Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by VIDEOgameDROME

I feel like that site just hands out high ratings to anything. How good can this 2K upscale really look?

Besides HDR? Well, anamorphic 35mm in 2K has 1536 vertical pixels, which are reduced to around 800 pixels on letterboxed Blu-ray. UHD, on the other hand, can resolve all 1536 of those pixels within the letterboxed image when uprezzed. People just focus on the horizontal pixels but forget about the uptick in vertical for 2K DIs of movies shot in anamorphic 35mm.

Chris

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Best thing I ever did home-theater wise was to shut off ASBL on my LG-65B7A via the service menu.

Chris

Mine didn't have one to begin with

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

...

But why wouldn't Inglorious Basterds, a hugely popular movie which is pretty recent, get a 4K scan, when it has little to no CGI? How does that make any sense...

FYI, most movies that people assume have "little to no CGI" are in fact LOADED with it. It's just invisible to the viewer because they aren't big Marvel-movie type action sequences.

Chris

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

FYI, most movies that people assume have "little to no CGI" are in fact LOADED with it. It's just invisible to the viewer because they aren't big Marvel-movie type action sequences.

Chris

I call that auxiliary CGI. A film that leads with practical effects, and uses CGI to fill in the gaps.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

What do these people think they saw in the cinema? Was it not the very same 2K DI that they're currently squealing about?

Not to mention the Blu-ray of this movie was very good, so if the UHD BD is even a moderate refinement of that, I am rather happy.

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Not to mention the Blu-ray of this movie was very good, so if the UHD BD is even a moderate refinement of that, I am rather happy.

This^. Plus, anyone whining about 2K DI's should go watch 'The Shallows'. Another 2K DI which looks amazing and you'd never know it wasn't native 4K unless you looked the info up.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Not to mention the Blu-ray of this movie was very good, so if the UHD BD is even a moderate refinement of that, I am rather happy.

And why would anyone expect anything else? It was clearly always going to be a refinement UHD.

[brainofj72]

I can’t believe we’re seriously still having this same 2K DI argument five years into the format. I thought this was settled years ago.

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I can’t believe we’re seriously still having this same 2K DI argument five years into the format. I thought this was settled years ago.

Yep. No idea why some people refuse to put forth the smallest amount of effort to learn more about what they are complaining about.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I can’t believe we’re seriously still having this same 2K DI argument five years into the format. I thought this was settled years ago.

Well I'm not surprised. Not when people's entry into the format is through Fraud At Home.

The man is cancer, and we should all be on this board trying to stop his influence.

I tried in the Kino thread to no avail getting his partnership with them revoked.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by blackprojection

that's what I'm thinking. Universal is one of the biggest companies around. a 4K UHD disc should reflect the best possible PQ of a movie. using a 2K DI and upscale it may be the cannon here but other older movies get that 4K remaster treatment. why leave IB out of it? why not release the best possible version with today's technology and instead opt for a "minor upgrade" (according to recent reviews)? they just wanted to make little effort as possible, that's my opinion. and Tarantino was probably not involved in all of this. it is just sad.

nevertheless, I pre-ordered this steelbook because I didn't have any physical copy of this movie in my collection yet. it also contains the old Blu disc which is good for comparison to make up my own mind.

and sooner or later, maybe in 10 years, a label is gonna come around and release a "true 4K" version of this. and that's what annoys me. because probably I'm gonna buy this movie again, to own the best version possible and sell this steel for cheap. is all of this really necessary?

Good lord. Are people just going to keep parroting this because Hunt at Home said so? The reality is that the movie was finished DIGITALLY TO A 2K DI and most studios are still upscaling these masters to 4K no matter the available raw camera material, no matter the director, no matter the prestige of the content, and you can forget about "labels" doing it. And even when they do rebuild something into 4K they just upscale the VFX & credits anyway, so the CG or lack thereof in x movie doesn't have as much a bearing as people may think on a 4K rebuild vis-a-vis Tarantino's reputation for doing everything photochemically and in-camera.

