Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Skimming through this and checked a few of the scenes with aliasing. Watching it in HDR, at a normal distance on a 65", I really cannot see it. It's there, but I have to put my face up against the screen to see the aliasing at all. So, it's fine. The transfer looks very good otherwise

I wonder how it will look projected?
It could also still be this is inherent to the source. As this was Tarantinos first time finishing a film in digital, and such things also were hidden as it was finished 2K.He wasn't preparing for the DI one day to be upscaled.

So I would say, if that's the case, Universal were sensible to not try and correct it. As you'd just end up causing more problems than what you started with.

[Casual_G4m3r]

I tried watching my copy, but the glitching is killing me, especially because the bar scene is my favorite set piece in the film.

Instead of continuing to cry about it, I am going to try to swap it out this evening. Hopefully BBY doesn't give me any grief about it, and my new copy plays perfectly.

In regards to this transfer, I do maintain that if you're not trying to nit pick it apart, it's a fine transfer overall. It's not perfect, but it is very good IMO. I don't think most people are going to find it problematic.

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

4K:



BD:

That’s very interesting since that shade of yellow is iconic to Tarantino’s credits.

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

[Scottishguy]

And now the thread title looks racist.

[Deciazulado]

[Big-D]

I put this on first thing this morning and it looks absolutely beautiful, the opening scene of Landa arriving at the farm looks just like a Renoir painting. Only thing I dislike is the auto generated subtitles, which the previous Blu-ray didn't have. But all in all, the picture is fantastic.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

And now the thread title looks racist.

Tarantino is a baby boomer who made a movie about the nazi's losing LOL.

What kind of parents did he have? What do any of you think?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Big-D

I put this on first thing this morning and it looks absolutely beautiful, the opening scene of Landa arriving at the farm looks just like a Renoir painting. Only thing I dislike is the auto generated subtitles, which the previous Blu-ray didn't have. But all in all, the picture is fantastic.

Yeah Britain is now classed as international. So player generated for us.

[spiltmilk]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Yeah Britain is now classed as international. So player generated for us.

So what's the difference to the American version? Are there many instances where player generated text is replacing "burnt in" original text? Similar to the Scarface UHD?

[KubrickKurasawa]

I thought this was a pretty lackluster transfer myself. Just better sunlight and skin tones, slightly sharper picture. Nothing else. His parents and their generations friends won the war for him....and he named his film about them... basterds LOL what a COOL baby boomer type of guy this Tarantino.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

I thought this was a pretty lackluster transfer myself. Just better sunlight and skin tones, slightly sharper picture. Nothing else. His parents and their generations friends won the war for him....and he named his film about them... basterds LOL what a COOL baby boomer type of guy this Tarantino.

Originally Posted by spiltmilk

So what's the difference to the American version? Are there many instances where player generated text is replacing "burnt in" original text? Similar to the Scarface UHD?

I know The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are also player generated.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

I thought this was a pretty lackluster transfer myself. Just better sunlight and skin tones, slightly sharper picture. Nothing else. His parents and their generations friends won the war for him....and he named his film about them... basterds LOL what a COOL baby boomer type of guy this Tarantino.

Maybe a third time with the "joke" will work? Sometimes even negative attention is not better than no attention at all.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Sure, but brand new films with 2K DIs rarely suffered the same fate.

Exactly, Universal never had a problem with titles that had a 2K DI originally on BD

Nothing to do with Gladiator or The Thing, this movie is from 2009, basically 5 years after DI became the standard for Movies

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I wonder how it will look projected?
It could also still be this is inherent to the source. As this was Tarantinos first time finishing a film in digital, and such things also were hidden as it was finished 2K.He wasn't preparing for the DI one day to be upscaled.

So I would say, if that's the case, Universal were sensible to not try and correct it. As you'd just end up causing more problems than what you started with.

No, it wasn't. Both KILL BILLs were 2K DIs, as well.

