Tema: Titanic (James Cameron, 1997)

Y aquí está la valoración, que no la review, de Geoff D, que digamos es un referente en esto, vamos, una persona que sabe mucho del tema y que goza de una enorme reputación.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3633

Ehhhhh. If we were discussing colour timing alone then I'd be inclined to agree (moving targets and all that) but there's a massive difference between the inevitable vagaries of photochemical film and the kind of purely digital enhancement that Cameron - and Lucas, and Jackson - applies to his films decades after the fact.

What it looked like in 1997 - even in 2012 - is irrelevant, what it looks like on the OG negative is irrelevant, this is about how Cameron wants it to look now and he will use whatever means necessary to achieve that goal. I mean, we've literally got those gorgeous negative scans from 2012 to compare to the 2023 iteration and one looks entirely filmic, infused with the visibly noisy dye clouds of the 500-speed emulsion of the time, while the other has had the grain eradicated, the detail sharpened up and a layer of gentle but entirely fake grain laid back over the top - which is something that Cameron has done to several of his movies on prior transfers, in case you weren't aware.

Titanic's UHD looks astonishingly sharp but it's now a new product, some kind of film/digital hybrid that does things to the source no one thought possible in 1997. It is unquestionably revisionism but if people just want to say that it's betterer because they like it like that then they should do so, they don't need to rely on the comfort blanket of Schrödinger's Cat-type reasoning to soothe their conscience.