# Titanic 3D



## eddster25

Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.


----------



## Decrypticshadow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



Nonetheless, I'm sure with Cameron's name on it, the conversion would be really good. I would by it just to see the depth. Also, the flooding halls scene would look great for pop out.. Is this really happening or is this just a question?


----------



## Steve P.

It's being released theatrically in 3-D on April 6, 2012. Cameron is very involved in the conversion.


----------



## warrenP

For 3D to keep "evolving" I would say that yes, it is necessary. I'm a fan of 3D, and don't mind if everything is in 3D. I think this is to Cameron's point that even movies that don't fall into the action or animation categories are more enjoyable in 3D.


----------



## javanpohl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/20459739
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



Add anything to the STORY?? While I am not Titanic's biggest fan (which is probably why I don't see the need for it to be converted), saying that it "wouldn't add anything to the story" is [insert some non-offensive word for "stupid"]


3D never adds anything to the story (except maybe Tron). Neither does color (for the most part), surround sound, room-shaking bass, cinemascope, or pretty much anything else us home theater heads crave in our systems. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make the film-watching experience even more enjoyable.


Actually, I just though of a reason why I'd like to see Titanic in 3d. One of biggest qualms with the movie, effects-wise, (and probably every movie up until Avatar, actually) was the incredibly poor use of water set in a miniature scale (i.e. when the ship is sinking, it's obvious, IMO, that the bubbling water is not at the scale it would be if a giant ship were actually sinking.) So, perhaps the 3d will give a more realistic sense of depth and scale to those types of scenes.


----------



## Lee Stewart

I don't understand the brouhaha. Same movie, same actors, same dialog, etc. Only difference is the conversion to 3D. No real difference to when studios convert mono films into surround sound films for home video releases. Or when they convert 5.1 theaterical releases to 7.1 for their HV release.


In both cases for 2012, the film conversion is being overseen by the original film makers; Lucas and Cameron.


I would love to see Ridley Scott do a 2D to 3D converson of Blade Runner.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/20459739
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



I think you question ties into a bigger one, namely "should ANY movies be remade in 3D" ?


It will be interesting the see both the technical and commercial success of converted 3D efforts like Titanic, Star Wars, etc. I thought Avatar was great in 3D but it was conceived and filmed that way. Maybe it all will depend on the success of the 2D to 3D conversion...


John


----------



## bandit7319

I think it's a dumb idea. That movie was one of the longest and most made fun of movies ever. Plus, it was just out like what, 15 years ago or something? If it was releasing it to a new generation it'd be more understandable, but I don't think people born since this movie was initially released will have any interest in seeing it. If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.


Plus, not trying to start a sexist discussion, but, most of the people who loved this movie were women. And it's been my personal experience that women are impartial to 3D. It's a good movie and all, but... eh


----------



## eddster25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bandit7319* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think it's a dumb idea. That movie was one of the longest and most made fun of movies ever. Plus, it was just out like what, 15 years ago or something? If it was releasing it to a new generation it'd be more understandable, but I don't think people born since this movie was initially released will have any interest in seeing it. If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.
> 
> 
> Plus, not trying to start a sexist discussion, but, most of the people who loved this movie were women. And it's been my personal experience that women are impartial to 3D. It's a good movie and all, but... eh



Agreed!


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

I am for it. The was made fun of all the way to the bank that's for sure.










Next time I screen it? I will probably give it a conversion to 3D just for grins.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bandit7319* /forum/post/20460618
> 
> 
> If they want to see it, they'll have seen it already at home and I don't think 3D will be enough to justify a whole rewatch.



But doesn't that in some way apply to all previously released movies? I think I counted once that, between VCR, DVD's and various "special" editions, I owned 7 copies of Star Wars. And it's had innumerable showings on TV. But Lucas thinks enough of its 3D potential that he's spending big bucks to convert. Both he and Cameron must have faith in the financial model...


John


----------



## TonyDP

I really could care less (Titanic just isn't my kind of movie) but wasn't Cameron railing against 2D>3D conversions?


----------



## MickB




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *warrenp* /forum/post/20459955
> 
> 
> for 3d to keep "evolving" i would say that yes, it is necessary. I'm a fan of 3d, and don't mind if everything is in 3d. I think this is to cameron's point that even movies that don't fall into the action or animation categories are more enjoyable in 3d.



+1


I will catch it in the theater and if it is as good as Alice, I will buy the 3D Blu-ray!


----------



## Gaborik

It's about the $$$


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gaborik* /forum/post/20462212
> 
> 
> It's about the $$$



LOL - isn't that the bottom line for Hollywood?


----------



## Mongis

I would rather see Cameron convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D to be honest.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP* /forum/post/20461953
> 
> 
> I really could care less (Titanic just isn't my kind of movie) but wasn't Cameron railing against 2D>3D conversions?



He rails against quickie post-production conversions for new movies being made today, when they should be shot with the 3D camera he built (and receives licensing fees for the use of) instead. But he seems to think that it's fine and dandy to convert catalog titles, so long as enough time and effort is put into doing the conversion "right."


----------



## Bigplay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongis* /forum/post/20463315
> 
> 
> I would rather see Cameron convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D to be honest.



Now that would be cool.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20464362
> 
> 
> He rails against quickie post-production conversions for new movies being made today, when they should be shot with the 3D camera he built (and receives licensing fees for the use of) instead. But he seems to think that it's fine and dandy to convert catalog titles, so long as enough time and effort is put into doing the conversion "right."



Why do I sense disapproval in your tone when someone like Criterion is rightly praised for releasing deserving SD catalog titles on Bluray? Why is Cameron's conversion to a new format greeted with so much skepticism and labeled as so mercenary?


John


----------



## Lee Stewart

*James Cameron slams 3D film conversion*



> Quote:
> The film-maker has revealed he is planning to convert his 1997 blockbuster Titanic into a 3D release, but said it will be different because he plans to take his time instead of doing a "slapdash conversion".


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8586973.stm 


This was his reaction to the 2D to 3D conversion of CLASH OF THE TITANS


----------



## S A M 33

All a matter of taste of course, but for me it means it will now suck in another dimension.


S A M 33


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Robert* /forum/post/20465638
> 
> 
> Why do I sense disapproval in your tone when someone like Criterion is rightly praised for releasing deserving SD catalog titles on Bluray? Why is Cameron's conversion to a new format greeted with so much skepticism and labeled as so mercenary?



Converting old 2D movies to 3D is no different than colorizing black & white movies, or adding terrible new CGI effects to movies made in the '70s. Even if it's done technically well, it's just not what the movie was ever intended to be.


So long as Cameron agrees to release the original 2D version of the movie at the same time, I'm OK with it. (Unlike some other fillmmakers who try to pretend that the original versions of their movies were "rough drafts" never intended for public view.) Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.


Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20465736
> 
> 
> Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.



Does your dislike include SD movies "modernized" as Bluray releases?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20465736
> 
> 
> Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.



As I'm sure you know, "The Last Supper" has been restored several times since 1498, most recently in a process that started in 1979 and ended in 1999...


John


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20465736
> 
> 
> Converting old 2D movies to 3D is no different than colorizing black & white movies, or adding terrible new CGI effects to movies made in the '70s. Even if it's done technically well, it's just not what the movie was ever intended to be.
> 
> 
> So long as Cameron agrees to release the original 2D version of the movie at the same time, I'm OK with it. (Unlike some other fillmmakers who try to pretend that the original versions of their movies were "rough drafts" never intended for public view.) Even so, I don't have to like this mentality that all old movies need to be "modernized" to make them palatable to today's attention-deficit audience.
> 
> 
> Imagine if someone decided that all those brush strokes visible in The Last Supper were too "old fashioned," and the painting would be a lot better if we could just airbrush them out and make it look like it was created in Photoshop. Once it's "fixed" that way, we can just throw that old junky version in the trash.



AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.


Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.


----------



## javanpohl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20466250
> 
> 
> AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.
> 
> 
> Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.



I think he means on blu-ray. Don't think there's any chance of Titanic NOT being released on 2d blu-ray.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/20466417
> 
> 
> I think he means on blu-ray. Don't think there's any chance of Titanic NOT being released on 2d blu-ray.



Bill Hunt has said that the BD of TITANIC will be released approx. 2 weeks after the April 6 2012 3D premier.



> Quote:
> MORE interesting from our standpoint, however, is that multiple industry sources have now checked in with us to say that a Blu-ray release of the film (2D for sure and maybe 3D too) will happen a week or two later


----------



## timtationx

Cameron is doing this for one reason and one reason only. To further extend the box office and to ensure he'll always have the 2 highest grossing movies of all time... Titanic in 3D? Really? If there was a list of movies that dont need to be in 3D, Titanic would be near the top of the list. Im a huge 3D fan, but this is ridiculous, and I hope it fails.


----------



## Taffy Lewis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timtationx* /forum/post/20467858
> 
> 
> ...Titanic in 3D? Really? If there was a list of movies that dont need to be in 3D, Titanic would be near the top of the list.



Perhaps you think adding 3D with its more immersive "you are there" element to "disaster" type of movies is a bad idea? That's kinda silly.


> Quote:
> Im a huge 3D fan, but this is ridiculous, and I hope it fails.



I think you're a Titanic hater and letting that feeling cloud your judgment. I would argue that 3D fans in general would like to see Titanic in 3D be hugely successful.


----------



## dfergie

I'll watch Titanic for sure, Star Wars same...


----------



## eddster25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dfergie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'll watch Titanic for sure, Star Wars same...



Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll watch Star Wars in 3D. That should be EPIC.


----------



## thebard

Me, I'm sick of these big-shot directors always after another money grab. First the sequels, then the special editions, now 3D (grumble, grumble)... Personally I'm not gonna fall for shelling out more...


(grumble, grumble)


of my hard-earned...


(grudgingly reaches into wallet)


...oh, FINE!


(huff)


----------



## Skiiermike

I'll watch it just to see the scene where the water rushes through the hallways. That much water in 3d will be awesome.


----------



## timtationx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Taffy Lewis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps you think adding 3D with its more immersive "you are there" element to "disaster" type of movies is a bad idea? That's kinda silly.
> 
> 
> I think you're a Titanic hater and letting that feeling cloud your judgment. I would argue that 3D fans in general would like to see Titanic in 3D be hugely successful.



Well you thought wrong..I like Titanic. I own both the double VHS version and the DVD version..I think it is a great movie (only a little too long). As far as the disaster scenes go, this is not a roller coaster type of movie. There are only a few scenes that would benefit from the added dimension.. And those scenes are in the last 30 minutes of a 3 hour movie.


----------



## CINERAMAX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Bigplay* 
Now that would be cool.
I Did this on the Teranex Rig last night using the superior Japanese transfer, very good effect overall.


This is the same rig I had a 5 minute argument with JC and a month later he sent his guys from Lightstorm to stop by the booth at NAB.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Robert* /forum/post/20465863
> 
> 
> Does your dislike include SD movies "modernized" as Bluray releases?



What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.


Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a *change* to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20475521
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.
> 
> 
> Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a *change* to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.



So is remixing a mono movie to surround sound. You have any issues with that practice?


----------



## kal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20475521
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "SD movie," pray tell? Aside from stuff made for TV, old movies were not shot on standard-def video. They were shot on 35mm film which contains vastly more detail than SD video, with the intention of being projected on 50-foot theater screens.
> 
> 
> Transferring an old movie to high definition and Blu-ray is not "modernizing" it. That's simply presenting it closer to the quality of the original source. Colorizing a black & white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D is a *change* to the movie. That's a different matter entirely.



Exactly right.


It's a common misunderstanding Josh.


I get emails every week that basically ask _"How can be any better on Blu-ray? It was out long before HD existed"_.


HD is new so a lot of people think that higher resolution simply wasn't possible before HD was 'invented'.


Back on topic: I also have no issues with directors going back and editing older films any way they like as long as we still have access to the originals. While it doesn't mean I'll like the results, they're their movies and they may do as they please.


How does converting a film negative (or positive) to 3D actually work anyway on a technical level? I'm assuming that the digital master (scanned) is put through some software where the director pics and choose exactly how he wants foreground/background information to appear and the software tries to 'follow' the item through multiple frames to save work? Anyone have technical links on the subject? I would imagine it's extremely labour intensive when done right.


Computer generated (CGI) films on the other hand can almost get 3D for "free" when you consider that the scenes are all basically modelled in 3D space. The director only has to run through the whole thing with 2 cameras set slighly off from each other to render the 3D version of the film. I'm sure there's a lot of tweaking still but it has to be 1000x easier than trying to turn a 100% celluloid film based movie 3D.