I'll say this again: Tarantino's movies have been finished DIGITALLY since the Kill Bills apart from Hateful 8, and in those digital finishes he uses more ones and zeros than you might expect. Hell, I thought the same as some folks do, that Basterds was all done in-camera and has no CG so it'd be a doddle to "scan the negative" in 4K, right? But then someone posted this interview with VFX legend John Dykstra https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/dykstra...rious-basterds about the work they did on Basterds, and while there was no "3D" CG ****ery there was loads of digital work to erase wires/rigs/people from shots, to add muzzle flashes to guns, to do bluscreen composites, to stop a "dead body" from breathing and so on, carried out with the mantra that the work be essentially invisible in the filmic space.

So if someone were to pull the untouched camera negative then all that work would need to be redone from scratch which costs time and money, resources that the studios are still not typically willing to spend even with the boom in 4K HDR content, irrespective of the standing of the director. They could just upscale all that VFX as mentioned, but then we're back to "upscales are the devil!" again. But if Warners won't rebuild LOTR in 4K then what hope does something like Basterds have where Universal/TWC are just custodians of the movie and the rights will go to Tarantino in a set number of years?

If "pro reviewers" with good taste, optimal viewing conditions and properly calibrated equipment still reach the conclusion that Basterds looks bad on UHD then that's one thing, but blaming its shortfalls like being "grainy" ( ) on a 2K DI not being rebuilt - as if upscaling wasn't still the standard thing to do for the major studios - is extremely shortsighted and exposes the technical ignorance of those making such comments. But alas...

Originally Posted by lgans316

The way I see it is FAH gave his opinion which he is entitled to and sadly he looks to be wrong in this instance going by other reviews. I know he doesn't care what we think but if I had assessed something incorrectly in a public platform, I will go back and reassess to ensure I don't lose my credibility. I remember panning San Andreas and Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum and all it took me was revisiting them to correct my stance. It takes years to build reputation and just one grave mistake to taint it.

...given the amount of mistakes FaH has made, and for the most utterly simplistic things, then it matters not.

[kannibaliztik]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Good lord. Are people just going to keep parroting this because Hunt at Home said so? The reality is that the movie was finished DIGITALLY TO A 2K DI and most studios are still upscaling these masters to 4K no matter the available raw camera material, no matter the director, no matter the prestige of the content, and you can forget about "labels" doing it. And even when they do rebuild something into 4K they just upscale the VFX & credits anyway, so the CG or lack thereof in x movie doesn't have as much a bearing as people may think on a 4K rebuild vis-a-vis Tarantino's reputation for doing everything photochemically and in-camera.

I'll say this again: Tarantino's movies have been finished DIGITALLY since the Kill Bills apart from Hateful 8, and in those digital finishes he uses more ones and zeros than you might expect. Hell, I thought the same as some folks do, that Basterds was all done in-camera and has no CG so it'd be a doddle to "scan the negative" in 4K, right? But then someone posted this interview with VFX legend John Dykstra https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/dykstra...rious-basterds about the work they did on Basterds, and while there was no "3D" CG ****ery there was loads of digital work to erase wires/rigs/people from shots, to add muzzle flashes to guns, to do bluscreen composites, to stop a "dead body" from breathing and so on, carried out with the mantra that the work be essentially invisible in the filmic space.

So if someone were to pull the untouched camera negative then all that work would need to be redone from scratch which costs time and money, resources that the studios are still not typically willing to spend even with the boom in 4K HDR content, irrespective of the standing of the director. They could just upscale allIf Warners won't rebuild LOTR in 4K then what hope does something like Basterds have where Universal/TWC are just custodians of the movie and the rights will go to Tarantino in a set number of years?

If "pro reviewers" with good taste, optimal viewing conditions and properly calibrated equipment still reach the conclusion that Basterds looks bad on UHD then that's one thing, but blaming its shortfalls like being "grainy" ( ) on a 2K DI not being rebuilt - as if upscaling still wasn't the standard thing to do for the major studios - is extremely shortsighted and exposes the technical ignorance of those making such comments. But alas...


...given the amount of mistakes FaH has made, and for the most utterly simplistic things, then it matters not.

