the commotion and looks down to see the lifeboat almost being lowered onto the other and when Jack is looking down at Rose when she's being lowered down in the lifeboat. Another new addition, or so I read, was that he altered the sky during the "I'm flying!" sequence, this one didn't stand out to me as being completely new but he may have boosted the color a bit when he graded the film for this release.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#17 of 139 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,320 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 07 2012 - 02:30 PM

He digitally removed the string that tugs the glass off of the mantle in front of Thomas Andrews in the final moments of the sinking.

Was the string gone on the three disc set? I saw Cameron say that he changed the stars that Rose looks up at so it was what have been seen on April 14/15, 1912 but are you sure about the other changes? Seeing more stars might be a benefit of higher resolution of the movie theater versus a DVD. For the sake of completeness, they also changed the Paramount logo to the current '100 years' one and the end credits at the end have 3 or 4 more cards to credit the folks who worked on the 3-D conversion and restoration.

#18 of 139 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer



  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted April 07 2012 - 02:38 PM

I put the DVD in as soon as I got home so I'm positive the stars in those two shots were added as they just aren't there on the DVD, just black night sky, and the string is present on the DVD as well. As for the skies in the "I'm flying!" scene I can't be 100% sure about that, they didn't look any different to me except maybe being more vivid.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#19 of 139 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,320 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 07 2012 - 02:54 PM

I put the DVD in as soon as I got home so I'm positive the stars in those two shots were added as they just aren't there on the DVD, just black night sky, and the string is present on the DVD as well. As for the skies in the "I'm flying!" scene I can't be 100% sure about that, they didn't look any different to me except maybe being more vivid.

I know you know your stuff so I'll take your word for it. I didn't notice any color changes to the flying scene either, I think I'd chalk that up to people comparing the 3-D version to their miscalibrated TVs.

#20 of 139 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted April 07 2012 - 11:07 PM

Here's an overview of the difference in formats (do not pay attention to the colors, the full aperture version is a video shot snapped in front of a computer screen, not the final, color graded image) Original theatrical ratio 1999 DVD - about 2.24:1 http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ Full aperture restoration 2012 - about 1.72:1 http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/