Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TITANIC 3-D reviews are favorable

This is topic TITANIC 3-D reviews are favorable in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001068

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-04-2012, 06:13 PM:

I have read early reviews of TITANIC 3-D on the internet and all of them have praised the 3-D conversion. One reviewer liked it so much, he said it surpasses even some movies he had seen that were captured in 3-D. I am going to be very busy with work during the rest of the week but will try to see it at the Dole Cannery in digital IMAX sometime next week. I know I will enjoy the movie and cannot wait to see it.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-04-2012, 07:03 PM:

Yes, the conversion is very favorable - one of the best conversions to be documented on the screen.

Now, to see if this conversion is strong enough to drive a 'curious' factor with the pubic to come out to see the results of the conversion since the movie has been released on all forms of video formats, presented on CATV/TV, et.al.

-Monte

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-04-2012, 07:25 PM:

Oh, I think it will do just fine. People who like this movie will probably all agree it should be seen in a theatre. I, for one, would say "see it on the big screen" even in 2D.

Fans probably won't pass up the opportunity to see it in 3D -- especially if the 3D conversion is getting positive buzz.

Heck, now I'm curious to see it!

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-04-2012, 07:32 PM:

I think a lot of people will, Monte. I still have the original DVD as well as the multi disc set and previously had the movie on a DTS laserdisc as well as widescreen and full screen VHS tape. There is a whole new generation that never saw TITANIC on a large theatrical screen and I am sure a lot of them will see the new 3-D version in theatres.

Both THE LION KING and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST have been available on home video for years and both of them were very successful in theatres recently when they were converted from the original 2-D to 3-D. Even episode one of STAR WARS in 3-D did well.

-Claude

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-04-2012, 08:42 PM:

As with Star Wars Episode 1, I thought the 3D conversion was cleanly done, but it didn't add anything to the story. I felt like the experience with the glasses on was no different than it was when I originally watched the movie in 2D. The problem with these conversions is the detail simply doesn't exist to do 3D correctly.

I will say this much: I didn't have any problem with wearing the glasses for 3 hours and 14 minutes. I didn't see any significant ghosting or other problems.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-04-2012, 10:27 PM:

the 3D trailer alone had it's 'wow' moments - can't wait to see this!

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 04-05-2012, 02:38 AM:

I have tested the DCP of "Titanic 3 D". The result is fantastic. Amazing work. With the IMAX version of Avatar i saw two years ago (70 mm), it's the best 3 D i have ever seen : perfect focus, very sharp image and almost no ghosting even with MasterImage.

Cameron did a great job. And the movie really deserves a big screen.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-11-2012, 04:20 PM:

Just saw it in RealD.The 3D was very very good,picture was clear but it never got taller than scope.This was a constant width house.

Still looked better in 2d 35mm on a great film done right screen in 1997/1998 but it was a great 3D conversion.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-11-2012, 07:22 PM:

Why *would* it get taller than scope? I don't understand.

[Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2012, 07:28 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
As with Star Wars Episode 1, I thought the 3D conversion was cleanly done, but it didn't add anything to the story.

I see this comment a lot and don't understand it. Just what IS 3-D supposed to add to the story? I don't think there's ever been a 3-D movie where 3-D "added to the story." For that matter, what does color add to the story in most movies? I would bet that 99% of movies today would work just fine in black and white, so why are they spending all that money on color?

3-D exists just for the "coolness" of the visual, that's all. Not to add anything to the story. Even Avatar worked just fine in 2-D...was there any part of that movie that a viewer wouldn't "get" in 2-D?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-11-2012, 08:28 PM:

Good point Mike!
John,there was rumor that the Super 35 frame would be opened up making it taller.Maybe this was for Imax and Liemax only but it was discussed somewhere...
I was wondering if like Avatar different versions would go to constant height or width screens to maximize screen size.
Maybe it was only a rumor?

