Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[tama]

The uniformed idiocy just doesn't stop does it?

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by tama

The uninformed idiocy just doesn't stop does it?

[ksc2303]

Watched the disc yesterday and when the credits rolled I was reminded it was the last movie that Tarantino and Sally Menke did together. Since a 4k rebuild is essentially re-doing post production, Tarantino might not even be inclined to touch anything. As far as the disc is concerned I thought it was a solid upgrade, can echo the sentiments that black level looks slightly raised. If a mythical edition is ever released I'll upgrade but satisfied with what we got.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MrSleep

Funny and agreed you're entitled to your opinions as well mate, but honestly this title deserved a little more time and effort, in like upgrading from the actual film elements, instead of the 2009 blu-ray release.


It was a rushed release.

I think that's the fundamental misunderstanding here: people think that the movie was finished to film, got a standard 'transfer' to HD and that Universal have just upscaled that old HD transfer, like with Bourne Identity. No.

It was "upgraded" from the final 2K digital source master of the film which was created from the digital intermediate - AS THE MOVIE WAS NOT FINISHED OUT TO FILM - and is the highest quality version available of the finished content, not the naked camera negative with no conform, VFX etc. In other words, this source is not an old HD telecine designed for 1080p SDR home video but is a master-grade 2K source with 10-bit depth and P3 colour gamut at the minimum.

Could they have rebuilt it? Sure I guess. But how many other 2K DIs - remember, these are not Blu-ray transfers of conformed camera negatives but final source masters for DIGITALLY FINISHED FILMS - have Universal previously rebuilt into 4K? I cannot think of a single example, so why should Basterds have come in for the same treatment.

By all means have your opinion on something - even if you're just parroting what some other misinformed person has said - but when it's based on said misinformation then that opinion holds less sway.

[dickdarlington]

Originally Posted by MrSleep

Funny and agreed you're entitled to your opinions as well mate, but honestly this title deserved a little more time and effort, in like upgrading from the actual film elements, instead of the 2009 blu-ray release.

It was a rushed release.

You realize when they create a 4K master, they start directly with the original 2K digital intermediate and start their work there… and not just upscale the existing Blu-ray into 4K… right?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by AreaFive

Even so, it's a rather apt slip: it really is a uniform opinion that people have because someone said it on YouTube.

[Christian Muth]

I also don't get how this is being called a "rushed" release... what, 5 years into the UHD format? What exactly were they supposedly "rushing" for, anyway? It's not like there's a new Tarantino film tie in.

So... what then??

Chris

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even so, it's a rather apt slip: it really is a uniform opinion that people have because someone said it on YouTube.

True. It's definitely a shame that the first, and for a time only, review was a seemingly inaccurate one based on unrealistic expectations. He's no doubt given a number of people bad information and harmed any credibility he may have had.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think that's the fundamental misunderstanding here: people think that the movie was finished to film, got a standard 'transfer' to HD and that Universal have just upscaled that old HD transfer, like with Bourne Identity. No.

It was "upgraded" from the final 2K digital source master of the film which was created from the digital intermediate - AS THE MOVIE WAS NOT FINISHED OUT TO FILM - and is the highest quality version available of the finished content, not the naked camera negative with no conform, VFX etc. In other words, this source is not an old HD telecine designed for 1080p SDR home video but is a master-grade 2K source with 10-bit depth and P3 colour gamut at the minimum.

Could they have rebuilt it? Sure I guess. But how many other 2K DIs - remember, these are not Blu-ray transfers of conformed camera negatives but final source masters for DIGITALLY FINISHED FILMS - have Universal previously rebuilt into 4K? I cannot think of a single example, so why should Basterds have come in for the same treatment.

By all means have your opinion on something - even if you're just parroting what some other misinformed person has said - but when it's based on said misinformation then that opinion holds less sway.

And in the event of a rebuild, you risk losing the original look of a film. The filmmaker might not also be willing to dedicate their time to a rebuild, they might also be unwilling if the DP isn't also avaliable. The usage of CGI as an auxiliary effects component might look more apparent even if they stay true to the films original look. As everything surrounding it will be native, and it will remain in 2K upscale.

I could go on like this for a while.

But the fact that a filmmaker is allowed to film with film is a concession by the studio towards artistry. The filmmaker in return concedes to a digital finish for the studio in it's commercial interests. This is nothing new, Hollywood has always been an uneasy marriage of art and commerce.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

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

Chris

Slightly OT: was Django Unchained 2K or 4K?