Kal


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kal* /forum/post/20478203
> 
> 
> Back on topic: I also have no issues with directors going back and editing older films any way they like as long as we still have access to the originals. While it doesn't mean I'll like the results, they're their movies and they may do as they please.
> 
> 
> How does converting a film negative (or positive) to 3D actually work anyway on a technical level? I'm assuming that the digital master (scanned) is put through some software where the director pics and choose exactly how he wants foreground/background information to appear and the software tries to 'follow' the item through multiple frames to save work? Anyone have technical links on the subject? I would imagine it's extremely labour intensive when done right.
> 
> 
> Kal



This is one way - an explaination of the process, though each conversion house has it's secret methods. But it will give you an idea how it's done.

http://www.hdlogix.com/modules/text-...verview001.pdf 


It is done frame by frame and yes, it is very labor intensive and expensive. Lucas and Cameron will be spending approx $15 to $20 million per picture. Which of course is much less compared to their original production budgets.


----------



## kal

Thanks for the link Lee. I gave it a quick skim and yup, the automated systems do exactly what I'd expect.


Kal


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20476313
> 
> 
> So is remixing a mono movie to surround sound. You have any issues with that practice?



Yes, frankly.


Try listening to The Terminator's 5.1 remix and tell me that's better than the original mono.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20481316
> 
> 
> Yes, frankly.
> 
> 
> Try listening to The Terminator's 5.1 remix and tell me that's better than the original mono.



LOL - that is the movie I had in mind when I asked the question


----------



## Josh Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* 
LOL - that is the movie I had in mind when I asked the question








Then I bet you love the scene where Arnold pulls out his gun to kill the first Sarah Connor, and instead of the echoing BOOM BOOM BOOM that used to accompany the scene, you now hear a PFFT PFFT PFFT as if the gun had a silencer (which it clearly does not). Or how the sound of Michael Biehn pumping his shotgun after waking up from his nightmare of the future is almost completely buried by background noise. Or how the entire front soundstage regularly goes completely silent when sound effects are steered to the surround channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I'm sure Cameron will be fiddling with The Terminator and T2's soundtracks as they're being restored right now. I don't know if that means IMHO unnecessary 2D to 3D conversions, however.


If it was shot in 2D... leave as 2D... it will only look like a popup book (the CGI effects can be re-rendered with a convincing stereoscopic look and that's pretty easy as far as conversions go, but live action stuff that was shot with a one lens camera will look bad) and it adds nothing to the story.


It's just a money grab so he can have more financing for his new 3D sci-fi movie.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman* 
I'm sure Cameron will be fiddling with The Terminator and T2's soundtracks as they're being restored right now. I don't know if that means IMHO unnecessary 2D to 3D conversions, however.


If it was shot in 2D... leave as 2D... it will only look like a popup book (the CGI effects can be re-rendered with a convincing stereoscopic look and that's pretty easy as far as conversions go, but live action stuff that was shot with a one lens camera will look bad) and it adds nothing to the story.


It's just a money grab so he can have more financing for his new 3D sci-fi movie.
Have you ever seen a 2D movie converted to 3D? Try THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE XMAS. And that was done years ago.


----------



## jmasterdude

I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.


There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.


I also had the impression that Cameron envisioned certain scenes in Titanic as 3D. I haven't seen the movie for years, but if I recall the sequence introducing the grand Titanic, painting of the staircase from the old wreck to the Fresh from Dock Titanic was screaming for all the impression of depth possible.


I'm interested in some of these 3D remasters including Titanic and esp Star Wars and will make up my mind after I see the finished product.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmasterdude* /forum/post/20506156
> 
> 
> I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.
> 
> 
> There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.



This is no different than saying, "I bet Frank Capra would have made It's a Wonderful Life in color if he could have." Well, you can speculate all you want, but the fact is that he *didn't*. He made the movie in black & white, knowing the limitations he faced, and photographed the movie for the best black & white presentation that he could.


Likewise, Spielberg made Temple of Doom in 2D. In that case, he even could have shot it in 3D if he'd wanted to (there was a mini 3D boom around that time). But he didn't. He made it in 2D. That's what the movie is.


----------



## Taffy Lewis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmasterdude* /forum/post/20506156
> 
> 
> I don't think 2d-3d can be directly correlated to the colorization process.
> 
> 
> There are certain movies where you can tell that the director was envisioning a 3d presentation. I always get the impression that Spielberg was filming Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom as if it would/could be 3D. I can't shake that impression. Done correctly I think Temple of Doom would come out as must see 3D.
> 
> 
> I also had the impression that Cameron envisioned certain scenes in Titanic as 3D. I haven't seen the movie for years, but if I recall the sequence introducing the grand Titanic, painting of the staircase from the old wreck to the Fresh from Dock Titanic was screaming for all the impression of depth possible.
> 
> 
> I'm interested in some of these 3D remasters including Titanic and esp Star Wars and will make up my mind after I see the finished product.



Well...I think it's a safe bet to say that if the technology was in place when Titanic was filming back in the day...Cameron would have done it in 3D and I don't think it's a terrible stretch of the imagination to conclude that Lucas would have done the same. They are simply years ahead of everyone else when it comes to technical presentations and what audiences want imo.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Taffy Lewis* /forum/post/20512911
> 
> 
> Well...I think it's a safe bet to say that if the technology was in place when Titanic was filming back in the day...Cameron would have done it in 3D and I don't think it's a terrible stretch of the imagination to conclude that Lucas would have done the same. They are simply years ahead of everyone else when it comes to technical presentations and what audiences want imo.



The technology was in place but it was an inferior technology. They stopped using twin cameras and twin projectors by the time Star Wars and Titanic were shot. 3D in the 60's through the 80's was shot and shown using a single camera with a beam splitter that recorded the two frames within a single 35mm frame and was presented using a single 35mm projector.


----------



## insman1132

If Cameron's involved you can be sure it will be well done. And as he has said, Titanic came out in 1997, so there is a whole generation of new viewers now ready to see that fine film.


And haven't we all been screaming for more 3D content?? So I say "Bring it out, James. Bring it out!"


----------



## sportage

This is funny. I just got the LG 55LW6500 and titanic just happened to be on one of the cable tv channels. I was then thinking, too bad this isnt in 3D.


----------



## wired1

While I am excited about all 3D, this movie is just SO played out to me. Saw it a bajillion times. The only way I will run to get it is if they extend the nude scenes with Kate


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wired1* /forum/post/20751122
> 
> 
> While I am excited about all 3D, this movie is just SO played out to me. Saw it a bajillion times. The only way I will run to get it is if they extend the nude scenes with Kate



There's no shortage of nudity in Kate Winslet's career. Even to this day, she'll take her clothes off in any movie if the director asks her nicely.


----------



## blackoper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20752305
> 
> 
> There's no shortage of nudity in Kate Winslet's career. Even to this day, she'll take her clothes off in any movie if the director asks her nicely.



God bless her


----------



## Av8tr

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* 
AFAIK, both TITANIC and the STAR WARS re-releases in 3D will only be in 3D. No 2D re-releases.


Guess we will have to wait to see if the public embraces these conversions. One thing we do know is that both will get the very best conversion money can buy.
Can't wait!


----------



## 3Daddicted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/20459739
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



To be honest, nothing beats a book for story. Film innovations are more about immersion than anything else. Having said as much, I'm interested to see what 3D can bring to a drama.


----------



## cbcdesign

I am most interested to see Titanic herself in 3D. The sense of depth 3D could convey on those long desks would be awesome. 882 feet of rivetted iron in 3D! yes please?


As for the "should it" or "shouldn't it" be done arguments, its James Camerons movie, not ours and if he want to convert it to 3D he has every right to do so. I have a feeling it will be done very well anyway.


----------



## JeffDaniel

there is nothing that could ever make me sit through this movie again.


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffDaniel* /forum/post/20802247
> 
> 
> there is nothing that could ever make me sit through this movie again.



....and the point in clicking on a Titanic 3D thread and posting is......


----------



## JeffDaniel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *William* /forum/post/20802379
> 
> 
> ....and the point in clicking on a Titanic 3D thread and posting is......



to smash my head into the desk and scream why.


----------



## baltar

20th Century Fox showed 10mins from Titanic 3D at ComicCon.


It made quite an impression apparently:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=81022


----------



## johnsmith808




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffDaniel* /forum/post/20802427
> 
> 
> to smash my head into the desk and scream why.



Sounds like the joke about the guy who killed himself because he was so sick about eating a Tuna sandwich for lunch everyday. Thing is he packed his own lunch.


----------



## timtationx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffDaniel* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> to smash my head into the desk and scream why.



The answer is simple. Cameron just wants to make sure he'll always have the 2 biggest movies ever. Extending the box office number is the ONLY reason. If it was really about enhancing a movie with 3D, he would've converted a movie that would benefit more from the 3D, like, you know, TERMINATOR 2...


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wired1* /forum/post/20751122
> 
> 
> While I am excited about all 3D, this movie is just SO played out to me. Saw it a bajillion times. The only way I will run to get it is if they extend the nude scenes with Kate



Oh they'll "extend" them alright.


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timtationx* /forum/post/20818160
> 
> 
> The answer is simple. Cameron just wants to make sure he'll always have the 2 biggest movies ever. Extending the box office number is the ONLY reason. If it was really about enhancing a movie with 3D, he would've converted a movie that would benefit more from the 3D, like, you know, TERMINATOR 2...



Actually I think Fox is financing the conversion and needs to recoup it's investment and make a profit.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timtationx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Well you thought wrong..I like Titanic. I own both the double VHS version and the DVD version..I think it is a great movie (only a little too long). As far as the disaster scenes go, this is not a roller coaster type of movie. There are only a few scenes that would benefit from the added dimension.. And those scenes are in the last 30 minutes of a 3 hour movie.



I think there are plenty of scenes actually. The whole sequence where the ship leaves port ending in the flyover shot where you see the whole ship go by for example. The iceberg scene...


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/20820938
> 
> 
> I think there are plenty of scenes actually. The whole sequence where the ship leaves port ending in the flyover shot where you see the whole ship go by for example. The iceberg scene...



What about all the hall scenes, especially with the water poring towards you and away? Even early scenes would benefit greatly since there are so many narrow and long shots (halls, decks,...).


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *baltar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 20th Century Fox showed 10mins from Titanic 3D at ComicCon.
> 
> 
> It made quite an impression apparently:
> 
> http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=81022



Yeah...


"Opening on the crowd scene in the docks as the ship is boarding, the most noticeable thing about the footage is how much detail there is. When a film is converted to 3D, objects are rotoscoped and separated out onto layers. Ordinarily there are only a few layers in a shot, but with Titanic, it would seem that stereographers have put every single object onto a separate plane. The effect is astonishing - and completely justifies a 3D version of the film."


I'm looking forward to it


----------



## markmathers

Yep. I'm pretty jacked too


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markmathers* /forum/post/20821422
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm pretty jacked too



I get that sinking feeling it will be a good conversion due to the prep time and director involved.


----------



## markmathers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I get that sinking feeling it will be a good conversion due to the prep time and director involved.



I couldn't agree more. Sinking feeling huh? Pun intended? Haha


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markmathers* /forum/post/20822434
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. Sinking feeling huh? Pun intended? Haha



Just like you're "Jacked" to see Titanic 3D


----------



## markmathers

Haha damn I completely missed that one! Good up


----------



## Dave Mack

I'm sure the visuals will look all "Rosy"


----------



## cakefoo

Some really positive reactions after the latest preview; people are calling it the best 3D conversion ever- would have fooled them if they were told it was native.

http://collider.com/titanic-3d-footage-recap/123205/


----------



## markmathers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Some really positive reactions after the latest preview; people are calling it the best 3D conversion ever- would have fooled them if they were told it was native.
> 
> http://collider.com/titanic-3d-footage-recap/123205/



That's great news.


----------



## cbcdesign

It sounds really good. Looking forward to seeing it in cameron quality 3D next year.


----------



## Lee Stewart




----------



## Brajesh

Cool, can't wait







.


----------



## Dave Mack

IMAX 3d too???


Is Cameron going to keep it 2:35-1 for that?


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongis* /forum/post/20463315
> 
> 
> I would rather see Cameron convert Terminator 2: Judgment Day to 3D to be honest.



I agree, and with Lee's suggestion of blade runner.


I'd watch The Predator, Alien/s, Terminator 4, Lord of the Rings, War of the worlds, Saving Private Ryan, Matrix, Serenity, Final Fantasy, Naughty neighbors 6, The Abyss, Total Recall, The fifth Element...