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-11-2012, 11:16 PM:

Mike, take Avatar or How to Train Your Dragon as examples. The 3D in both of those movies had the effect of enhancing the viewing experience - especially with the flying sequences. Although Star Wars Ep.1 didn't have much flying, the 3D could have similarly enhanced the viewing experience. I didn't feel that at all. And the same thing with Titanic. Maybe I'm misspeaking to say it didn't enhance the story, but my point was that I didn't feel the 3D added anything (or enough) to justify watching it in 3D.

One point I will concede is that we have MasterImage 3D. I did get to watch about 5 minute of Titanic on a RealD screen and it did seem to have a better 3D effect.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2012, 11:19 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't think there's ever been a 3-D movie where 3-D "added to the story." For that matter, what does color add to the story in most movies? I would bet that 99% of movies today would work just fine in black and white, so why are they spending all that money on color?

Well, in real life we only see color. Some might argue that we also see 3D, but the reality of it is that we don't walk around in the dark 100% of the time. Until 3D can get to a proper brightness level and they fix the "cardboard cutout" issue with the 3D effect, color makes sense and 3D does not.

Just my opinion.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-11-2012, 11:52 PM:

Then there's that whole glasses thing they need to get rid of. Oh, and that upcharge thing, too. Theaters are finding lots and lots of reasons to nickel and dime their customers these days. Theaters really hate people. 3D is an upcharge, Liemax is an upcharge, fake Liemax is an upcharge, sitting in the balcony is an upcharge. I'm surprised that theaters don't charge more based on the color of carpet.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-14-2012, 11:15 AM:

In about a week I will be checking out the 15/70 3d version.
I will compare this to the Real D Christie presentation which was very dark.
To be fair even 2D was dark like a black hole on this screen! I did complain but since the management are friends of mine from years of projecting 35mm in the past.They just laugh and say we love you Victor. [Smile]

It seems they are directed to run the bulbs too long. [Frown]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-14-2012, 01:34 PM:

I saw the trailer before Hugo a while back; the 3D actually did look quite good. Based on that, I would definitely consider seeing the 3D version if I had any interest in seeing Titanic again (I don't).

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-14-2012, 01:51 PM:

I would prefer to see it 2D in 70MM ,35mm or 4k Digital but in this city nothing but Real D is being offered! [Mad]

That said the dark 3D images did look great!

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-15-2012, 12:02 AM:

yes, the IMAX-Digital 3D version I saw was open matted to show more on the top and bottom, not sure how this was done for the SFX shots since I thought Cameron actually shot those scenes in scope, whereas the rest of the movie was shot in Super 35 where there is extra visual information to present this in 1.72. The 3D effect at AMC Tysons was stupendous! the best post convert job I've seen. The IMAX-D system at AMC Rio is on one of the smallest screens - the sound though was WAAAAAY too loud! unacceptably so. The REAL-D version (Rave Motion Picture Fairfax Corner 'Xtreme' screen) with the film in it's original AR of 2.35 looked very good, but the sound was tinny and had very little oomph

Posted by Joris Springer (Member # 4175) on 04-15-2012, 01:35 PM:

For me watching Titanic 3D was the first time I watched the movie in the cinema in general so I was stunned by the picture. However at one point around 2 hours and 10 minutes I think it is, when Jack and Rose swim underwater and there are many bright flashes behind them it was really hard to watch because it was so bright and well, 3D is already darker than normal film so that was a bit of a disappointment. Then later when I came home and watched a small part of the movie on my 3D tv which converted it to 3D I have to say that it was actually looking mostly the same. Atleast it felt like it.

But I still loved the movie, it was great to finally watch that movie on the big screen and was so much better than watching it on VHS and DVD.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-15-2012, 09:55 PM:

I saw it today and, I have to say, the storytelling remains quite solid for me. I still love this movie.

The 3D was fine. It didn't "add to the story" for me -- and I agree with the notion that it's the same as color -- that's not its function. More to the point, it didn't ruin the movie for me. The 3D conversion was very good. Better than a lot of movies that were actually shot in 3D.

If 3D is the reason I got to see this movie in a theatre today, then I'm fine with that.

This movie still works -- and it works better than just about any of the contemporary releases that I've seen in the recent past.

