Hacker News Reader

> However, this time around you get HDR and HFR (in addition to the 4K and 3D you got in 2012) so thats nice. On the downside, when I went to see it, the HFR scenes were very limited and oddly chosen seconds here and there so i'm not sure if it adds anything. Frankly I feel the same about the 3D. While this film is a pretty good implementation of the technology, was anyone really asking to add 3D to this movie?

Slightly confused by what this release is - is it a remake or a remaster, or have they reshot some bits of it? The original was shot on regular 35mm at the regular frame rate, so is all this .. interpolated?

(also mildly horrified at describing films that came out in my lifetime as "old", but I guess I'm just miscalibrated there. I've not actually seen Titanic myself purely because of how long it is!)

Edit: the aspect ratio seems to be a source of contention. It appears to have been filmed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35, which has a "raw" 4:3 ratio of the full frame of the film but is intended to be cropped (matted) to wider ratios. Individual cuts could then be derived from that, which does imply that the squarer ratio releases have parts of the scene that are not visible in wider ones.

The 1998 movie was remastered in 4K and 3D in 2012 in time for the 100 year anniversary of Titanic's sinking.

This is a re-release of the 2012 remaster in which they have added HDR and some select minor moments in HFR(in the very few theaters that support this).

The original was released in 2.39:1 while the 2012 remaster was released in 1.78:1 (i'm assuming taken from the original cut since it was a remaster)

>(also mildly horrified at describing films that came out in my lifetime as "old", but I guess I'm just miscalibrated there. I've not actually seen Titanic myself purely because of how long it is!)

Well it is now 25 years old so I guess it depends on your definition of old. I guess it is not that old...it is not black and white lol!

Well since you haven't seen it, if you have any interest in it, you might as well see it now on the big screen in a premium format since the opportunity is there(if you can). I have seen it in AMC's Dolby 3D implementation and Cinemark's XD implementation. The Dolby had the HFR but the XD has a slightly larger screen from what I could gather. Both were quite good but I believe the Dolby had the better picture quality.

Keep in mind this film was "supposedly" the highest grossing film of all time and held that title for 12 years. Might make sense to see what all the commotion is about if you are interested in those things. (I say supposedly because it depends on how you count inflation figures of Gone with the Wind. As a result some say Titanic is only the second highest grossing film)

Why is a high frame rate better? I find motion blur in standard frame rates is what makes a movie immersive. Whenever I watch shows on a modern TV at HFR they just look like real life, as if you are standing next to the actor and seeing past all the theatre of it.

Seems to me they slapped HFR on it just to make you think you are getting something different to the 2012 version and get you in seats.

It is questionable whether or not HFR is appropriate for film. I do agree that the motion blur you get in 24fps is excellent. I also like it even better when viewing on a 70mm film print.

In my opinion, it would be great to see select scenes in HFR such as the famous docking scene from Interstellar. I don't feel there are any scenes that warranted HFR in Titanic and was curious to see what they would have chosen. Surprisingly very few scenes were added in HFR and the moments that were in HFR were very brief.

The HDR is pretty nice but I think the main appeal of this release is to allow a new generation to see it in theaters and the 25th anniversary is just an excuse to allow this. Keep in mind that it is a limited release that I hear will end in a week or so.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onVhbeY7nLM

I'd be happy to see 24fps die. You said HFR shots "just look like real life" and to me that's precisely what any form of video SHOULD start with. You want to make an artistic choice, fine, but can we start with as crisp, clean, color rich, and highest frame rate possible please, and change those if the director or cinematographer think it'd be best to do so?

Yeah: I'm one of those folks with Motion Smoothing On on my expensive TV. 24fps is a remnant. A slideshow. You're conditioned to like it from having seen it for years, but it's not in any way special. Let. It. Die.

There's a lot of opinion in this: "they supposedly showed the better 1.78:1"

By creating the 1.78, there is picture that has been cropped out and is no longer visible. The director/DP shot it in the original aspect for a reason. To create the non-OAR version, compromises were made. To say that the cropped version is better is a heavy bit of opinion to say the least.

"However it is a re-release of an old film so if your not keen on watching an old film then there isn't a point."

Wow, just so much wow. Yes, let's never watch a movie because it is older. That's like saying, never read a book that wasn't released in the past couple of years. You're cutting out a large percentage of material based on some very strange criteria.

Maybe. It's possible the 2.39 one is a crop of the 1.78. So which one is "better" might be a bit academic i.e. there might be more picture on the 1.78 one but its strips of stuff top and bottom the director didnt really want anybody to see.

Did it hurt when you stretched that far to try to prove a point that's not even valid. did you read the words coming off your fingertips?

Does "that the director didn't really want anybody to see" sounds exactly like what the director is going to go back in to allow people to see on an anniversary release? Here's a quote never said by James Cameron: "yeah, you know, when we exposed for 2.35 aspect so we allowed all of the film gak to be in frame for a smaller aspect ratios, we should release that to the public since it will definitely enhance the experience of the viewer. that was such a mistake to not do that 25 years ago"

I was merely pointing out that it happens that 2.35:1 prints are sometimes produced from narrower masters.

>There's a lot of opinion in this: "they supposedly showed the better 1.78:1"

>By creating the 1.78, there is picture that has been cropped out and is no longer visible. The director/DP shot it in the original aspect for a reason. To create the non-OAR version, compromises were made. To say that the cropped version is better is a heavy bit of opinion to say the least.

Good point, this assertion came from my research into this new version before selecting the theaters I was going to see the film in. The consensus appears to be that the 2.39:1 version is not ideal and there was disappointment in people who had gone to see the film to discover that it is not 1.78:1 on places like several subreddits(imax, titanic, amc and some more) as well as some discord chat rooms that focus on movie quality.

>Wow, just so much wow. Yes, let's never watch a movie because it is older. That's like saying, never read a book that wasn't released in the past couple of years. You're cutting out a large percentage of material based on some very strange criteria.

Man this is one loaded comment. The OP was asking if the titanic was any good. I merely suggested that if they are not interested in old films that it wouldn't make sense to check this one out. In hindsight it is an obvious point so maybe I shouldn't have made it but your response makes a lot of assumptions about what I intended with my comment.