He does say hes going to build in more 3D depth, hopefully approaching real world values, I really want to see how that turns out.


----------



## AVTrauma

I would also agree that Ridley Scotts "BladeRunner" would be awesome... one of my all time favorites







. I'm hoping Cameron does a 3D conversion of "Abyss"... Russian water tenticles anyone??? (I know its on his "to do" list for Bluray release, hopefully 3D at the same time, not later!)


----------



## dvdvision

IMAX 3D version will be 1.77 Or whatever it is, can't wait !


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Me, I'm sick of these big-shot directors always after another money grab. First the sequels, then the special editions, now 3D (grumble, grumble)... Personally I'm not gonna fall for shelling out more...
> 
> 
> (grumble, grumble)
> 
> 
> of my hard-earned...
> 
> 
> (grudgingly reaches into wallet)
> 
> 
> ...oh, FINE!
> 
> 
> (huff)



I lol'ed. So true, isn't it?


At any rate, I'd go to see it. In some ways, I think this is what drama needs in order to make it more immersive. There are some really good dramas out there with amazing cinematography and I would love to see more good conversions and future ones shot in 3D. As it stands, fast action scenes tend to get too blurry in 3D and my eyes often can't resolve the image. So much so, that sometimes I have to turn my head away.


I watched Captain America (which, to me looked like a pretty good conversion on my setup) and the 3D pop was greater to me in the slower scenes. Fast action comes along with people running everywhere and it all becomes a blur. Maybe it was just that movie, but...


PS - I would love to see Moulin Rouge in 3D


----------



## cakefoo

 http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Titan...ers-28028.html 


Watch that footage and then imagine it in 3D...


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/21248145
> 
> http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Titan...ers-28028.html
> 
> 
> Watch that footage and then imagine it in 3D...



Is it OK if I also *imagine* it's in 4K with 11.2 sound?


----------



## cakefoo

Sure, but since it wasn't native, it'll seem more like 3.5k and 10.1 channel.


----------



## mrjktcvs

The trailer is out now..pretty awesome.


----------



## BleedOrange11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrjktcvs* /forum/post/21264169
> 
> 
> The trailer is out now..pretty awesome.



Is it online yet?


----------



## cakefoo

Saw it in front of hugo. Looks even better than I imagined. Great clean conversion work, none of that garbage embossed or bumped out look so many other conversions settle for.


Beauty and the Beast however, well... Looked pretty blotchy.


----------



## AVTrauma

Agreed, the trailer for Titanic I saw when watching Hugo last evening was terrific, with great sense of depth not seen in the original. Cameron has been doing a great job with the conversion.


----------



## susancts

I would love to watch Titanic in 3D. It is already one of the great classics and can't really wait to watch it from the other dimension as well.


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma* /forum/post/21265207
> 
> 
> Agreed, the trailer for Titanic I saw when watching Hugo last evening was terrific, with great sense of depth not seen in the original. Cameron has been doing a great job with the conversion.



Love or hate (or in-between) his work (art) it's a fact that he is the Steven Wilson for film/3D quality.


----------



## In-the-sticks

I just checked Amazon.com and Titanic 3d on blu-ray is available for pre-order.

The date of availability is given as May 15, 2012 and the price is $21.99.

Check it out!


Sticks


Ouch!! It's the History Channel. So sad.


----------



## joerod

On it! Thanks.


----------



## AVTrauma

I'm just wondering how long it will be before it is available to purchase. Cameron will of course release the film to theaters on the anniversary... but when will the blu ray be available? and will there be a delay between blu ray and 3D Blu ray release dates? Only time will tell, but sitting on the fence can quickly become a pain in the a$$!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma* /forum/post/21383281
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long it will be before it is available to purchase. Cameron will of course release the film to theaters on the anniversary... but when will the blu ray be available? and will there be a delay between blu ray and 3D Blu ray release dates? Only time will tell, but sitting on the fence can quickly become a pain in the a$$!



Usually 4 months after theater release. But if the film is successful at the theaters it will be longer


----------



## Dave Mack

I think the 2D version of titanic on blu is coming out in April for the anniversary


----------



## eaamon

you might want to re-evaluate the " Titanic 3D " at amazon.

it looked to me like it was a *history channel* video.........

note the run time.........


note this link is for the Titanic 3D movie and no price set.....


----------



## eriaur

Titanic 3D Valentine's Day Sneak Preview Crashes Box Office Servers

http://www.movieweb.com/news/titanic...office-servers


----------



## Ophion75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20460359
> 
> 
> I don't understand the brouhaha. Same movie, same actors, same dialog, etc. Only difference is the conversion to 3D. No real difference to when studios convert mono films into surround sound films for home video releases. Or when they convert 5.1 theaterical releases to 7.1 for their HV release.
> 
> 
> In both cases for 2012, the film conversion is being overseen by the original film makers; Lucas and Cameron.
> 
> *I would love to see Ridley Scott do a 2D to 3D converson of Blade Runner*.



Why the brouhaha? Same actors, same dialog etc, only difference is the conversion to 3D.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ophion75* /forum/post/21585936
> 
> 
> Why the brouhaha? Same actors, same dialog etc, only difference is the conversion to 3D.



Try reading the 5 posts that proceded mine - then you will have a clue as to why I wrote that, which was back in May 2011


----------



## NickTheGreat

If she's gonna make me watch Titanic, I'd prefer it to be in 3D


----------



## Ophion75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/21586482
> 
> 
> Try reading the 5 posts that proceded mine - then you will have a clue as to why I wrote that, which was back in May 2011




2011 or 2012 its the same concept so i guess im confused how its ok to remake blade runner but not titanic in 3D


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ophion75* /forum/post/21587228
> 
> 
> 2011 or 2012 its the same concept so i guess im confused how its ok to remake blade runner but not titanic in 3D



You are definitely confused if you think I said that. I said nothing of the sort. The opposite - remake Titanic in 3D and please Ridley Scott - remake Blade Runner in 3D too.


Hope that clears it up for you.


----------



## tory40




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat* /forum/post/21586525
> 
> 
> If she's gonna make me watch Titanic, I'd prefer it to be in 3D



Maybe you can use that dual display LG technology to watch sports!


----------



## desrtmod

Why would you even pay for another conversion even if it is Titanic? It's just another money grab for studios. I bet Cameron is in for the moolah as well being that he produced/directed the gold standard for 3D in Avatar. The only way studios are forced to put-out more native 3D flicks if we the consumers get more discriminating with our purchase power. Enough with the pseudo 3D's like Clash, Green Hornet etc.


----------



## NickTheGreat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40* /forum/post/21587835
> 
> 
> Maybe you can use that dual display LG technology to watch sports!



ha!


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desrtmod* /forum/post/21588142
> 
> 
> Why would you even pay for another conversion even if it is Titanic? It's just another money grab for studios. I bet Cameron is in for the moolah as well being that he produced/directed the gold standard for 3D in Avatar. The only way studios are forced to put-out more native 3D flicks if we the consumers get more discriminating with our purchase power. Enough with the pseudo 3D's like Clash, Green Hornet etc.



Those movies are manure compared to the 3D in Titanic. The Titanic footage looks so accurate and it actually uses the whole 3D space intelligently.


----------



## Dave Mack

Agreed the trailer looked great. Not gimmicky. Subtle but added a great sense of depth. And it's a gorgeous looking film to begin with so seeing it on the big screen again is a treat


----------



## AVTrauma

As I previously posted, the trailer I saw for Titanic looked incredible, enough to make this release a "standard" next to Avatar & Hugo... cameron knows how do do it right!


I second "BladeRunner", one of my all time favorites, but I also have to again push for another film to be redone in 3D... Cameron's Abyss would be fantastic IMHO!


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desrtmod* /forum/post/21588142
> 
> 
> Why would you even pay for another conversion even if it is Titanic? It's just another money grab for studios. I bet Cameron is in for the moolah as well being that he produced/directed the gold standard for 3D in Avatar. The only way studios are forced to put-out more native 3D flicks if we the consumers get more discriminating with our purchase power. Enough with the pseudo 3D's like Clash, Green Hornet etc.



Well studios exist to make money so any opportunity to do so is going to be taken full advantage of.


That said, I have no issue with studios releasing movies like Titanic converted to 3D as long as the filmmakers choose to do so and do it right. Every indication is that this is precisely what James Cameron has done with Titanic.


Titanic on a big screen in any dimension is an experience few will ever forget anyway. It is afterall a movie about a real ship with real people, many of whome died, something I for one never forget when watching it.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma* /forum/post/21590445
> 
> 
> As I previously posted, the trailer I saw for Titanic looked incredible, enough to make this release a "standard" next to Avatar & Hugo... cameron knows how do do it right!
> 
> 
> I second "BladeRunner", one of my all time favorites, but I also have to again push for another film to be redone in 3D... Cameron's Abyss would be fantastic IMHO!



"Bladerunner" and "The Abyss", definitely!


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/21596330
> 
> 
> Well studios exist to make money so any opportunity to do so is going to be taken full advantage of.
> 
> 
> That said, I have no issue with studios releasing movies like Titanic converted to 3D as long as the filmmakers choose to do so and do it right. Every indication is that this is precisely what James Cameron has done with Titanic.
> 
> 
> Titanic on a big screen in any dimension is an experience few will ever forget anyway. It is afterall a movie about a real ship with real people, many of whome died, something I for one never forget when watching it.



Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Kinalyx

I would LOVE to see "The Abyss" in 3d. Still one of my all time favorite movies.


Shawn


----------



## Lee Stewart

Paramount moved the release date from April 6 to April 4.


----------



## miahallen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma* /forum/post/21590445
> 
> 
> ...Cameron's Abyss would be fantastic IMHO!



Agreed....I'd also stand in line for T2 in 3D....that would be epic











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/21596330
> 
> 
> Titanic on a big screen in any dimension is an experience few will ever forget anyway. It is afterall a movie about a real ship with real people, many of whome died, something I for one never forget when watching it.



Totally agree. I remember the first time I saw it I walked out of the theater overwhelmed with the tradgedy (which I had been pretty ignorant of previously), and I was even feeling a bit emotional. So I didn't think anything of all the girls crying. But then they started talking about "I can't believe he died..." and I got all piss'd....like WTH were we just watching in there







*As a historical drama, it was amazing*, as a romance it was a bit cheezy.


----------



## Jacob305




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1* /forum/post/21605548
> 
> 
> "Bladerunner" and "The Abyss", definitely!



+1.


Jacob


----------



## vsv




----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *miahallen* /forum/post/21636482
> 
> 
> . But then they started talking about "I can't believe he died..." and I got all piss'd....like WTH were we just watching in there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As a historical drama, it was amazing*, as a romance it was a bit cheezy.



Yes, I cared little if at all about Rose & Jack, two characters who didn't even exist. I understand Jim Cameron's reason for including them, it gave the "girls", and I use the term very loosely, something to focus on but I would have been just as interested had these two not existed. A night to remember worked afterall!


----------



## Dave Mack

Edit


----------



## cbcdesign

All I can say is that thankfully not all very wealthy and powerfull people are as small minded as your dates Grandmother. If they were Prince William would never have been allowed to marry Kate Middleton!


----------



## NickTheGreat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/21681322
> 
> 
> All I can say is that thankfully not all very wealthy and powerfull people are as small minded as your dates Grandmother. If they were *Prince William would never have been allowed to marry Kate Middleton*!



Thank Goodness. My life would not be the same if that hadn't happened


----------



## NickTheGreat

On topic though, I'm getting excited for this movie. I don't know why, but the whole Titanic thing has always interested me


----------



## Dave Mack

Yes. Sorry about the tangent. Very excited to see it on the big screen again


----------



## Dave Mack

Yeah. One thing about Cameron, he's going to do this right. The trailer looked awesome


----------



## Dave Mack

I wonder if this will have varying aspect ratios depending on 3-D vs IMAX 3-D? I know Cameron has done this before and even his FS titanic VHS wasn't simply panned and scanned but opened up on the top.


----------



## ozar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/20459739
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



Right... I enjoyed Titanic and I am a fan of good 3D, but I'd have to agree that it sounds rather unnecessary. Of course, Cameron is pretty good with 3D so maybe it will be better than anticipated. Still, I'm not going to the theater to see it and won't be doing a pre-order for the blu-ray, either. It's doubtful that this will ever be added to my video library.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ozar* /forum/post/21822987
> 
> 
> Right... I enjoyed Titanic and I am a fan of good 3D, but I'd have to agree that it sounds rather unnecessary. Of course, Cameron is pretty good with 3D so maybe it will be better than anticipated. Still, I'm not going to the theater to see it and won't be doing a pre-order for the blu-ray, either. It's doubtful that this will ever be added to my video library.