Thankfully, the movie was good enough to overcome projection flaws...

Bloomington AMC Showplace 12 (formerly Kerasotes)
Cinema #1
Very soft focus.
Real-D -- Cold spots on screen -- The cold spots were top-center, upper right-hand corner and a few more spots in the main image area (offset all the more by nearby hotspots)
Luminance probably around 3fL

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-15-2012, 11:47 PM:

I saw this in digital LIEMAX today, and the picture was godawful. Easily the worst visual presentation I've seen Titanic in, and I've seen Titanic about a dozen times in theatres (all previously on film).

This was in a standard size Regal auditorium (Regal native build) with an over-sized screen. They didn't even upgrade the seats...standard Regal cloth with vinyl headrests. No surround speakers on the side walls, just rear corner-mounted LIEMAX equipment.

They're just laughing at us now.

Posted by Doug Thompson (Member # 6546) on 04-16-2012, 06:52 AM:

I've never seen "Titanic" and probably never will. There's trauma involved. I'll explain.

It has to do with Celine Dion's hit song. You know the one.

"Boat,
Car.
Where eeeeeeeeeeeeever you are..."

Before, during (and, for that matter, after) the film's opening, one could not avoid it on the radio. (Okey, it wasn't on classic rock, oldies, R&B, religious, country or classical, but stick with me a minute.)

I was working at a recording studio at the time. We got alot of business from partisipants in cheerleading, dance, and Miss (insert school name) high school who needed music edited down to 2 or so to 3 and a half minutes. And since I started editing music on 1/4" tape in the '70s at about age 10, I got almost all of those sessions. (The other guys were more comfortable tracking bands--Fine by me!). If I had a nickel for every time that damn song came in for a different length edit... well, I'd have a crap load of nickeles!

A certain song from "Southpark. Bigger, Longer and Uncut" comes to mind right about now!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-16-2012, 06:55 PM:

The song doesn't really figure into the movie all that much.

quote: Doug Thompson
Okey

I never understood this spelling of the word "Okay."

Posted by Lincoln Spector (Member # 6835) on 04-16-2012, 07:09 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I see this comment a lot and don't understand it. Just what IS 3-D supposed to add to the story? I don't think there's ever been a 3-D movie where 3-D "added to the story." For that matter, what does color add to the story in most movies? I would bet that 99% of movies today would work just fine in black and white, so why are they spending all that money on color?

Mike--

There's a difference for a film planned and shot for a format and one converted to that format later. It's the same as colorization. The first was complete without 3D, and it didn't add anything (I'm assuming there; I haven't seen the 3D version).

I'm a purist. I don't like a film to be significantly altered.

Lincoln

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-16-2012, 08:57 PM:

Okay, but I seem to see that comment all the time even on movies made in and for 3-D.

The bottom line is, stuff seeming closer or further away from you is never going to add anything to the STORY. Only extra minutes of footage can really do that (and even then, it's not a guarantee).

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-16-2012, 09:23 PM:

I really enjoyed certain moments in 3d like when the ship is straight up and people are falling into the water hitting railings on the way down actually frightened me ! The depth caught me off guard and I felt panic for a moment! Still rather see a pristine 2d presentation.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-17-2012, 03:58 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
The song doesn't really figure into the movie all that much.

It doesn't figure into the movie at all except for the credits. That's what makes this movie painful to watch in the theater. At home you can simply press STOP after the "Directed by Jimbo" credit fades away, but in the theater there's no way you could make it to the exit without hearing some of the song.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-17-2012, 05:00 PM:

Life is too short to see an average film more than once, 3D or no.

Now, The Artist IS a film well worth watching more than once.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-17-2012, 07:05 PM:

Yeah, but that's not in 3D.

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 04-17-2012, 07:58 PM:

I got enough depth out of the 70mm blow-up, and Sealion sounds half-decent in DTS.

Need to check if Fox have junked that print now - the embargoed it in December, just after we screened it.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-17-2012, 10:08 PM:

Yeah nothing like the sound of Sea lions in dts! [Big Grin]