Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Production company, sure, not a "studio" as such so they always needed to wheel and deal to fund & widely distribute their movies across the world.

So it is a semantics thing? Miramax and The Weinstein Company financed and distributed Tarantino's movies, and they were widely considered to be "studios" by industry press. (Pulp Fiction was famously the first film that Miramax fully financed after being acquired by Disney, for instance.) They didn't have a strong international presence, no -- like a lot of independent/dependent studios, they acquired a lot of releases from other countries, and selling overseas rights to their own productions was standard practice -- but just because different studios would distribute Tarantino's films outside of the U.S. doesn't make him some kind of nomad.

[Scottishguy]

Notice how he didn't sign post his audience to this thread. I wonder why....

[Streetlight]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Are you aksing us or telling us? I confoose

Both, I added clarification.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

Miramax and The Weinstein Company were absolutely studios, and they financed and distributed Tarantino's movies. (Pulp Fiction was famously the first film that Miramax fully financed after being acquired by Disney, for instance.) They didn't have a strong international presence, no -- like a lot of independent/dependent studios, they acquired a lot of releases from other countries, and selling overseas rights to their own productions was standard practice -- but just because different studios would distribute Tarantino's films outside of the U.S. doesn't make him some kind of nomad.

I did say he stuck with the Weinsteins, did I not? But as it is the rights have ended up all over the place for his movies - if they haven't already reverted to him, I think he had a 20 year stipulation in place and several of his movies are well past that? - and so it makes it harder to get them all together to do a big remastering push, especially when QT couldn't care less about the home video transfers anyway. Studios will license their releases for inclusion in a big box like Tarantino XX, but getting them to remaster them all from negative is something else.

[dickdarlington]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

So it is a semantics thing? Miramax and The Weinstein Company financed and distributed Tarantino's movies, and they were widely considered to be "studios" by industry press. (Pulp Fiction was famously the first film that Miramax fully financed after being acquired by Disney, for instance.) They didn't have a strong international presence, no -- like a lot of independent/dependent studios, they acquired a lot of releases from other countries, and selling overseas rights to their own productions was standard practice -- but just because different studios would distribute Tarantino's films outside of the U.S. doesn't make him some kind of nomad.

Not exactly.

Due to the cost of Inglorious Basterds and TWC losing money left and right, the deal with Universal ultimately resulted in Universal controlling international theatrical rights and worldwide home entertainment rights.

TWC had some of their money issues under control for Django Unchained, but due to cost, TWC controlled North American distribution and Sony controls international distribution.

Due to The Hateful Eight costing less than those two films, TWC put up all the money.

Once we get to Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Sony gave Tarantino the farm in order to do the film there.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

Of the movies released in 2000s with 4K BD, which one has 4K DI and which one was a new scan/rebuilt?

These are what I know.
4K DI:
Angels and Demons
Hancock
Pineapple Express

New scan/rebuilt:
Hellboy
Indiana Jones 4
Oldboy
V for Vendetta
All Christopher Nolan movies (Interpositive)

V for Vendetta looks like a 2K to me, but I need to watch it again.
All Christopher Nolan movies were finished on film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

V for Vendetta looks like a 2K to me, but I need to watch it again.
All Christopher Nolan movies were finished on film.

Vendetta is weird, it's definitely a different transfer to the BD but doesn't look like a 4K rebuild. There's a lot of digital work in the DI, using power windows on V's mask for example, which is there on the UHD too and as I doubt they redid all that work from scratch that stuff has got to be upscaled. Or I wonder if they did a new transfer from the filmout negative rather than the actual OG neg?

[tama]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

V for Vendetta looks like a 2K to me, but I need to watch it again.
All Christopher Nolan movies were finished on film.

Unlike LOTR which was only ever claimed by Bill Hunt as a 4K rebuild, WB press releases issued made the claim that V for Vendetta was native 4K. I know some believed they may have pulled a Lionsgate and scanned a print out in 4K.

[Agent Kay]

So this is the new Blade Runner 2049 then, cause celebre for the youtube and forum clueless

[Onlysleeping23]

Slightly ot, but the last time I watched Death Proof, I noticed there were not any crew credits for a digital intermediate workflow. No facility listed, no digital colorist (Tarantino usually works with Yvan Lucas). Can’t find any conformation it was a photochemical finish either though.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Maybe he lurks and read where we mentioned turning the lights off to replicate mastering conditions.