Adventure, action, beauty, massive scale- it's great for 3D imo


----------



## markmathers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Adventure, action, beauty, massive scale- it's great for 3D imo



Couldn't agree more


----------



## bontrager

I plan to do both; see it in IMAX 3D at the theater and pre-order the movie(3D).


----------



## Geoff D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/21822867
> 
> 
> I wonder if this will have varying aspect ratios depending on 3-D vs IMAX 3-D? I know Cameron has done this before and even his FS titanic VHS wasn't simply panned and scanned but opened up on the top.



Good question. A taller version just for IMAX would be a sensational experience. I'm going to see it at the BFI IMAX in London, I hope that they don't crop the sides like they did with Phantom Menace 3D.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Geoff D* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good question. A taller version just for IMAX would be a sensational experience. I'm going to see it at the BFI IMAX in London, I hope that they don't crop the sides like they did with Phantom Menace 3D.



When it was released on FS VHS, it wasn't just panned and scanned but opened up for height. Both ARs were approved by Cameron. I think AVATAR had two ARs too


----------



## Geoff D

Cameron's been producing meticulously reframed 4:3 versions of his Super 35 movies for years, Dave. Titanic merely followed in the footsteps of Abyss, T2 and True Lies. I even bought the 4:3 DVD of Abyss because the non-anamorphic widescreen version is painful to watch when zoomed in on a large 16:9 set.


As for Avatar, it was shot 1.78 but framed for 2.35, and this is especially obvious in the live-action scenes which have far too much headroom for my liking. But JC wants it in 1.78 for home video, so that's what he gets.


There have been a few clips of Titanic on TV because of the 3D premiere, and sadly they have the fashionable teal tinge to them. Looks like Cameron graded the film again for the 3D edition (producer Jon Landau going so far as to call it their "archival" version), which is a shame as I liked the look of the film before.


----------



## Dave Mack

Weird. The preview I saw in the theater here looked like it had the exact same timing as the last dvd


----------



## Josh Z

The last DVD edition of Titanic was also teal-ified.


----------



## Dave Mack

Holy hell, you're right

http://caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.ph...370#mag_iframe 


I haven't watched the original DVD in so many years...


----------



## Geoff D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/21862030
> 
> 
> The last DVD edition of Titanic was also teal-ified.



Ah, so it was. Looks like Cameron was ahead of the curve. It's also been years since I've seen it, and I've got the colours of the Laserdisc version burned into my brain after watching it so many times.


----------



## Dave Mack

2 of my friends are at the special early screening tonight and they got a lithograph and special glasses. I'm home with the kid. Jealous


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Geoff D* /forum/post/21864346
> 
> 
> Ah, so it was. Looks like Cameron was ahead of the curve.



The last DVD edition (the one I was referring to) was released in late 2005, which was well into the teal era. I've recently stumbled across TV broadcasts of the movie (ABC Family, I think?) that were very teal and clearly came from that DVD master.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/21862068
> 
> 
> Holy hell, you're right
> 
> http://caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.ph...370#mag_iframe



That first mouseover comparison is pretty damning, isn't it?


----------



## cakefoo

They took the time to really polish the conversion so that there weren't any of the typical signs, like halos around objects or in between strands of hair, or stretched and distorted facial features.


I was going into this movie expecting 2.9D or whatever. It actually hit that mark but that just means it looks like natively shot 3D, not necessarily _good_ 3D. Most of the movie was REALLY good looking. The only thing I would have knocked points off for aside from the occasionally poor fit for 3D shots that were conceived in 2D, is that some of the ship's exterior shots were hit and miss in terms of enhancing the depth and scale. It was good otherwise in terms of strong depth, something that Deathly Hallows Part 2 lacked in a major way, and I see filmmakers praising that movie all the time for some odd reason.


----------



## TonyDP

The 3D trailer is up on Samsung's Explore 3D app. While I have no interest in the movie, the 3D conversion is really well done if the trailer is anything to go by. There's a nice sense of depth and separation of layers and even a hint of pop-out with water gushing towards the screen. I'll give Cameron props for at least creating a 3D conversion which appears to actually make use of the technology; George Lucas could learn a thing or two.


----------



## RobLee

Regarding Deathly Hallows Pt2 the best or "only good" 3D scene was of them fleeing the burning library.


Anyway, I just returned from Titanic in IMAX. I know I'll be seeing both IMAX and RealD several times in the coming weeks. IMAX won out today because it started an hour later then the RealD screen and it was a busy day at work. I use a senior discount so cost is not an issue.


I intentionally haven't watched this movie for a year or so, ever since the 3D version was rumored. The theater was about 1/3 full, but with quite a few youngsters who had obviously never seen this movie (they snickered at some of the lines that many of us have memorized by now). The 3D conversion was very good. It did not come off as well as, say HUGO (shot native 3d), but it was very transparent and throughout most of the movie you're not aware that you're watching 3D... what I mean is, there are a few scenes that "jump out at you" but for most of the film it is very natural looking and appears that it just had been made that way.


I'm looking forward to seeing the RealD 3D version next week. I know that IMAX and RealD differ in that IMAX has background scenery with characters and objects appearing in the foreground, whereas RealD has depth that looks more realistic with true perspective depth. But the IMAX big screen really puts you into the movie. I think that the RealD will be more of a widescreen experience that wraps around you.


----------



## gwsat

I watched Cameron's refurbished Titanic in 3D IMAX today and was underwhelmed. The 3D gave me a headache and all I got out of it was an occasional view of objects, seemingly, passing right in front of my eyes. I think I would have enjoyed the presentation more if I had seen the 2D version with the same audio track in the same state of the art digital IMAX theater, the Moore Warren in Moore, OK, where I watched the 3D version. I thought Cameron wasted a lot of time, effort, and money, on what turned out to be not much.


I have watched quite a number of 3D IMAX films over the last couple of years and still think the only one that was truly successful was Cameron's Avatar. For me at least, 3D presentations don't work unless they were filmed in 3D using IMAX cameras.


----------



## Fang Zei

What's funny is how I didn't really notice the "strobing" effect of 24 fps 3d when I saw Avatar in real-d (all three times! Twice in single-projector 16:9, once in dual-projector scope, same theater different auditoriums). The natively-shot Tron: Legacy was my next experience with live-action 3d, but that was front section IMAX so I didn't exactly get the ideal experience. Finally, I saw the natively-shot On Stranger Tides in IMAX but with good seats. Wow, my friend and I were blown away by the 3d.....


.... but this was when I finally noticed what Cameron was talking about with the limitations of 24p photography. That early scene in the courthouse still comes to mind. It was like I was actually on the set. But whenever I moved my eyes, the illusion was broken. Maybe it's because the IMAX blow-up process makes everything bigger than it was actually shot for, so the 3d doesn't fool your eyes as much as when you're looking at it regular-sized.


----------



## eddster25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gwsat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I watched Cameron's refurbished Titanic in 3D IMAX today and was underwhelmed. The 3D gave me a headache and all I got out of it was an occasional view of objects, seemingly, passing right in front of my eyes. I think I would have enjoyed the presentation more if I had seen the 2D version with the same audio track in the same state of the art digital IMAX theater, the Moore Warren in Moore, OK, where I watched the 3D version. I thought Cameron wasted a lot of time, effort, and money, on what turned out to be not much.
> 
> 
> I have watched quite a number of 3D IMAX films over the last couple of years and still think the only one that was truly successful was Cameron's Avatar. For me at least, 3D presentations don't work unless they were filmed in 3D using IMAX cameras.



Ha. Kinda goes back to my original point when I started this thread. This is what I suspected all along.


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/21869999
> 
> 
> Ha. Kinda goes back to my original point when I started this thread. This is what I suspected all along.



Yeah, my bad experience with Titanic 3D at the Moore Warren IMAX yesterday convinced me that I am through with 3D films that aren't shot using 3D cameras. The jury is still out on IMAX generally, though.


The Moore Warren IMAX has the biggest digital IMAX screen in the country and is wildly popular. Nevertheless, I have decided to be far more selective about picking the movies I see there than I was when it first opened. The Moore Warren is a 30 minute drive and its tickets are more than 2.5 times more expensive than tickets for 2D films at a nice cineplex that is less than 10 minutes away. I suspect that it will be a looong time before I take the time and go to the expense of seeing another IMAX film of any sort.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gwsat* /forum/post/21869523
> 
> 
> I have watched quite a number of 3D IMAX films over the last couple of years and still think the only one that was truly successful was Cameron's Avatar. For me at least, 3D presentations don't work unless they were filmed in 3D using IMAX cameras.



Avatar was shot in 2k digital, not IMAX.


----------



## RobLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gwsat* /forum/post/21870872
> 
> 
> Yeah, my bad experience with Titanic 3D at the Moore Warren IMAX yesterday convinced me that I am through with 3D films that aren't shot using 3D cameras.... The Moore Warren IMAX has the biggest digital IMAX screen in the country and is wildly popular....



Hmm... sorry, I've never heard of it. And I'm sorry you did not enjoy the movie. Personally I've had nothing but good experiences with IMAX.



> Quote:
> Nevertheless, I have decided to be far more selective about picking the movies I see there than I was when it first opened. The Moore Warren is a 30 minute drive and its tickets are more than 2.5 times more expensive than tickets for 2D films at a nice cineplex that is less than 10 minutes away. I suspect that it will be a looong time before I take the time and go to the expense of seeing another IMAX film of any sort.



Our IMAX is on the way to and from work... I drive right by there, and on evenings when my wife is working late I stop in and enjoy a first run IMAX movie for five to seven dollars, depending on the day of the week and whether I'm seeing a matinee or using a senior discount.


Reshooting Titanic using 3D cameras was not an option. Frankly, this is the best I have ever seen it.


----------



## edtorious

Will this come out on Bluray 3D later? Based on reviews I think I'll just stick to watching the 3D version at home and since I don't have a copy of Titanic movie at home anyway, so this might as well be my first Titanic movie purchase for home viewing.


----------



## eddster25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edtorious* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Will this come out on Bluray 3D later? Based on reviews I think I'll just stick to watching the 3D version at home and since I don't have a copy of Titanic movie at home anyway, so this might as well be my first Titanic movie purchase for home viewing.



I'm in the same boat...no pun intended! LOL


----------



## RobLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/21872575
> 
> 
> I'm in the same boat...no pun intended! LOL



Hope yours is unsinkable


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/21871712
> 
> 
> Avatar was shot in 2k digital, not IMAX.



Avatar was shot using PACE Fusion 3-D cameras. My point was that 3D cameras seem to me to be indispensable to presenting effective 3D. I have yet to see a 3D film rendered through post processing, including Titanic 3D, that was worth the hassle of having to wear uncomfortable, light reducing 3D glasses.


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/20459739
> 
> 
> Is it really necessary for Titanic to be remade in 3D? I'm doubtful that 3D would add anything to the story and would end up being nothing more than an unnecessary gimmick in this case.



I'm just wondering why you started this topic on the 3D forum. From your above quoted statment I would bet there is nothing James Cameron could do to dimentionalize Titanic that would please you. Do you even like 3D? I'm not trying to be difficult but there seems to be many folks here that continually dismiss 3D as a gimmick and don't like the glasses, ect. ect. So why do you post here?


----------



## wonka702




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you started this topic on the 3D forum. From your above quoted statment I would bet there is nothing James Cameron could do to dimentionalize Titanic that would please you. Do you even like 3D? I'm not trying to be difficult but there seems to be many folks here that continually dismiss 3D as a gimmick and don't like the glasses, ect. ect. So why do you post here?



Touche


----------



## Rudy1

Stepping away from "Titanic" for a moment...I just watched the director's cut of "Troy" again for the first time since its original release on BD, and I couldn't help wondering what a conversion to 3D might look like. And "2012" might probably be a good candidate for conversion as well.


----------



## Doug Schiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP* /forum/post/21869103
> 
> 
> The 3D trailer is up on Samsung's Explore 3D app. While I have no interest in the movie, the 3D conversion is really well done if the trailer is anything to go by. There's a nice sense of depth and separation of layers and even a hint of pop-out with water gushing towards the screen. I'll give Cameron props for at least creating a 3D conversion which appears to actually make use of the technology; George Lucas could learn a thing or two.