Chris

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, we don't know for sure if x Blu was filtered as we weren't there. But I've lost count of the amount of upscales I've seen that offer a distinct boost in spatial detail vs the 1080p equivalent, and as upscaling is not magick then the Blu having been filtered is as likely a cause as any.

SHUTTER ISLAND shows a noticeable uptick in detail on the 4K UHD vs. the Blu-ray despite being from a "mere" 2K DI, so that could be one.

Chris

[filmlover1]

I watched the BD about two months ago and remember thinking how great the PQ was. Upon watching the UHD, I thought the image looked just marginally better until I did an A/B comparison. The UHD is absolutely sharper by a significant margin, skin tones and color balance is much more natural and dynamic as well. Is this a revelation? No, but if this is your favorite Tarantino film (as it is mine), this is undoubtedly the best way to watch the film at home. The FAH review is interesting because he claims there is less sharpness and a darker image with the UHD. Direct A/B for me was exactly the opposite, surprisingly this is one of the brightest overall UHD presentations I’ve seen, and as I’ve stated before is sharp and defined. The UHD looks fantastic, and is an absolute upgrade over the BD. My .02, YMMV

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

No, it wasn't. Both KILL BILLs were 2K DIs, as well.

Chris

I sit corrected

Doesn't surprise me like. Just I didn't think the whole of post was done digitally.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by filmlover1

I watched the BD about two months ago and remember thinking how great the PQ was. Upon watching the UHD, I thought the image looked just marginally better until I did an A/B comparison. The UHD is absolutely sharper by a significant margin, skin tones and color balance is much more natural and dynamic as well. Is this a revelation? No, but if this is your favorite Tarantino film (as it is mine), this is undoubtedly the best way to watch the film at home. The FAH review is interesting because he claims there is less sharpness and a darker image with the UHD. Direct A/B for me was exactly the opposite, surprisingly this is one of the brightest overall UHD presentations I’ve seen, and as I’ve stated before is sharp and defined. The UHD looks fantastic, and is an absolute upgrade over the BD. My .02, YMMV

Yeah, seconding how bright this transfer is. That guy must have a REALLY ****ed up setup or something.

[Christian Muth]

Very nice uptick in detail in Eli's clothing here:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...9&l=1&i=4&go=1

I think we're definitely seeing the benefits of the extra vertical detail in 2K anamorphic 35mm scans here.

Chris

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Exactly, Universal never had a problem with titles that had a 2K DI originally on BD

Nothing to do with Gladiator or The Thing, this movie is from 2009, basically 5 years after DI became the standard for Movies

I think Rick's conflating the aggressive DNR of Old Universal with the general filtering we're talking about. IMO the latter is borne from having to make a 1998x1080 (1.85) or 2048x858 (2.39) master fit into 1920x1080, they could've cropped but this would alter the aspect ratio so most of the time they scaled it and possibly pre-filtered the source to avoid aliasing. (Oh, sweet irony in this case.)

But when they go back to the 2K DSM and do a new 'capture' of it for an upscale they're not carrying that pre-filtering with it. The same scaling caveat applies with 4K into UHD admittedly, that 3996x2160 and 4096x1716 into 3840x2160 doesn't go, but even if they're having to pre-filter in the 4K space you're still carrying across that extra 2K detail that was boiled off on the scaled 1080p master.

The heck of it is I've seen regular BDs that are new 'captures' of a digital master which have more fine detail and less ringing than the existing BDs. Shout's BD edition of Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is one such example, using a fresh 'harvest' from the DI, and Arrow's RoboCop massacres the MGM remastered BD despite using the exact same 4K transfer as their basis.

And something being shot/finished in anamorphic makes a difference too, as Chris Muth has said. If you've got a squeezed 2048x1716 (approx) final deliverable then you can just uprez the horizontal to make your 4K master. It's still an "upscale" of sorts and is not TROO FORKAY by any means, but as the 2K anamorphic source is carrying double the pixels that a 2K flat master would have this can translate into an appreciable increase in detail in the 4K upscale.