UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Titanic -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

James Cameron's Titanic, The Christmas release of 1997, won eleven Academy Awards inclusive of Best Picture, and was nominated for another three.

I make mention of that because I'm going to break one of my cardinal rules, which is to never mess with the imagery of a Best Picture.

To my eye, it appears that a great deal of labor went into creating a new digital version of Titanic, inclusive of de-graining, and leaving the new image with a tightly knit vapor of "grain."

The production stock used for the main portions of the film was extremely fine grain, and possibly because of that, the resultant imagery is so highly resolved, and beautifully rendered that I not only don't have a problem with it, but applaud those behind the processing, which is in many instances other-worldly.

This is just the latest in a progression of technical achievements going back to IMAX blow-ups and dual-strip 3-D.

The colors and densities are spot on. Would anyone supposed otherwise?

Black levels and shadow detail perfectly replicated.

I tried to consider a 4k title that might be good for comparison, and only came up with Midsommar, which was shot in 8k on Panavision's Millennium, and down-razzed to 4k for the A24 release.

Trying to compare the two, Midsummer may appear a bit more organic, and Titanic a bit - not sure of the word to use - "crispier."

Not a great deal more to note. Audio is proscenium filling Dolby Atmos.

For those still on the fence about making the move to 4k and Dolby Atmos, and love Titanic...

This may be the one to push you to act. And you can blame Paramount.

A brilliantly conceived new 4k UHD release and another absolutely reference release from Paramount, and thus far what may be a unique processed 4k that is quality all the way.

For slipcover collectors, there's nothing special here. An attractive slip, nicely designed, and partially printed reflectively.

This is a release for which the actual disc is more important than the slip.


Image – 10 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 10 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 10

Worth your attention - 10

Slipcover rating - 3.75

Very Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[Konstantinos]

I have the blu-ray. I wonder if it is worth it to upgrade.
Oh well, I'll wait for screenshot comparisons.
Thanks for the review though.

I assume I'm in the minority here (or even maybe a sole exception), but I would prefer it if the goofs remained, as in the original theatrical prints:

Titanic (Comparison: Old Version - New Version (2012)) - Movie-Censorship.com

Comparison: Old Version - New Version (2012)

www.movie-censorship.com

 

[DarkVader]

I speak for myself when I say that if Robert Harris is highly recommending a film especially one this important in this format then I don't need to view screenshots (which are highly compressed and therefore misleading) to purchase with absolute confidence. After all, this was the guy who led the team that saved one of my all-time favorite films, "My Fair Lady" way back in the 1990s.

It's simply a done deal!

 

[john a hunter]

Could you confirm the aspect ratio Robert ?
There were rumours that Mr C had played around with it.

 

[Tino]

Could you confirm the aspect ratio Robert ?
There were rumours that Mr C had played around with it.

Theatrical has always been 2.35:1. I’m sure it’s the same here.

3D was 1.85:1

 

[Robert Crawford]

Could you confirm the aspect ratio Robert ?
There were rumours that Mr C had played around with it.

The 4K/Dolby Vision digital appears to be 2.35 without doing exact measurements.

 

[DarkVader]

Just sampled the first 15 minutes of this on Apple TV. It looks f'ing gorgeous.

 

[Konstantinos]

(which are highly compressed and therefore misleading)

Well, caps-a-holic posts uncompressed screenshots too.

 

[Tino]

Well, caps-a-holic posts uncompressed screenshots too.

Do you trust them more than RAH and others here?

 

[Tino]

I know. I just don’t get it. They may be helpful sometimes but are far from definitive. Too many unknown variables.

 

[Konstantinos]

Do you trust them more than RAH and others here?

I watch my blu-rays and UHDs on my pc, and not once have I seen something different than what caps-a-holic offers.
So, yes, no offence to Mr. RAH or anyone here, I trust my eyes and what I personally like or don't like.
For this specific release I want to see how radical is the difference between blu-ray and UHD, to justify any purchase.

 

[SD_Brian]

Theatrical has always been 2.35:1. I’m sure it’s the same here.

3D was 1.85:1

The IMAX 3-D version that came out last February(?) was 2.35:1 ( I was surprised, because based on the previous 3-D release, I was expecting 1.85).

 

[OliverK]

here we go again...

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I watch my blu-rays and UHDs on my pc, and not once have I seen something different than what caps-a-holic offers.
So, yes, no offence to Mr. RAH or anyone here, I trust my eyes and what I personally like or don't like.
For this specific release I want to see how radical is the difference between blu-ray and UHD, to justify any purchase.

I'm not sure why people get so polarized (and overreact) over screencaps (one way or the other) regardless of who/where's the source for them -- yes, I get some sources/sites, especially in decades past, have been too unreliable/iffy, but not all seem to be though... at least if/when understood in proper light...

Like most anything/one else, they're just samplings/data points that probably don't tell the whole story nor are necessarily wrong/inaccurate or completely useless at least in cases provided by reasonably reliable sources/sites, especially if/when taken/understood w/ proper qualifications, etc.

Anyhoo...

_Man_

 

[SD_Brian]

I'm not sure why people get so polarized (and overreact) over screencaps

Getting polarized and overreacting are what the internet is for!

 

[PMF]

Not me.

Titanic in 4K/UHD?

Scores of 10, 10, 10 and 10 from RAH?

Run, don’t walk.

Ordered, purchased and SOLD - Absolutely.

 

[Tino]

The IMAX 3-D version that came out last February(?) was 2.35:1 ( I was surprised, because based on the previous 3-D release, I was expecting 1.85).

You sure?? I saw it like 5 times in 3D and they were all 1.85:1. In different theaters too.

Edit. Now I’m not sure. Just searched the net and couldn’t find any AR info on the 2023 imax rerelease.

 

[Tino]

I trust my eyes

But you’re not. You’re trusting capsaholic’s pics.

 

[jayembee]

Getting polarized and overreacting are what the internet is for!

These days...not just the internet...

 

[willyTass]

I speak for myself when I say that if Robert Harris is highly recommending a film especially one this important in this format then I don't need to view screenshots (which are highly compressed and therefore misleading) to purchase with absolute confidence. After all, this was the guy who led the team that saved one of my all-time favorite films, "My Fair Lady" way back in the 1990s.

It's simply a done deal!

I heard of that guy at Paramount. He used to be big