I have the Samsung Explore 3D app on my Samsung TV and there is no Titanic trailer.

I see a Transformers trailer that wasn't there before, but no Titanic.


Not sure how you are seeing it.


----------



## eddster25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you started this topic on the 3D forum. From your above quoted statment I would bet there is nothing James Cameron could do to dimentionalize Titanic that would please you. Do you even like 3D? I'm not trying to be difficult but there seems to be many folks here that continually dismiss 3D as a gimmick and don't like the glasses, ect. ect. So why do you post here?



I actually love GOOD 3D. I don't mind wearing the glasses at all.


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddster25* /forum/post/21875125
> 
> 
> I actually love GOOD 3D. I don't mind wearing the glasses at all.



Precisely! I loved Avatar 3D IMAX, it was one of the most exciting movie experiences I can remember. Titanic 3D IMAX, though, not so much. Besides, whether one likes 3D or not, I have disliked every post production 3D film I have seen, is hardly a disqualification for posting here. Technology improves all the time, so I hope that sometime, somehow, movie industry techies can figure out a way to improve post production 3D. In _*a review of Titanic*_ I saw this morning, the Miami Herald critic wrote that he loved the film as much as ever but said this about its 3D effects:


> Quote:
> Did “Titanic” need to be in 3-D? Of course not. If I had a choice, would I prefer to watch it in 2D? Yes.



Me too.


----------



## Robut

Here's what Roger Ebert thinks. As usual he is down on 3D.


"Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.


But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece."



The full review is here:http:

// rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998


----------



## Dave Mack

Travers dug it

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/r...ic-3d-20120405


----------



## Malcolm_B

Peter Travers will dig anything if he thinks he'll see his name in the ad!


----------



## desrtmod

Never been a fan of conversions...oh, but it's Cameron some say. Well there are some watchable ones like Alice but there is no mistaking natively shot 3D flicks from the wannabes. It's fine if you enjoy conversions but to try to hype them as the real thing is just plain delusional.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robut* /forum/post/21877025
> 
> 
> Here's what Roger Ebert thinks. As usual he is down on 3D.
> 
> 
> "Now for the final flaw. It is, of course, the 3D process. Cameron has justly been praised for being one of the few directors to use 3D usefully, in "Avatar." But "Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.
> 
> 
> But not quite. There's more to it than that. 3D causes a noticeable loss in the brightness coming from the screen. Some say as much as 20 percent. If you saw an ordinary film dimmed that much, you might complain to the management. Here you're supposed to be grateful you had the opportunity to pay a surcharge for this defacement. If you're alert to it, you'll notice that many shots and sequences in this version are not in 3D at all, but remain in 2D. If you take off your glasses, they'll pop off the screen with dramatically improved brightness. I know why the film is in 3D. It's to justify the extra charge. That's a shabby way to treat a masterpiece."
> 
> 
> 
> The full review is here:http:
> 
> // rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998



Ebert is wrong again. Ebert is an ignorant luddite when it comes to 3D.


1. You absolutely can make 2D into 3D. You just can't reshoot and re-write the film to take better advantage of the 3D element.


2. Brightness is his theater's fault.


3. Besides, if he takes the glasses off, of course it's gonna be brighter- but a 3D projection is going to be brighter than the 2D projection so it's not accurate to expect THAT much more brightness from a 2D show. Also, when I'm outside in bright daylight and come inside into my 100w lamp-lit room, it's like someone lit a candle. Later my eyes adjust. It's the same exact thing with 3D projections. Our pupils adjust to whatever brightness a projector is at. To an extent, of course.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desrtmod* /forum/post/21877340
> 
> 
> Never been a fan of conversions...oh, but it's Cameron some say. Well there are some watchable ones like Alice but there is no mistaking natively shot 3D flicks from the wannabes. It's fine if you enjoy conversions but to try to hype them as the real thing is just plain delusional.



It's far better than the average conversion and many say it's the best to date. If someone can't differentiate Titanic from native 3D, let them- that's their honest perceptions. That doesn't mean they're intentionally overhyping it.


----------



## Dave Mack

Seeing it tommorrow. My friend saw it the other day and loved it.

All I know is that the preview I saw looked great


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desrtmod* /forum/post/21588142
> 
> 
> Why would you even pay for another conversion even if it is Titanic? It's just another money grab for studios. I bet Cameron is in for the moolah as well being that he produced/directed the gold standard for 3D in Avatar.



Upon returning from his recent foray into the Challenger Deep, Cameron commented that the only reason he makes movies is to finance his ocean adventures.


The Titanic 3-D and Challenger Deep projects, therefore, would seem complementary in every way.


----------



## BornSlippyZ

I saw this last night and I must say this is the best 3D conversion movie I have seen to date. Also a Sony 4K projector was used in the auditorium and I was pretty blown away how James & company cleaned up this film.


----------



## GalvatronType_R

Forget the boat, I want to see L.A. Confidential post converted to 3D. Not only is it 10x better than the boat movie, it got jobbed at the 1997 Oscars.


----------



## joerod

We're waiting to watch it on our Sony 1000ES. Can't wait!!!


----------



## edo1946

The attention to detail in the conversion was amazing. Enjoyed it very much. Some scenes just drew you in and you felt like you were there. As for comments on the movie makers "milking" the movie with the 3d conversion... So what? No one is making you see it, but for these that enjoy the 3d experience, I am glad they did it especially with such a high quality.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/21877551
> 
> 
> Ebert is wrong again. Ebert is an ignorant luddite when it comes to 3D.
> 
> 
> 1. You absolutely can make 2D into 3D. You just can't reshoot and re-write the film to take better advantage of the 3D element.
> 
> 
> 2. Brightness is his theater's fault.
> 
> 
> 3. Besides, if he takes the glasses off, of course it's gonna be brighter- but a 3D projection is going to be brighter than the 2D projection so it's not accurate to expect THAT much more brightness from a 2D show. Also, when I'm outside in bright daylight and come inside into my 100w lamp-lit room, it's like someone lit a candle. Later my eyes adjust. It's the same exact thing with 3D projections. Our pupils adjust to whatever brightness a projector is at. To an extent, of course.



Yeah, where Ebert is concerned, a self confessed 3D hater, its obvious he was going to find fault with the 3D conversion. Frankly I think many of us were extremely surprised by his reaction to Hugo in 3D based on his previous critisism of the 3D format!


Going to see Titanic Thursday 12th of April, when of course Titanic was at full steam sailing across the Atlantic 100 years ago to the day! Very much looking forward to it too.


----------



## Wolfie

My wife and I had a strange experience watching Titanic 3D at our complex. We were in a theater that had the image inverted. watching it with the glasses on correctly made a jumbled mess. I turned my glasses upside-down and it fixed the problem. We informed the management of this problem and got two free passes to another show out of it. Has anyone else experienced this screw-up? I thought it was the projector and could be adjusted, but it didn't get fixed.


Wolfie


----------



## Jrek

Samsung did have it i watched it few times it looked awesome then wanted to use it to demo 3d for a friend and its gone wonder why it was the best 3d trailer they had on there?


----------



## giantchicken




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wolfie* /forum/post/21885289
> 
> 
> My wife and I had a strange experience watching Titanic 3D at our complex. We were in a theater that had the image inverted. watching it with the glasses on correctly made a jumbled mess. I turned my glasses upside-down and it fixed the problem. We informed the management of this problem and got two free passes to another show out of it. Has anyone else experienced this screw-up? I thought it was the projector and could be adjusted, but it didn't get fixed.
> 
> 
> Wolfie



I had a bad pair of glasses once. Didn't want to wear them upside down, so I swapped them out and the new ones were working properly. Seemed to be a problem with the lenses in the particular pair of glasses I had and not the movie.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GalvatronType_R* /forum/post/21882330
> 
> 
> Forget the boat, I want to see L.A. Confidential post converted to 3D. Not only is it 10x better than the boat movie, it got jobbed at the 1997 Oscars.



I don't think that movie would benefit from 3D. Just a bunch of standard over-the-shoulder dialog shots. The setting is not visually arresting either.


----------



## Wolfie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *giantchicken* /forum/post/21885655
> 
> 
> I had a bad pair of glasses once. Didn't want to wear them upside down, so I swapped them out and the new ones were working properly. Seemed to be a problem with the lenses in the particular pair of glasses I had and not the movie.



It only happened in this one theater. The other one in the complex showing it was fine, according to management. All the other patrons here had the same problem, so it was not the glasses.


Wolfie


----------



## Waboman

Titanic in Super 3D.


----------



## W.Mayer

i am very critical about 2d to 3d convert as i do real true 3d since over 30 years but i have to say that the double passive dlp presentation at the likely best cinema in germany cinecitta in nürnberg last friday looks very good and bright.


the 2d to 3d was the best i ever saw and very close to real 3d.

i can only found during the over 3 hours one or 2 short seq. beside some seq. that are in 2d where i can see that this was a 2d to 3d convert.


very nice also the picture quality over all.

seems they made a very new scan to build this 2d to 3d convert.


we all (5 people that all have a 3d home cinema) like what we saw a lot and i press my fingers that it will be a big success as only than we can expect more good quality

2d to 3d conversions.


i will buy the 3d bd as well as i guess it will be a very good one and it will show the movie better than anytime before.


----------



## Lee Stewart

It did $25.6 million for it's opening weekend


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wolfie* /forum/post/21885289
> 
> 
> My wife and I had a strange experience watching Titanic 3D at our complex. We were in a theater that had the image inverted. watching it with the glasses on correctly made a jumbled mess. I turned my glasses upside-down and it fixed the problem. We informed the management of this problem and got two free passes to another show out of it. Has anyone else experienced this screw-up? I thought it was the projector and could be adjusted, but it didn't get fixed.
> 
> 
> Wolfie



Ah . . . maybe that's why Ebert gave it such a poor review.


----------



## bassco




----------



## markmathers

Can't be ****ing serious! Unfortunately I'm not surprised. 7/10 people are idiots...


----------



## NickTheGreat

:facepalm: And those people are allowed to vote and drive and . . .


----------



## markmathers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> :facepalm: And those people are allowed to vote and drive and . . .



Exactly : (


----------



## joerod

If anything at least I feel a little bit smarter after reading that.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat* /forum/post/21890938
> 
> 
> :facepalm: And those people are allowed to vote and drive and . . .



...Breed!


Idiocracy is starting to make a lot of sense.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> ...Breed!
> 
> 
> Idiocracy is starting to make a lot of sense.



Oh yes


----------



## DenisG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joerod* /forum/post/21892104
> 
> 
> If anything at least I feel a little bit smarter after reading that.



Watch a few episodes of repo games and you will feel really smart.


----------



## thill68

If anyone has a 3d tv, have you watched the DVD with the 3D conversion, if so what did you think? I thought it looked pretty good IMO


----------



## Wolfie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/21887671
> 
> 
> Ah . . . maybe that's why Ebert gave it such a poor review.



FUNNY!


----------



## cbcdesign

Just got back from watching Titanic. People were as moved by the experience in much the same way as they were in the 90's when I watched it. Its a powerful movie and because it really happened almost 100 years to the day ago, quite an emotional one.


As for the 3D conversion, well it's certainly the best I have seen. Nothing looked bad, let's put it that way. Shots in the subs and looking down into the hole in the wreck where the stairscase used to be are quite stunning. You get a real sense of how far down it is.


Also shots from the very tip of the bow down or from the stern down to the ocean look really good too. Plenty of sense of height. The flying scene for example looks good.


Other shots don't work so well and are a bit flat. This is particularly true where backround objects are out of focus.


Overall though its a good effort and the shots that really do work well make up for the more subtle ones or the ones that don't work.


It's a good movie well worth watching in 3D on the big screen.


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign* /forum/post/21899970
> 
> 
> Just got back from watching Titanic. People were as moved by the experience in much the same way as they were in the 90's when I watched it. Its a powerful movie and because *it really happened* almost 100 years to the day ago, quite an emotional one....



...so you are saying it REALLY happened and it's not just a movie







So Avatar must be real also.










If only there were simple and easy ways to find information/knowledge.


----------



## steelers1

according to wall-mart the realese date is 09/14/12. this is on there web sight pre-order is for $26.96.


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steelers1* /forum/post/21902074
> 
> 
> according to wall-mart the realese date is 09/14/12. this is on there web sight pre-order is for $26.96.



If this version has a 2D option, I will probably hold my nose and pay the price.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *William* /forum/post/21901643
> 
> 
> ...so you are saying it REALLY happened and it's not just a movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Avatar must be real also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only there were simple and easy ways to find information/knowledge.