[Geoff D]

BTW it's not like we shouldn't want to have 4K rebuilds for all 2K stuff, as that'd be amazing. But we're talking "in an ideal world" kinda way, and as the studios didn't do this sort of thing before the current global madness then they're not very likely to do it now where the planet is very ****ing far from being "an ideal world".

"Old movies" get new 4K transfers as a matter of routine because they have cut & conformed original negatives, they were finished out to FILM so you just scan the complete reels and whatever odds and ends for 'clean' subtitled scenes etc. But most things finished out to 2K/4K digital don't have a conformed OG neg because there was no need to physically edit the film together to create release prints, they just filmed out internegatives from the DI to create prints from. Even OUATIH's 35mm prints were derived from filmouts.

Some studios had the foresight to insist on a cut negative for their DI shows, this is the reason why Sony have done more 4K rebuilds of 2K shows (Bad Boys II, Talladega Nights, Hellboy) than the rest put together, but when the negative has not been edited together and all the select takes i.e. thousands of different pieces of film have to be pulled, individually rescanned and then digitally reconformed then the costs start to spiral. These things are not impossibles, they are not absolutes, but they are definite obstacles to rebuilding 2K shows shot on film and 99.9% of the time the studios don't want to spend the time or money to hurdle those barriers.

Phew. Took me back a few years writing that, suddenly we're partying like it's 2016.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Phew. Took me back a few years writing that, suddenly we're partying like it's 2016.

Goodfellas sucks.

[Member-425016]

FAH may think it is garbage, but RAH thinks it is beautiful. One is an expert in film. Who ya gonna believe?


Shot on film, and finished as a 2k DI as well as 35mm prints, the new 4k UHD Blu-ray from Universal is a solid release, highlighting Robert Richardson's stunning cinematography.

The film stands up nicely to a bit of bottle age.

Bottom line, a gorgeous new 4k release, which is aided by a light patina of HDR10+.

Image – 5 (HDR10+)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 4.25

Highly Recommended

RAH

[thesaint2332]

For anyone who trusts SpareChange's reviews, he just released his YouTube review and suggests for those who have a 75" or smaller display may want to stick with the BR unless you are fans and just want the "minimal upgrade" the UHD offers.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by thesaint2332

For anyone who trusts SpareChange's reviews, he just released his YouTube review and suggests for those who have a 75" or smaller display may want to stick with the BR unless you are fans and just want the "minimal upgrade" the UHD offers.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But most things finished out to 2K/4K digital don't have a conformed OG neg because there was no need to physically edit the film together to create release prints, they just filmed out internegatives from the DI to create prints from.

Question. I'm asking you this since I assume you have this knowledge and I really wouldn't know where to look to find it. In the example of, say, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and War of the Worlds, did those 4K transfers have a negative to go back to, or did they have to go all Star Trek on them?

[tama]

Originally Posted by thesaint2332

For anyone who trusts SpareChange's reviews, he just released his YouTube review and suggests for those who have a 75" or smaller display may want to stick with the BR unless you are fans and just want the "minimal upgrade" the UHD offers.

One youtuber says it's to dim and dark. This one says it's brighter then the BD. Did I hear correctly he's running it through a projector? Sounds like hes having the same issues as RAH as peak Specular highlights coming across blown out or hot for them.

Everyone is all over the place. So it means I'll probably like it

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Question. I'm asking you this since I assume you have this knowledge and I really wouldn't know where to look to find it. In the example of, say, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and War of the Worlds, did those 4K transfers have a negative to go back to, or did they have to go all Star Trek on them?

War of the Worlds was still finished out to film, but Crystal Skull was Señor Spielbergo's first Digital Intermediate. For the 4K UHD release of the latter it does appear that the non-VFX material was newly transferred from the camera negative and reconformed with upscaled 2K VFX shots, thus blowing a hole in the paragraphs of waffle I've posted above - but that it takes someone of the stature of Spielbergo to insist upon a 4K rebuild of his movie says it all TBH, and it's part of that 00.1% mentioned above.