IMDb says 4K but I can't find a trustworthy source. American Cinematographer says 2K in their article

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Could they have rebuilt it? Sure I guess. But how many other 2K DIs - remember, these are not Blu-ray transfers of conformed camera negatives but final source masters for DIGITALLY FINISHED FILMS - have Universal previously rebuilt into 4K? I cannot think of a single example, so why should Basterds have come in for the same treatment.

By all means have your opinion on something - even if you're just parroting what some other misinformed person has said - but when it's based on said misinformation then that opinion holds less sway.

Not even Sony is rebulding movies from 2008-2015 from scratch (see Moon). It would be insane

The only movie from that period that was redone, because Spielberg can do anything, is the fourth Indiana Jones, as far as I can remember...

[ViewtifulJC]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Slightly OT: was Django Unchained 2K or 4K?

IMDb says 4K but I can't find a trustworthy source. American Cinematographer says 2K in their article

Unless I’m misreading it, I believe the dailies were scanned at 2K and the finished film was 4K

“ The exposed negative was processed at Deluxe Laboratories in Los Angeles. The lab provided both film and digital dailies. Adam Clark timed film dailies, which Tarantino watched along with members of the cast and crew. The negative was also scanned and converted to digital dailies, which were timed by Benny Estrada at 2K resolution.

Richardson generally watched digital dailies to accommodate his schedule. Digital intermediate timing that was done at 4K resolution at E-Film in Los Angeles, where Richardson put final touches on the look.”

[Agent Kay]

People are clueless on how this all works

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by MrSleep

Ooof.... not sure this is the best 4K upgrade for a kick ass flick.... The encode is riddled with these jaggy edges throughout, one big example is the car in this shot:


https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...0&l=1&i=5&go=1

Well if you look closely at the top (horizontal) part of the windshield there, apart from the Blu-ray image being blurrier and grottier, the BD has jaggies there that don't show up on the 2K UH.. I mean.. 4K UHD. While the UHD doesn't have them there, but has them on the more vertical (diagonalish) lines in the hood that the BD blurrier image doesn't have. Maybe the Blu-ray has vertical downscaling and the UHD has horizontal upscaling, similar to what Geoff is conjecturing.


(I once asked a disc producer what he (or the techs) did when transferring a 2K extraction from Super-35 shot film if they used the 12µ 2k equivalent pitch of the 6µ pitch of the 4K Kodak Cineon scanner format. Did they take the resulting 2.39 836 x 2000 pixel S-35 Projector Aperture area and downscale it 4% to fit into the corresponding 804 x 1920 pixels on the BD 1080p master, or did they crop the sides 4% to 1920 and cropped the height 2% to 816 to get a 2.35 816 x 1920 pixel 1:1 image on the BD? He couldn't understand what I was asking so he could't say. Of course we were heavy into liquid spirits late into the early AMs so that could've been why .)

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Slightly OT: was Django Unchained 2K or 4K?

IMDb says 4K but I can't find a trustworthy source. American Cinematographer says 2K in their article

Django Unchained (2012)
Technicolor Digital Cinema
DCP 4096 x 1716 (4K scope)
286 GB
Run Time: 2:45:11
5.1 Audio

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by AreaFive

True. It's definitely a shame that the first, and for a time only, review was a seemingly inaccurate one based on unrealistic expectations. He's no doubt given a number of people bad information and harmed any credibility he may have had.

Which was zero.

[Angry Virginian]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Django Unchained (2012)
Technicolor Digital Cinema
DCP 4096 x 1716 (4K scope)
286 GB
Run Time: 2:45:11
5.1 Audio

Out of curiosity, where can I find this information for other films?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

In other words, this source is not an old HD telecine designed for 1080p SDR home video but is a master-grade 2K source with 10-bit depth and P3 colour gamut at the minimum.

translated to the folks at home:

In other words, this source IS the MASTER.



The 2K is the MASTER

[nissling]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Slightly OT: was Django Unchained 2K or 4K?

IMDb says 4K but I can't find a trustworthy source. American Cinematographer says 2K in their article

I've seen Django theatrically in 4K fairly recent and it looked absolutely incredible. If Sony ever pulls the trigger and release it on UHD then it's a no-brainer.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by nissling

I've seen Django theatrically in 4K fairly recent and it looked absolutely incredible. If Sony ever pulls the trigger and release it on UHD then it's a no-brainer.

The BD looks great too