Your flippant remark aside, in my experience a deathly quiet cinema full of people is an exceedingly rare event! One I have only every seen twice, both times during this movie. That says something about how the events shown on screen effect people. My opinion anyway, worth what you paid for it!


----------



## eriaur

Amazon pre-order

http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Blu-ra...4362475&sr=1-2 


$3 pre-order credit


----------



## joed32

Thanks, ordered it.


----------



## ajleske

I just hope it will be region free. 20th Century Fox are pretty unpredictable regarding region free / locked BRD releases. Living in AUS means that we will probably not get it released until Nov / Dec here so if the US version is RF I am definitely ordering it!


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eriaur* /forum/post/21904547
> 
> 
> Amazon pre-order
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Blu-ra...4362475&sr=1-2
> 
> 
> $3 pre-order credit



Thanks for the tip. When I saw that the 2D version was included in the deal I preordered it. Also got the $3.00 preorder credit. Thanks again!


----------



## Dave Mack

Just tried to get it and don't see a $3 preorder credit. When does amazon show it to you?


Thanks


----------



## ThePrisoner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/21906068
> 
> 
> Just tried to get it and don't see a $3 preorder credit. When does amazon show it to you?
> 
> 
> Thanks



When your order ships you will receive the $3 credit.


----------



## NSX1992

I already have the DVD version. With my preorder I will now have 3D Bluray, Bluray and digital copy (for my Ipad). I have watched the DVD version several times and am resisting the 3D theater experience holding out till September for home 3D on my 92" Mitsubishi.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThePrisoner* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> When your order ships you will receive the $3 credit.



Got it. Was using the mobile version of amazon. On the full site it mentioned it.


----------



## kmh71

Just got back from seeing it tonight. Was a pretty good conversion, but there was a lot of ghosting in background images. Not sure if it was the movie itself or just my theater.


----------



## The Tophinator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eriaur* /forum/post/21904547
> 
> 
> Amazon pre-order
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Blu-ra...4362475&sr=1-2
> 
> 
> $3 pre-order credit



Cool, Preorderd it. Thanks


----------



## ozar

I originally didn't think I'd be interested in seeing this in 3D, but don't yet have the blu-ray edition of _Titanic_ and I did like the movie, so I've gone ahead and pre-ordered the 3D package from Amazon, and am now beginning to look forward to seeing it.


----------



## timtationx

Titanic is now over 2 billion worldwide. His smug plan to keep his movies at the top is working.


----------



## cbcdesign

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!


----------



## thill68

If you don't want to see it again, dont. Nobody is forcing you to


----------



## Blacklight82




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Waboman* /forum/post/21886865
> 
> 
> Titanic in Super 3D.



That was pretty funny. Can't wait for it.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thill68* /forum/post/21910828
> 
> 
> If you don't want to see it again, dont. Nobody is forcing you to



You seem to have responded to my post in a manner that suggests you may not have understood the point I was making!


My post was a direct response to timtationx post. The point being that JC's movies are only at the top, box office wise because people like them, myself included!


----------



## insman1132

Well, like JC or not, like Titanic or not, feel redoing an old film in 3D is good or not, one cannot deny it has made over $200,000,000 in less than 3 weeks. That on a $80,000,000 upgrade investment. Has beat out most of the new films that opened. Any studio not happy with that kind of return on a film??


Greatness in film has a way of coming back to the theatres again and again. Witness: Gone With The Wind as maybe the classic of all classics on films returning to the theatres. I think Titanic is now the 2nd largest grossing 3D film in history??


----------



## gflande1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eriaur* /forum/post/21904547
> 
> 
> Amazon pre-order
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Blu-ra...4362475&sr=1-2
> 
> 
> $3 pre-order credit



Thanks, just ordered. Also ordered the history channel Titanic 3D documentary. It appears to be the 3D version of the 100 year expedition they aired this last weekend. they used 3D cameras to explore the entire site, areas never before seen.


----------



## cbcdesign

This 3D documentary looks really good.


----------



## derek500

It's been running on Sky 3D in the UK for the last week or so.


Don't they have 3D channels in the US that show all the documentaries we get in the UK, or do you have buy Blu-Rays?


----------



## shinksma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *derek500* /forum/post/21923293
> 
> 
> It's been running on Sky 3D in the UK for the last week or so.
> 
> 
> Don't they have 3D channels in the US that show all the documentaries we get in the UK, or do you have buy Blu-Rays?



There are channels, but content depends on Cable or Satellite provider - there is no consistent content.


I'm sure that there is a good chance my local Cable Co (Brighthouse in Orlando) is broadcasting the Titanic 3D documentary. I should probably check it out...

EDIT: Apparently not available via On-Demand.


However, BD content usually looks better than the SBS or T/B 3D content, because it is full 1080p and there is no super-compression for broadcast.


shinksma


----------



## Lee Stewart

I was watching the Nat Geo special about Cameron's dive to Challenger Deep. In it he says that they spent $20 million to convert TITANIC to 3D


----------



## MLXXX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/21972847
> 
> 
> I was watching the Nat Geo special about Cameron's dive to Challenger Deep. In it he says that they spent $20 million to convert TITANIC to 3D



I've seen $18m quoted; as in this article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...cameron-312631 


Whatever the exact amount, it was money well spent. The conversion reveals exquisite attention to detail in getting the 3D effect right. For me, it added greatly to the visual impact.


And I am someone normally unmoved by conversions (e.g. the post-production 3D movie, _Alice in Wonderland_).


----------



## PGTweed

Best Buy website has Ghosts of the Abyss 3D Blu-Ray Titanic documentary available on Sept 11, 2012 and Titanic 3D on Sept 14, 2012.


----------



## William

Latest info released and *BIG* news.


3D version will be spread across 2 discs so put down that popcorn you will have to change discs. Also it is going to be open matte 1.78 and not OAR 2.35.. This will be very interesting (and possible polarizing). Was it rereleased at 1.78 in theaters?


----------



## NickTheGreat

Two discs? WTF?


----------



## GregK

The 3-D version will have the feature spread over 2 discs, while the 2-D version will be on one.


The 2-D DVD and Bluray 2-D version will still be OAR (Scope) while the 3-D Bluray will be 1.78:1


This from an interview with Cameron detailing the above information:



> Quote:
> JC: On the re-release, we released Titanic also in IMAX, the digital IMAX format, in 2D and in 3D, and we did that in 1.78:1 aspect ratio - this is kind of geeking out for neophiles now. But the film was originally released in a CinemaScope ratio - 2.35:1 ratio. So in the new release, the DVD and the standard Blu-ray and the 2D Blu-ray is 2.35, and the 3D Blu-ray is in 17:8 or 16:9, which means that it'll fill the HD monitor. And that's not cropped, that's actually added material. And in the process of remastering the film, we had to go back and do a lot of paint work to remove dollies and microphones and things like that, that were in view just outside of the scope area.
> 
> 
> This is more of the videophile geek fest, but the film was originally shot with Super 35 format, which meant that there was always more frame available than what we released. So we've gone back to that and we've cleaned it up and so it actually plays beautifully in 3D in the 16:9 format, I think, so it's a slightly different experience.




Cameron on Titanic's film grain:



> Quote:
> The other thing is that the very first thing we did when started down the path of rereleasing the film was to do a 4k up-res remaster of the film to create a brand new master. We went back in the original negative and we made a 4k transfer. We went to a company that has, I think, the best proprietary algorithms for image enhancement and noise reduction. We did their top clean -- they call it a "clean" because it was originally developed for restoring old films -- and we basically removed all the grain, sharpened it without adding any artifacts whatsoever, and then obviously I spent a lot of time perfecting the color on it. And I can safely say that you're seeing something that actually looks better than what we would have seen in 1997 from an original negative print. And I can't say that not any of my other movies, but I could say that about "Titanic" because that's the process that we went.



Complete interview:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/on-show/a...val-on-2d-and/


----------



## cakefoo

2 discs = more value


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/22088662
> 
> 
> 2 discs = more value



Actually it's 4 discs (even MORE value), just 2 for the 3D movie. Easy to understand why since it's not only 3D (about 30%? more data than 2D) but it's also 1.78 which requires another (about) 20% data over 2.35.


----------



## David Susilo

just to re-iterate what Josh have mentioned (which I concur)


old movies (with 35mm print) has an approximately 8MP equivalent in quality or better. hence the studios are scanning everything in 4K resolution nowadays. So from SD to HD, there is no modernizing there. Not even if they re-released the movies in UHDTV.


as far as mono sound? if the original track is mono, I'd rather listen to it in mono. I have yet to hear an originally mono soundtrack that sounds better in stereo. Not even The Beatles pseudo-stereo LP original releases.


----------



## David Susilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *William*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/180_60#post_22089356
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's 4 discs (even MORE value), just 2 for the 3D movie. Easy to understand why since it's not only 3D (about 30%? more data than 2D) but it's also 1.78 which requires another (about) 20% data over 2.35.



Why the 1.78 require more data over 2.35? For blu-ray, either format "eats" 1920 x 1080 pixels regardless of aspect ratio.


----------



## flyingmunkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22234869
> 
> 
> Why the 1.78 require more data over 2.35? For blu-ray, either format "eats" 1920 x 1080 pixels regardless of aspect ratio.



i'm not quite sure the actual explanation, but in my experience, it seems black pixels usually require less data to store. just look at digital pictures. with the same camera, a mostly black picture, like one of the moon at night, is a noticeably smaller file size than one of a typical day time scenery shot. i'm looking through some of mine, and with the same 16.2 MP camera, at the same 4608x3456 resolution, some of the night pictures are less than half the file size of a day picture. so i'd assume the same is true in digital video; the black bars use less information than actual moving imagery. just my guess though...


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22234862
> 
> 
> just to re-iterate what Josh have mentioned (which I concur)
> 
> old movies (with 35mm print) has an approximately 8MP equivalent in quality or better. hence the studios are scanning everything in 4K resolution nowadays. So from SD to HD, there is no modernizing there. Not even if they re-released the movies in UHDTV.
> 
> as far as mono sound? if the original track is mono, I'd rather listen to it in mono. I have yet to hear an originally mono soundtrack that sounds better in stereo. Not even The Beatles pseudo-stereo LP original releases.



That 8MP is strictly for the original camera negative, If they are forced to go to either an Interpositive or Internegative, the pixel count is considerably less due to MTF.


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *flyingmunkey*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22234984
> 
> 
> i'm not quite sure the actual explanation, but in my experience, it seems black pixels usually require less data to store. just look at digital pictures. with the same camera, a mostly black picture, like one of the moon at night, is a noticeably smaller file size than one of a typical day time scenery shot. i'm looking through some of mine, and with the same 16.2 MP camera, at the same 4608x3456 resolution, some of the night pictures are less than half the file size of a day picture. so i'd assume the same is true in digital video; the black bars use less information than actual moving imagery. just my guess though...



This is true for any compressed media. (Bluray, DVD, jpegs, etc)


For uncompressed media typically not used by the average consumer (uncompressed AVI, TIFF or BMP image sequences, etc), the file size will not change based on the content.


----------



## threed123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22234869
> 
> 
> Why the 1.78 require more data over 2.35? For blu-ray, either format "eats" 1920 x 1080 pixels regardless of aspect ratio.[/quote
> 
> 
> 1920x1080 equals the 16:9 ratio, so 2.35 would have a blank window above and below the image and the image is always less than 1920x1080, so the 16:9 version is going to include more data above and below the original 2.35 image because it was shot in Super 35 which is closer to the 16:9 ratio or IMAX. 2.35 is also known as letter-boxed video because it imposes a slimmer rectangle inside of a 16:9 screen. If you don't believe me, open Microsoft excel and divide 1920/1080 or 16/9 and see what you get==1.78


----------



## finetuned

I don't know if any one cares but Cameron's Avatar will finally get a 3D release on Blu-ray for anyone to buy. Previously, the 3d version was only available in special Panasonic 3d offers. Here's the news source.


----------



## David Susilo

Threed, I know all about aspect ratio. I've been an ISF calibrator since the 3rd year of ISF in existence. One thing you forget is that the black bars of any ratio othr than 1.78:1 is part of the frame. So the data for each frame on scope movies are still 1920x1080 although the picture part is only 1920x780 (depending on the actual AR).


The argument that scope movies have less data than 16:9 movies only true if the black bars are generated by the players and the encoded movie data is only 1920x780. But that is not the case. Be it 1.78:1, 1.66:1, 2:1, 2.4:1, 3:1 or even if you wan to make 6:1, each frame still carry 1920x1080 pixels. It's just more of the pixels are black instead of the actual scene.


