Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[wright96d]

Disc Size: 92,191,804,773 bytes
Protection: AACS2
Playlist: 00800.MPLS
Size: 90,821,492,736 bytes
Length: 3:14:44.631
Total Bitrate: 62.18 Mbps
Video: MPEG-H HEVC Video / 46029 kbps / 2160p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 1000nits / HDR10 / BT.2020
Video: * MPEG-H HEVC Video / 3768 kbps / 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 1000nits / Dolby Vision FEL / BT.2020
Audio: English / Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio / 7.1+13 objects / 48 kHz / 2710 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Audio: English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1655 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 2.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit)
Audio: English / Dolby Digital Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Audio: French / Dolby Digital Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Audio: Spanish / Dolby Digital Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Audio: English / Dolby Digital Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps
Audio: English / Dolby Digital Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps
Audio: English / Dolby Digital Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps
Subtitle: English / 39.971 kbps
Subtitle: French / 24.097 kbps
Subtitle: Spanish / 27.616 kbps
Subtitle: English / 79.708 kbps
Subtitle: French / 70.303 kbps
Subtitle: Spanish / 63.596 kbps
Subtitle: English / 84.336 kbps
Subtitle: French / 71.503 kbps
Subtitle: Spanish / 69.213 kbps
Subtitle: English / 89.868 kbps
Subtitle: French / 72.754 kbps
Subtitle: Spanish / 67.387 kbps
Subtitle: English / 0.029 kbps
Subtitle: French / 0.044 kbps
Subtitle: Spanish / 0.066 kbps
Subtitle: English / 3.842 kbps

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by escvnte

I'm fairly positive that they used the original 5.1 audio and then remixed it for Atmos.
They did the same thing with the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 mix that they included in the 2005 Special Collector's Edition DVD (always using the original 5.1 mix).

It's not that hard to create an Atmos/DTS:X mix from 5.1 or 7.1 audio sources.

Titanic came out in 1997. It would make no sense to use the 5.1 as a starting point when the original protools session most certainly still exists.

[Ben_UK]

92gig? Doh! There is at least another 4gb of useable space! Hacks!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Titanic came out in 1997. It would make no sense to use the 5.1 as a starting point when the original protools session most certainly still exists.

Sure. They didn't say they started with a laserdisc AC3 rip or anything. The original sessions will be configured for 5.1 as that was the original discrete format for the film. They can then expand it horizontally and vertically from there.

[bigrob]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Audio: English / Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio / 7.1+13 objects / 48 kHz / 2710 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Audio: English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1655 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 2.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit)
Audio: English / Dolby Digital Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps

wonder what's the DTS-MA 2.0 is all about

also wonder if that Dolby Digital 5.1 is the original mix

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bigrob

wonder what's the DTS-MA 2.0 is all about

also wonder if that Dolby Digital 5.1 is the original mix

Cameron loves to put 2.0 mixes on his movies.

5.1 is audio descriptive mayhap?

Glad to see the Dobly layer is very small, means the base layer is half decent

[bluhunter]

iTunes updated the previous listing with the latest cover art and 4K remaster. As far as I can see the iTunes Extras were NOT updated.
Can anyone confirm?

[spanky87]

Screenshots (borrowed from elsewhere):

[CreasyBear]

Stunning! Can't wait!

[Pieter V]

2.35:1 OAR it is then like streaming.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure. They didn't say they started with a laserdisc AC3 rip or anything. The original sessions will be configured for 5.1 as that was the original discrete format for the film. They can then expand it horizontally and vertically from there.

Exactly, but it seemed like they meant they would start from the 5.1 mix itself, not the sessions.

Originally Posted by spanky87

Egads that sharpening

Originally Posted by spanky87

Could definitely use a better encode.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by lgans316

To me it looks a touch beyond my threshold (sharpening). YMMV.

Some of the skin tones looking waxy. I am unsure if this is due to streaming or the camera focus or something else.

Sharpening is the worst. Excessive DNR is still far more acceptable than sharpening it afterwards. This looks like a transfer that will not be an abomination, far better than T2 or American Graffiti, but that it could have been better due to excessive DNR and sharpening in some scenes.

[Mierzwiak]

I can live with some sharpening as long as it looks like 35mm film, which I think it does.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Sharpening is the worst. Excessive DNR is still far more acceptable than sharpening it afterwards. This looks like a transfer that will not be an abomination, far better than T2 or American Graffiti, but that it could have been better due to excessive DNR and sharpening in some scenes.

T2 was an abomination. This one is between Smart Hulk and The Incredible Hulk.

[CreasyBear]

Some of y'all just need to chill out and watch the goddamn movie. These caps look brilliant.

[Hedrox]

It likely looks great in motion but it's definitely been tampered with. Sharpening, DNR, I would say even a little bit of fake grain, are quite evident from the caps.

[matbezlima]

Are these caps from the UHD or from the stream? Grain compression looks like it could be better.

[srolle]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Are these caps from the UHD or from the stream? Grain compression looks like it could be better.

From the UHD Bluray.

[Djt31]

Originally Posted by srolle

From the UHD Bluray.

What's the original source? Is there a review somewhere?

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Djt31

What's the original source?

The shadow realm.