-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
3D Blu-ray Reviews

Titanic 3D Blu-ray Review



  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 of 93 Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member

  • 5,063 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted September 17 2012 - 08:05 AM

You could have simply pointed out any inaccuracies without resorting to condescending editorials such as "...sloppy writing..." and "...show pride in your work..." I thought your remarks were unnecessarily acerbic.

I agree. BTW, Mike, would you have said the same to Neil, face-to-face?
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#82 of 93 Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor

  • 9,567 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted September 17 2012 - 09:21 AM

Yes he would! :D Sometimes the anonymity of the internet really does lower the quality of public discourse...

#83 of 93 Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer

  • 10,326 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted September 17 2012 - 09:57 AM

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.


One thing leads to another at cameronyee.com

#84 of 93 lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,126 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted September 17 2012 - 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Cameron Yee 

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...Posted Image



#85 of 93 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,222 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted September 17 2012 - 11:34 AM

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...:rolleyes:

Yes, there are a few posters who do nothing but complain. I would just ignore their posts and maybe they will go away.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#86 of 93 Bryan^H

Bryan^H

    Screenwriter

  • 2,589 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 2005

Posted September 18 2012 - 05:30 AM

So, there used to be a member on this board that constantly would post things like "Upconverted 2D is no good" and "Anything upconverted is not real 3D." Well, I wonder what that person would be saying after watching this 3D Blu-ray release of TITANIC. I just finished my viewing, and I am still stunned by what I had seen. Titanic was never particularly a favorite film of mine, but I couldn't help but be reawakened to this film through it's 3D beauty.  The level of depth is outstanding. This is the finest upconverted 3D film I have ever watched.  In fact,  it is among the best 3D films I have ever had the pleasure of watching.

'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. Thanks guys!

housekeeping 2.jpg

"She always does that, she just wanders away"

 

 

 


#87 of 93 earwin

earwin

    Auditioning

  • 3 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2012

Posted December 16 2012 - 06:27 AM

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

#88 of 93 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

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

Posted December 17 2012 - 05:03 AM

Thankx, what is the source of the Panavision shot?



#89 of 93 Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor

  • 9,567 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted December 17 2012 - 05:15 AM

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.

#90 of 93 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,701 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted December 17 2012 - 02:27 PM

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. Vincent

#91 of 93 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,222 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted December 18 2012 - 12:24 AM

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. Vincent

Caps-a-holic has a 1.78 to 2.35 comparison

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#92 of 93 earwin

earwin

    Auditioning

  • 3 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2012

Posted December 18 2012 - 08:23 AM

Thankx, what is the source of the Panavision shot?

Actually, I found it on official fb page of the movie.

#93 of 93 earwin

earwin

    Auditioning

  • 3 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 2012

Posted December 18 2012 - 09:08 AM

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.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3D Blu-ray Reviews

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users