That is my understanding... Unless what THX and Technicolor taught me are wrong.


----------



## joed32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *finetuned*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22319244
> 
> 
> I don't know if any one cares but Cameron's Avatar will finally get a 3D release on Blu-ray for anyone to buy. Previously, the 3d version was only available in special Panasonic 3d offers. Here's the news source.



Thanks, just ordered it from Amazon.


----------



## PGTweed

Amazon has a special edition of TITANIC 3D with a lot of extras for $70.00.


----------



## HDTV Freak

Just preordered the BD 3D from Amazon.


----------



## neveser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDTV Freak*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22355379
> 
> 
> Just preordered the BD 3D from Amazon.


I have the movie and Ghosts of the Abyss pre-ordered as well. They both come out on the same day. Gonna make for some great 3D viewing on my 119" screen!


----------



## The Tophinator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/210#post_22319286
> 
> 
> each frame still carry 1920x1080 pixels. It's just more of the pixels are black instead of the actual scene.
> 
> That is my understanding... Unless what THX and Technicolor taught me are wrong.



That is the uncompressed frames. In very simple terms when the video is compressed a full frame of movement has to adjust every pixel that moves so it has to show a lot of detail for color shifts (Pixel 1 red, pixel 2-4 yellow, pixel 5 white). When you have a big black box it can say (pixel 1 - 100,000 no change). That is why when cable or sat overcompresses their channels on the fly you can see blocky pictures.


----------



## David Susilo

Thank you for the reminder. I completely forgotten about the savings in GoP compression!


Thanks again!


----------



## JayF

Best Buy has the 3D BR for $24.99 with a $5 coupon. Looks like it's in-store only.
http://www.titanicmovie.com/bestbuy/


----------



## NSX1992

Just cancelled my Amazon order and printed the $5 coupn for BB available tomorrow.


----------



## NickTheGreat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayF*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/200_40#post_22386475
> 
> 
> Best Buy has the 3D BR for $24.99 with a $5 coupon. Looks like it's in-store only.
> http://www.titanicmovie.com/bestbuy/





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NSX1992*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/200_40#post_22386871
> 
> 
> Just cancelled my Amazon order and printed the $5 coupn for BB available tomorrow.



Yeah, why did I preorder this months ago, only to be able to buy it sooner, and cheaper elsewhere???


----------



## NSX1992

I just bought this at BB this morning and watched the beginning of my copy at their Magnolia store on a 90" Sharp 3DTV. It looked great and tonight I will watch on my 92" Mitsubishi for comparison. It also has over 6 hours of special features.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Well I just got the email that it shipped. Should be here Saturday, which means Monday, since it's going to work.


----------



## Mr Ian B

This movie should be renamed, I was in the Titanic. Just WOW, how immerse you can get into a movie and feel like you are in it. This movie has bumped Avatar out of the top 3d spot for me.


Amazing work from one of the best James Cameron. This is a grand slam to win the world series.


Ian B


----------



## HDTV Freak

Can't wait to watch it this weekend.


----------



## jbug

Hmmm, I remember not liking this movie at all back when it was in theaters. For 3D's sake I might give this another shot.


----------



## JayF

Another "wow" vote here. I'm sure there will be plenty of technical explanations why this isn't as good as native 3d, but damn this is astounding.


----------



## David Susilo

What disappoints me is that the 3D version is the open matte + pan&scan of the original 2D version.


----------



## Billbofet

Blown away as well. Got through about 1/3 of it tonight and the 3D really sucks you in the way Avatar and Hugo did. Impressive!!!


----------



## EVERRET




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22400670
> 
> 
> What disappoints me is that the 3D version is the open matte + pan&scan of the original 2D version.


 http://hometheater.about.com/b/2012/09/10/james-camerons-titanic-blu-ray-disc-movie-pick.htm 


> Quote:
> However, one thing viewers will notice is that while the aspect ratio of the 2D version is being presented in its original 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio, Cameron decided to present the 3D version in a more open 1.78:1 aspect ratio that fills the entire HDTV screen, making it more suitable for 3D viewing. The 1.78:1 image is not cropped, instead, the originally filmed top and bottom image information that was not used in the original theatrical and 2D DVD and Blu-ray disc versions has been "unmasked".


IMAX

____


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240_60#post_22400670
> 
> 
> What disappoints me is that the 3D version is the open matte + *pan&scan* of the original 2D version.


Are certain scenes P&Sed and if so which ones and why? Is there equipment/props in the 1.78 frame forcing a P&Sing or is it CGI shots that weren't 1.78 rendered. I thought JC shot with 1.85 framing in mind too. It seems he would not accept P&S and would have stuck with 2.35 if there were problems with opening to 1.85.


----------



## David Susilo

Some special effect shots that were CGI in 2.35:1 ratio are now cropped although most shots are open matte.


----------



## Don Landis

Just got the Titanic Movie this past week and watched it. It's on two disks. I was very impressed with the quality of the 3D given that it was a conversion. If this is what conversions are able to achieve, I say bring them on. There were some scenes with very little depth but where the depth really enhanced the story it was well done. In scenes where there was little depth the entire scene was pushed back showing a distant look, such as a long shot under water.


The technical quality of the 3D was very good with plenty of brightness for my projector and 1.0 gain screen. My non technical wife really enjoyed the 3D, said she preferred it to the 2D version.


In the original film there were at the time, state of the art animation sequences of people walking awkwardly on deck that were all CGI people images using inverse kinematic motion. None of this (not realistic) CGI was corrected for more natural motion and movement but just a sense of depth was added. Today these scenes would have been done using motion capture stages for a more fluid like movement but none of this has anything to do with 3D.


Both my wife and I were very impressed with the quality and are pleased to add this to our collection. It's a movie we will watch from time to time, a classic in our opinion.


----------



## joed32

I just watched the first hour and the indoor shots were stunning.


----------



## PGTweed

I bought Titanic 3D and Ghosts of the Abyss 3D at Walmart and Best Buy. I love the extras in Titanic 3D. Ghosts of the Abyss 3D I felt when the screen had the smaller screen shots took away from the 3D experience. The best 3D pop out effect was the mir subs manipulator arm popping out of the screen!


----------



## Don Landis

How did you like Ghosts of the Abyss 3D? Saw it yesterday at Best Buy and decided to pass and wait for a review.


----------



## NickTheGreat

we watched Titanic last night, and was really impressed with the 3D quality. Best 3D movie we have. Way better than Hugo, IMO (we don't have Avatar)


----------



## cuse311

The wife and myself also watched Titanic 3D Friday night. The wifey was very, very impressed. The 3D was very well done.


----------



## PGTweed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22406739
> 
> 
> How did you like Ghosts of the Abyss 3D? Saw it yesterday at Best Buy and decided to pass and wait for a review.


I liked it. Except for the screenshots that had small windows in the full TV screen.(I mean the TV you are watching this disc.) The smaller windows take away a lot from the 3D effect. The 2D DVD is better in my opinion. The 2D DVD does not have the small windows in the middle of the larger screenshot. The 3D film is 60 minutes. The 2D BD and DVD have both the 60 minute and 90 minute versions plus extra features. Buy it, if you are a Titanic film fan. The 3D in Ghosts of the Abyss is as good as the 3D in Titanic. On the Titanic deleted scenes, I only wish they had converted them to 3D. They are not in 3D.


----------



## PGTweed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22408931
> 
> 
> we watched Titanic last night, and was really impressed with the 3D quality. Best 3D movie we have. Way better than Hugo, IMO (we don't have Avatar)


I hope to get an authentic (Crossing my fingers) version of Avatar 3D Panasonic Promo Disc from an filmmaker who had an extra disc. I'll pass along if it is an authentic Promo or not an authentic disc.


----------



## PGTweed

Don, ralph Potts has an in depth review of Ghosts of the Abyss 3D Blu-Ray thread.


----------



## PGTweed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PGTweed*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22409510
> 
> 
> I hope to get an authentic (Crossing my fingers) version of Avatar 3D Panasonic Promo Disc from an filmmaker who had an extra disc. I'll pass along if it is an authentic Promo or not an authentic disc.


UPDATE: AUTHENTIC AVATAR 3D BLU-RAY PROMO ARRIVED!!!


----------



## NickTheGreat

Score!


----------



## PGTweed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22412653
> 
> 
> Score!


Yes, I was lucky to get an authentic Avatar 3D Promo disc. But, in my opinion the Titanic 3D Blu-Ray is better than Avatar 3D.


----------



## johnsmith808




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PGTweed*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22412831
> 
> 
> But, in my opinion the Titanic 3D Blu-Ray is better than Avatar 3D.



Wow, never thought in a million years that would be possible. I just got my copy of Titanic 3d and own Avatar. Really looking forward to seeing Titanic now.


----------



## PGTweed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnsmith808*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22418108
> 
> 
> Wow, never thought in a million years that would be possible. I just got my copy of Titanic 3d and own Avatar. Really looking forward to seeing Titanic now.


Titanic 3D BD really surprised me by the quality. I thought that while Cameron was converting Titanic to 3D. He was also bringing a higher quality upgrade to the 3D in Avatar. A probable reason why it took so long to bring a low cost Avatar 3D BD to the public after the Panasonic Promotion?


----------



## cathoderaytube

This is a gorgeous movie and an excellent 3d conversion. But it is still just a conversion, you can tell easily if you pause it. To me, it shows even more that there is no substitute for filming with two cameras.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cathoderaytube*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240#post_22420616
> 
> 
> This is a gorgeous movie and an excellent 3d conversion. But it is still just a conversion, you can tell easily if you pause it. To me, it shows even more that there is no substitute for filming with two cameras.



Are you aware that almost every S3D movie has 2D-3D converted parts?


----------



## NickTheGreat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cathoderaytube*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240_40#post_22420616
> 
> 
> This is a gorgeous movie and an excellent 3d conversion. But it is still just a conversion, you can tell easily if you pause it. To me, it shows even more that there is no substitute for filming with two cameras.



Well then don't pause it


----------



## David Susilo

It's called a movie, not pause-y


----------



## angusmckay

I HAVE BOTH FILMS BUT NOT WATCHED THEM YET, THE AVATAR IS THE ORIGINAL PANASONIC PROMO AND COST ME A SMALL FORTUNE.

I JUST WATCHED AVENGER ON 3D AND THAT WAS PREETY DARN GOOD. MY BEST MOVIE SO FAR FOR 3D I THINK IS MEGAMIND THE KIDS FILM.


----------



## William




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *angusmckay*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240_60#post_22423910
> 
> 
> I HAVE BOTH FILMS BUT NOT WATCHED THEM YET, THE AVATAR IS THE ORIGINAL PANASONIC PROMO AND COST ME A SMALL FORTUNE.
> 
> I JUST WATCHED AVENGER ON 3D AND THAT WAS PREETY DARN GOOD. MY BEST MOVIE SO FAR FOR 3D I THINK IS MEGAMIND THE KIDS FILM.


Could you speak up a little, I missed that.


----------



## Jedi2016




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *angusmckay*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22423910
> 
> 
> THE AVATAR IS THE ORIGINAL PANASONIC PROMO AND COST ME A SMALL FORTUNE.


You do realize they're releasing that disc in stores in a couple months, right? No need to pay anything above retail for it.


Also no need to shout. Welcome to the internet.


----------



## David Susilo

And besides, why spend a lot of money just for a movie? There are literally about 5,000 blu-rays to choose from. I turly never understand the need of instant gratification when it comes to content (games, movies, music)


----------



## drhill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedi2016*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/250_50#post_22426392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *angusmckay*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22423910
> 
> 
> THE AVATAR IS THE ORIGINAL PANASONIC PROMO AND COST ME A SMALL FORTUNE.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize they're releasing that disc in stores in a couple months, right? No need to pay anything above retail for it.
> 
> 
> Also no need to shout. Welcome to the internet.
Click to expand...


October 16th. Not even a month.


----------



## krykuss

Watched the first disc on my epson 6010 at 120 " and it's breathtaking.


Can't wait to watch the second half tonight.


----------



## threed123

I also watched the first disc last night on my new 159" High Power screen and Optoma HD3300. All I can say is, "wow." Like being there. The deck shots and feeling of depth were spectacular. I had the opportunity to visit a Titanic exhibit a couple of months ago, and they had a mock up of the Grand Ballroom staircase. Seeing it in 3D in the movie was quite moving. On the 159" screen it felt life size. Other memorable moments are: down in the boiler room--all those giant pistons and feeling of depth was breathtaking, and inside stateroom shots. This movie is a game changer for me. I never thought that a 2D to 3D conversion could look this good. The only negatives were the slight old-color look of the movie that takes away some of the realism, plus the 3D made Kate Winslet look a little plump and puffy with a big head, and Leonardo looked younger with a smaller head. Looking forward to part 2.


