An old Amiga with ‘Titanic’ miniature shoot ‘video taps’ | Hacker News Reader

An old Amiga with ‘Titanic’ miniature shoot ‘video taps’

beforesandafters.com

146 pointsingve38 comments

It seems to be miniatures of the two submarines at the beginning of the movie

Starting at 1:20 you can see the real thing here: https://youtu.be/PcuKfOomVbM

I'm guessing these miniature submarine shots were overlaid on top of real shots of the titanic? And then VFX were added to make the subs look cooler. Spliced with other shots to make it look like the scientists were inside the subs.

The YT comment was even more interesting than the clip

Tangential: has anyone watched the 4K/3D/HFR remake? Is it any good?

Yes there is nothing wrong with it. Almost looks like a new movie released in 2023. However it is a re-release of an old film so if your not keen on watching an old film then there isn't a point.

Keep in mind in the US they are showing the 2.39:1 AR Scope version. In 2012 when they did the remaster, they supposedly showed the better 1.78:1 version so thats a bummer seeing the original 2.39:1 version and not the version that Cameron (I think) prefers.

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

I missed the 2012 remaster for the 100th anniversary of the sinking. I feel fortunate to see it in theaters this time for the film's 25th anniversary.

For the record I have seen in AMC's Dolby 3D and Cinemark's XD implementations. I think they both use dual laser projection. I have skipped the standard 2K version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its alright. Still a fantastic movie, but I don't feel that 3d added anything to the experience

This guy should be on HN to tell some stories :) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-egstad-7113002/details/...

And elucidate laymen on what all the jargon means. Still don't know what a PAR is :)

Personal Animation Recorder — an add on card for the Amiga that stores and plays back frames.

http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/par

The actual footage is shown with a blue overlay on all 4 sides and an yellow border-- am I missing something? Is that how the original is?

The video signal is 4:3 aspect ratio and the blue is the area cropped out to result in the frame you’ll see on film

The title is a bit more understandable with original punctuation:

An old Amiga with ‘Titanic’ miniature shoot ‘video taps’ on it is a treasure-trove of VFX history

I think they might also have typoed "tapes".

Video tap is a video camera that is connected to film camera viewfinder so that crew can view material on a monitor and also record preview quality image (the video taps)

I'm guessing it's derived from plumbing jargon[0], in the sense of inserting an access point into an existing system to gain access to the resource inside; this idea is also found metaphorically in the common phrasal verb "tap into"[1] (make use of or gain advantage from an existing resource).

[0] https://www.mcwaneductile.com/blog/what-are-the-three-pipe-t... [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tap-i...

They are sometimes called taps in the RF industry. It's for when you want have a monitor port for a signal without disrupting the original signal too much. You'll still lose a little bit of power on the original signal but this will only be as much as 3dB for a splitter (where both outputs are equal in power) or much less for something like a 15dB coupler (the monitor signal is 15dB less than the original output). Since it's impossible to measure an RF signal without stealing at least little bit of power, there is always just a little bit of loss on the original signal. There are similar devices for fiber optics where they bond a fiber to the original so some light escapes the original fiber and goes into the second bonded fiber. This can even be done in the field on in-use lines where a tap fiber is wrapped tightly around the main fiber and bonded with a torch. You can even tap a fiber line by just bending it enough and placing a detector at the bend since some light will escape there.

Something similar can be done for light where a diagonal piece of glass sits in front of one camera and another camera sits 90deg pointed at the same glass. Some light gets through the glass but most reflects so one camera sees a slightly darker image and the other sees a much darker image.

It’s etymologically from the notion of tapping a keg or barrel… you literally had to tap (hammer) a tap (cone-shaped cork, bung, or — eventually, but much later - a plumbed faucet or tap) into a vessel to access the contents.

Technically the video tap is the beam splitter and associated mounting affordances and hardware that redirects light bouncing off the mirror shutter to both the operator’s viewfinder and to the video assist camera; you could mount a 100% tap, replacing the viewfinder entirely, or various degrees of partial beam splitter.

In either case the tap allowed you to capture video footage of what the camera operator was seeing… which, confusingly, was exactly what did NOT actually end up in the final film, since both the viewfinder and assist can only receive light when the shutter is closed and the film is moving to the next frame.

Of course, I forgot about kegs/barrels. I can well believe that that's the older etymology. Thanks!

Ah, we call that "video assist" here.

To be accurate the video tap is the hardware assembly that allows video signal to be recorded at the same time as the film is being exposed — or very nearly the same time, since the film can’t be exposed while the video camera is receiving light — and video assist is the production technique of using that tapped video to aid production work (VFX, editorial, cinematography, playback, continuity, etc) while the exposed film awaits processing and scanning.

In other words you needed a video tap to allow for video assist.

It's also the name of a connection when you have a single video signal sent to a distribution amplifier so that it becomes a 1-to-many signal. Each of the output connections is referred to as a tap.

Video tap here refers to the direct video feed that went into the VideoToaster to allow quick previewing. Something that was otherwise hard to do. This is still the time of (analog) filmreel use.

A bit, but without knowing what “video taps” means, it’s still pretty unclear

It seems that the HN community has a soft spot for submissions with the word "trove" in the title. This is the third or fourth one on the front page this week...

Thank you, I was starting to wonder if there was a secret game going on, or if I was supposed to screenshot them all and post for a hat-trick or whatever. So strange.

Not sure if I was being hit by Extra Strong(tm) confirmation bias [1], so at least very nice to see I was not alone in reacting.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

IIRC the HN algorithm checks for patterns in titles of articles people are interested in in.

See also, high correlation between having trove in the title and actually containing a trove of something.

If you actually read the article, it has nothing to do with the Titanic.

One person who worked on Titanic explains where these shots came from and how they landed there (they were for True Lies, and he and a bunch of friends were Amiga fans who convinced the team to use Amigas instead of the $60k equipment they were using).

This Amiga-based playback system was introduced during the production of True Lies, but they continued using it during Titanic.

It's literally in the first paragraph:

The Commodore Amiga 4000/040 was used by Digital Domain to help craft effects shots and review miniature shoots for Titanic, Apollo 13 and True Lies.

The video shows footage of miniatures for Titanic. True Lies and Apollo 13 didn't have footage of a model of The Titanic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com