[Show spoiler]

Jeeeffff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T1c...ature=youtu.be

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

So this is the new Blade Runner 2049 then, cause celebre for the youtube and forum clueless

New Blade Runner, new Gremlins, new Goodfellas, take your pick (and I love it that those are all TROO FORKAY yet are crapped upon by the same YouTube clueless that are complaining about Basterds not being a new transfer, you couldn't make it up)

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

So this is the new Blade Runner 2049 then, cause celebre for the youtube and forum clueless

Well it's not been called fake HDR, and Vincent knows his stuff. He just has funny idea's about it's implementation.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Well it's not been called fake HDR, and Vincent knows his stuff. He just has funny idea's about it's implementation.

But, ironically enough given the proliferation of the technically incompetent on YT and the socials, Vincent's an example of someone who's too into the tech to appreciate the artistic side of it and came up with "fake HDR" plus his own conspiracy theories like Disnee doing some auto HDR conversion on their stuff.

(I recall you levelling such a thing at me re: tech going before art when I was discussing SDR with Thomas Clay in the Fanny Lye thread, but it's his contention that filmmakers don't expect us to watch SDR as they do that I found baffling, not his ingrained hatred of SDR itself. He's welcome to despise SDR just as others dislike HDR.)

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But, ironically enough given the proliferation of the technically incompetent, he's an example of someone who's too into the tech to appreciate the artistic side of it and came up with his own conspiracy theories like Disnee doing some auto HDR conversion on their stuff.

(I recall you levelling such a thing at me re: tech going before art when I was discussing SDR with Thomas Clay in the Fanny Lye thread, but it's his contention that filmmakers don't expect us to watch SDR as they do that I found baffling, not his ingrained hatred of SDR itself. He's welcome to despise SDR just as others dislike HDR.)

I have the perfect horror film for you this Halloween.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6le...ature=youtu.be

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I did say he stuck with the Weinsteins, did I not?

Sure, but you also said:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As QT is more nomadic, having never settled at any one studio and preferring the Weinsteins to broker his deals

...which, to my mind anyway, is a misunderstanding of what Miramax and The Weinstein Company were and what resources they had at their disposal. (Miramax during their peak was owned by Disney, and The Weinstein Company was founded with a billion dollar line of credit.) Tarantino did settle at a studio, and the studio was whatever company the Weinsteins were running at the time.

I know it's kind of a silly thing for me to get hung up about, but enthusiast forums, amirite?

Originally Posted by dickdarlington

Due to the cost of Inglorious Basterds and TWC losing money left and right, the deal with Universal ultimately resulted in Universal controlling international theatrical rights and worldwide home entertainment rights.

Absolutely, and I wrote something similar in an earlier draft of my post. (I compulsively rewrite, add, and remove so much that I'm not sure where I actually wound up!) But still, I don't believe this is what Geoff was referring to earlier, as it only addresses two of the films Tarantino made after getting embedded with the Weinsteins (which is a long way from "never") and are still movies that the Weinsteins produced and distributed (even if it was only theatrical domestically).

[Matt89]

So on fb DigitalBits have deleted everyone’s comments criticizing their review and posted this:

“For the record: On a title like this, which was shot on film but finished as a 2K DI, the usual procedure is to rescan the negative for live action, upsample the 2K VFX shots, and rebuild the DI in 4K, then regrade for HDR. That rescanning hasn't happened here. Thus the poor image quality and the low video grade.”

~Matt

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Matt89

So on fb DigitalBits have deleted everyone’s comments criticizing their review and posted this:

“For the record: On a title like this, which was shot on film but finished as a 2K DI, the usual procedure is to rescan the negative for live action, upsample the 2K VFX shots, and rebuild the DI in 4K, then regrade for HDR. That rescanning hasn't happened here. Thus the poor image quality and the low video grade.”

~Matt

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Well it's not been called fake HDR, and Vincent knows his stuff. He just has funny idea's about it's implementation.

He just thinks he knew better than cinematographers and directors and colourists.
I am sure he knew more dick jokes

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

They are not that competent