----------



## NickTheGreat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/240_40#post_22426448
> 
> 
> And besides, why spend a lot of money just for a movie? There are literally about 5,000 blu-rays to choose from. I turly never understand the need of instant gratification when it comes to content (games, movies, music)



You make a _terrible_ fanboy


----------



## scupking

Just bought my first 3d Tv a Panasonic VIERA TC-L55ET5 55-Inch. Great tv by the way!! I never wanted 3d in the past but with the passive 3d I figured I would give it a go. TV came in Saturday I put in Titanic and all I could do was keep saying wow! This is just amazing! Only watched about a half hour of it because I want to watch it with my girlfriend on Tuesday. So far this makes me a believer in 3D!!


----------



## briankstan

Watched Titanic on Friday and I'll repeat what others have been saying. the 3D simply looks amazing on this movie. it's and absolute WOW!! from me. No real pop-out on this one but the depth is incredible.


----------



## W.Mayer

i saw some 20 min. and all parts looks very very good.


a bit sharp but dont know if the use sharpness enhancement or the original super 35 are so good from the new scan.

i decrease sharpness by -3 to 4 to get the best picture at the panasonic 3d bd player.


again (i saw the movie in the cinema in 3d) it surpris me is how good a 2d to 3d conversation can get if

you spend a lot of money for it and James Cameron do it.


now i hope for T2 in 3D and other big movies as i hear that the 2d to 3d conversation from titanic was profitable.


James Cameron stands for high quality again and again.


the movie will be soon at many dealers that will show with it how nice 3d can be.


----------



## johnsmith808

I tried switching to the 2d disc to compare. There is no comparison. The 3d really makes the movie so much more immersive. Plus it has a 1.78:1 aspect ratio versus the smaller (for most displays) 2.35:1 on the 2d bluray. Finished disc one. Very impressed with the conversion.


----------



## angusmckay

Hey guys, i watched the Titanic 3d film last night on my Sharp 70" Aquos and as everyone says its is amazing. I had some cross-talk double vision blur at some points but that will be down to my tv setting. Other than that i must say the upconversion is the best ive seen and picture is reference material to me. Still havent watch Avatar so will need to get back to you on that.

A must buy for 3d if you want to be wowed.


----------



## AVTrauma

I also have been impressed with the quality of this conversion, and have anticipated this since I saw a trailer for it in a theater awhile ago... the wait has been worth it!


I was also impressed with the extras included, and found "The Final Word" by JC to be very interesting and informative... a kind of "what we got wrong with the film" and the forensics of the debris field.


Now I'm just waiting for the "extended version" of Avatar to be available (I'll wait on rushing out to get the theatrical version since I have the extended version Blu-ray, and if the wait is too long/never happens, then I'll pick up the theatrical version when the price drops).


And I haven't given up hope that JC is also working on a similiar 3D conversion of "The Abyss" which could be amazing also! (3D Russian water tentacles anyone?







)


----------



## scupking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22438783
> 
> 
> I also have been impressed with the quality of this conversion, and have anticipated this since I saw a trailer for it in a theater awhile ago... the wait has been worth it!
> 
> I was also impressed with the extras included, and found "The Final Word" by JC to be very interesting and informative... a kind of "what we got wrong with the film" and the forensics of the debris field.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for the "extended version" of Avatar to be available (I'll wait on rushing out to get the theatrical version since I have the extended version Blu-ray, and if the wait is too long/never happens, then I'll pick up the theatrical version when the price drops).
> 
> And I haven't given up hope that JC is also working on a similiar 3D conversion of "The Abyss" which could be amazing also! (3D Russian water tentacles anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Yes the Abyss would be awesome in 3D!!!


----------



## briankstan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scupking*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22439363
> 
> 
> Yes the Abyss would be awesome in 3D!!!



I'll second this, love that movie.


----------



## ssjLancer

I... dont like this. Alot of depth sure but it looks so amazingly fake.


I watched this and prometheus back to back and it was night and day. Should be called Titanic: Pop up Book edition


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ssjLancer*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22503654
> 
> 
> I... dont like this. Alot of depth sure but it looks so amazingly fake.
> 
> I watched this and prometheus back to back and it was night and day. Should be called Titanic: Pop up Book edition



Yes, agreed that many of the scenes looked fake. But you have to consider that when this movie was made the technology didn't exist to create many of the CGI scenes that we can do today. Titanic used inverse kinematic motion algorithms to have wireframe people walking around the decks. Today, CGI uses motion tracking for a more natural look. Also, back then, CGI graphics details was not able to generate hair and smoke and particle rendering for true to life details like we can today.


When Titanic first came out these detail deficiencies were mostly hidden due to the lower resolution of the cinema and TV viewing. When DVD release was made we began to see these issues in the movie. Now with 3D and HD Blu Ray those scenes are truly lacking in quality compared with state of the art 3D movie making.


When viewers are impressed with the 3D conversion and have enjoyment of the story, it is the live scenes that we refer to. We, I, am not trying to say that Titanic CGI is as good as it gets. I am saying that the movie as a whole in a 3D conversion is very enjoyable to watch.


----------



## joed32

Good post!


----------



## Teisco

"Pop Up Book" yes that is my problem with 3d. You are saying there are some 3d movies that look more natural and not like a Pop Up?

Let me know what they are please.


----------



## Don Landis

You would have problem with this:


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teisco*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/270#post_22506666
> 
> 
> "Pop Up Book" yes that is my problem with 3d. You are saying there are some 3d movies that look more natural and not like a Pop Up?
> 
> Let me know what they are please.



I would suggest the issue is with your 3D vision or your viewing environment or both and not with the 3D itself because what I and tens of millions of others see and what you see are worlds apart.

You want examples of good 3D? Here are just a few:-


1. Avatar.

2. Hugo.

3. Drive Angry.


If you are seeing flat cardboard characters in a 3D environment then something is wrong and it isn't the movies!


----------



## Teisco

Same stock answer, must be something wrong with your eyes or your equipment, lol. Well at least you provided some useful info, thanks.


----------



## cbcdesign

I don't mean to offend you, I really don't but if an enormous number of people are seeing something differently to you, you cannot really blame the 3D technology any more than a person with hearing difficulty in one ear can claim surround sound technology is flawed. Its just not a logic conclusion to assume 3D is at fault, based on the evidence available.


----------



## Dave Mack

"Iceberg! Right Ahead!"


Firing this up in an hour or so...



RIP, all


----------



## NickTheGreat

Well??? What happened to the ship?


----------



## gwsat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NickTheGreat*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/200_100#post_23205546
> 
> 
> Well??? What happened to the ship?


 *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) _Titanic_ struck an iceberg and sank, Oh, it was said when that great ship went down!


----------



## biliam1982

So in the interview, JC said he added more picture height to the 1.78:1 transfer from the Super 35mm negative, but I haven't seen much talk about it here.


Can anyone confirm this, and that it's not just cropped?


----------



## David Susilo

All the CG shots are cropped


----------



## GregK

All of the non-CG shots indeed use more height of the Super35 frame. In some cases microphones and other misc items were digitaly removed when needed.


CG shots were originally protected up to 2:1. Because of this, CG shots shown at 1.78 do crop some of the sides, but still show more at the top and bottom of the screen.


The underwater footage of the true Titanic wreck were shot in Technicope, had a true Scope AR, so those shots were cropped at the sides with no additional height information for the 1.78 3-D version.


Here are a few sample screenshots
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=1502&disc2=1493&cap1=14168&cap2=14071&art=full&image=11&hd_multiID=114&action=1&lossless=#vergleich


----------



## biliam1982

Hmm.... interesting. Thx for the info guys.


Some of the colors look a bit cool in some scenes and then warm in others. Granted these are screen shots.


I'm not convinced I like the extra height image. Doesn't seem to add enough to make it worth it.


I'm going to be ordering it this week and will see, but I may end up using the vertical stretch and my anamorphic lens to watch it in the OAR.


Has anyone else done this?


----------



## cbcdesign

3D look better when it fill the screen and this is JC's reasoning for giving us the differing aspect ratio. Personally I think its the right way to go. Black bars top and bottom are a distraction that is hard to ignore when watching a 3D image


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23384551
> 
> 
> 3D look better when it fill the screen and this is JC's reasoning for giving us the differing aspect ratio. Personally I think its the right way to go. Black bars top and bottom are a distraction that is hard to ignore when watching a 3D image



I agree w/ your point about the image looking better when it fills the screen, but what he did was reverse the original intent of it being a scope movie.


I don't want to see this become a trend where a movie is cut (or added to in this case) to appease the masses at home because all they have is a 16:9 screen.


If a movie was shown as a scope, it should remain that way.


At least he added to the image instead of taking away from it and cropping the sides off.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23383924
> 
> 
> I'm going to be ordering it this week and will see, but I may end up using the vertical stretch and my anamorphic lens to watch it in the OAR.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else done this?



You can't restore the OAR on the Titanic 3D disc. Although most scenes have additional "open matte" picture info on the top and bottom that you can simply mask off, VFX shots and all of the footage of the submersible in the prologue and epilogue were cropped on the sides for the 16:9 transfer. By masking the top and bottom, you'll lose picture on all sides of the frame.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23384551
> 
> 
> 3D look better when it fill the screen and this is JC's reasoning for giving us the differing aspect ratio. Personally I think its the right way to go. Black bars top and bottom are a distraction that is hard to ignore when watching a 3D image



Those of us who have 2.35:1 Constant Image Height screens would disagree with you.


----------



## David Susilo

Agreed!


Regardless,if the AR change is done by the director, I may not like it but it's his/her prerogative.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23390627
> 
> 
> Regardless,if the AR change is done by the director, I may not like it but it's his/her prerogative.



That's a slippery slope that leads directly to William Friedkin's first purple-tinted edition of The French Connection.


----------



## David Susilo

I don't disagree with you. Just like the craptastic "new" Star Wars. I hate it. It's because of that I still hang on to my "heads" LaserDisc.


----------



## TK Doom

Just watched this tonight.


AMAZING!!!


I saw it 3 times in the theater (in 2d) with my ex-wife.


Tonight I watched it in 3d in our new HT 181" (Stewart Cinecurve/JVC X95).


Watched first 30 mins in 16x9, then switched to 2.35 with the DC1 lens, it was even better! It looks like from the screen shots that the 3d version was made from open matte, so when we switched to 2.35, the lens masked it perfected to OAR.



The 3d was very well done (first 3d title we viewed in our HT), and i wish all discs looked this good.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TK Doom*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23435758
> 
> 
> Watched first 30 mins in 16x9, then switched to 2.35 with the DC1 lens, it was even better! It looks like from the screen shots that the 3d version was made from open matte, so when we switched to 2.35, the lens masked it perfected to OAR.



See post #304 above.


----------



## TK Doom

You wouldn't lose left right info by going to a CIH mode, you'd lose top and bottom.


The movie looks great inm CIH mode.


Maybe I'll compare shots sometime.


----------



## Josh Z

Since you don't seem to want to scroll up to post #304, I will quote it again here:


> Quote:
> You can't restore the OAR on the Titanic 3D disc. Although most scenes have additional "open matte" picture info on the top and bottom that you can simply mask off, VFX shots and all of the footage of the submersible in the prologue and epilogue were cropped on the sides for the 16:9 transfer. By masking the top and bottom, you'll lose picture on all sides of the frame.



VFX shots and all scenes inside the submersible are cropped on the sides in the 16:9 transfer. In case you hadn't noticed, the movie has a fair amount of VFX.


----------



## TK Doom

Ok, I guess I was only thinking in terms of what is there in the 16x9 version.


I was thinking you're only going to lose top and bottom, but you mean that we've already lost the sides from the conversion anyway.


I'm simply saying that you didn't notice it very much, if at all.


Unless you are intimately familar with the movie (like lets say I would with Star Wars), then you wouldn't notice anything at all.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TK Doom*  /t/1336127/titanic-3d/300#post_23442164
> 
> 
> I was thinking you're only going to lose top and bottom, but you mean that we've already lost the sides from the conversion anyway.



In shots with VFX, and all scenes in the submersible, yes, unfortunately.


----------



## puddy77

FYI there's a new 4k HFR 3D remaster coming out Valentine's weekend.


----------

