Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[bbwiscfan]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yup, all the fools commenting on how the disc is "bad" are saying that merely based on what they read on the DigitalBits or that moron on YouTube. None of these clowns actually own the disc, as they're all claiming that they won't be buying it. It's absolutely nonsensical. These people are convinced a disc that they haven't even seen is bad and are thus refusing to buy it, and therefore will never actually see for themselves that they're wrong.

People who have watched the disc (myself included) are saying it actually looks great and is a worthwhile upgrade over the blu-ray.

~Matt

Lol how many times did you bash your head against the wall?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I think that’s the real problem people have, that of the industry mastering practices of that period of time, which was to master movies in “good enough” quality. But then people like Bill Hunt are misdirecting their grievances with the actual UHD transfer, which can only be sourced from its final master short of doing a rebuild restoration project.
I can honestly sympathize with the complaint he mentions, that the movie has to be sourced from a digital finish from 2009, which isn’t going to be ideal compared to having a fresh 4K scan at the source. But that’s it, that’s the movie, and it’s a product of its time, where many films were finished in 2K— they just were, as it was the first decade of the digital era. We’re still getting a better representation of that finished master with HDR and color, and that’s going to be as good as it gets for most of these movies of the era.

I get that side of it. But here it seems as if most people, Hunt included, regard a 2K DI as being the equivalent of some janky old telecine from that era that was bound for 8-bit SDR 709 Blu-ray and not the master-quality source that it is.

[Laservampire]

It's funny seeing all the whinging about this 4K when you can clearly see from the caps that it's an improvement over the blu.

An uncompressed 2K, 10-bit digital master is going to look better than a compressed 1080p, 8-bit blu-ray master.

I really hope that when we get Django on 4K it looks as good as this!

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by bbwiscfan

Lol how many times did you bash your head against the wall?

Seriously concussed rn.

~Matt

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chrisandy007

I thought QT was a big film guy - did Bob convince him to go with a DI rather than photochemical timing?

See, this is one of the big misconceptions about QT and is what is fuelling this social media nonsense: he's been finishing his films on digital intermediates - yes, those filthy digital things - since Kill Bill, with the only exception being Hateful 8 (which made Robert Richardson brick it because he was so used to working with a DI at that point!). QT shoots on film, watches his dailies on film, but the movies are graded and post-produced digitally, usually in the hands of colourist Yvan Lucas.

Why does QT not insist on a film finish like Nolan does, despite the apparent clout that he has? Because finishing on film is such an antiquated workflow at this point that studios are not willing to spend the money on it unless they're like Warners with Nolan i.e. desperate to keep their golden goose (though Nolan's ****ed off to Universal anyway to make Oppenheimer).

As QT is more nomadic, having never settled at any one studio and preferring the Weinsteins to broker his deals, then he has to shop his projects around and although he's never short of offers his movies aren't mega-budget productions that permit the extravagance of a photochemical finish. Hateful 8 is the outlier as said, but as the visual conceit of that movie - shooting 65mm on Ultra Panavision glass - is about as extravagant as it gets for a $50M production then the film workflow was factored into that. But on OUATIH? Back to a digital intermediate once again and even the 35mm prints were printed from filmouts of the digital master, not some mythical conformed OG negative.

[Geoff D]

lol at the thread title changing again

[Jlouisbarrett]

It’s getting a little redundant

[nick4Knight]

But at the end of the day whether QT is a film guy, or if you personally believe there should be a negative to scan from his movies because of that. OR that the studio could have put tens of millions of dollars into a "proper 4K rebuild" to honour his works or some nonsense?

These are meaningless musing against the objective reality this is a 2K DI source project. As capable because of that, as any we note as being reference and on par with PQ as native 4K DI and 4K scanned films from pre-2003. For which there are 50+ and maybe 100+ instances of this being true.

It's just not an argument to bring up it being an upscale. Yet it won't die as one.

[KubrickKurasawa]

I come from a long line of Buddhists so find another guy to preach your 2K DI rip-off bot pixelated trash nonsense too.

[Canada]

Guess I'll be saving my Shekels, Inglorious Basterds got a very bad review from Tim Salmons over at Digital Bits.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Hey he reviews for the average Joe collector! They don’t calibrate their system! They don’t even really pay attention to watching! So he reviews in the same way!

It's funny because I don't really calibrate my set (other than the usual tweaks to get rid of any shitty default settings). And I've yet to be that ****ing wrong about any disc I've watched. Usually pretty damn right. (I attribute this to having eyes I can see with).
I wonder what it is about this film that's brought out so many uninformed people.

[Bostonyte]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The cat said it was finished digitally, not shot digitally.



There is negative that went through the camera on the day, yes. But there is no finished cut of that negative into a final conformed "original negative" inclusive of VFX etc. The 2K digital source master is the primary rendition of the finished movie.

Appreciate the clarification, catnip headed your way!

[dickdarlington]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

It's by Tim Salmons. He can easily be found on Facebook if you want to give him your thoughts on his review.

Edit: And I just did...

It would cost more than $100,000, but Universal wouldn’t spend the money because the time it would take to nearly rebuild the film from the ground up. Time is more valuable than currency in this situation.

Could Universal have spent the time and money on this like they did for Scott Pilgrim’s 4K master which was also sourced from a 2K DI? Yes. They could’ve gone the extra mile to create a Dolby Vision grade and/or remix the soundtrack in Atmos.

But as I said earlier - it’s a good upgrade, but it’s not great. It’s not reference quality, but I own worse looking catalog UHDs from the same studio (Hot Fuzz) amongst others.

People are just getting worked up because they think Tarantino is some sort of lord and savior of cinema. Just wait until they find out Nolan’s 4K masters are sourced from IPs and not the OCN.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by dickdarlington

When was the last time The Digital Bits were actually relevant?

Never, they started with the Patton love fest and went downhill

[sonicyogurt]

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

Do you not consider Miramax or The Weinstein Company to be studios? Sometimes these films would be co-productions, and a non-Weinstein studio would have international and/or home video rights, but the films Tarantino directed were consistently released through whatever company the Weinsteins were running for more than twenty years.

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by IXOYE1989

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...179903&i=8&l=0

Just curious, but what would cause the burnt subtitles to have a slight shift like that?

Subs layer isn't a part of the DI.

[Ishai]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

Do you not consider Miramax or The Weinstein Company to be studios? Sometimes these films would be co-productions, and a non-Weinstein studio would have international and/or home video rights, but the films Tarantino directed were consistently released through whatever company the Weinsteins were running for more than twenty years.

The TWC releases (IB, Django and Hateful 8) were distributed through different studios, not sure if that made a difference to what QT could demand for finishing the film. Considering his budgets and box-office, if it was a strong demand I'm sure TWC, Sony and Universal would agree to do it. I guess he just didn't think it was necessary for those movies

[Ishai]

Originally Posted by dickdarlington

It would cost more than $100,000

I think going back and scanning the camera negatives in 4K and doing the full post again would cost a lot more. You would also need to have the director and probably the DP come in to approve it, because the color grading might be way off.
Or you can take the same master you used to release the movie, which apparently is good enough for the big screen in theaters but not for someone's uncalibrated TV.

[evanft]

Shame that this didn't get a rescan. Looks like it's an upgrade over the standard BR, but nearly as big of a difference as it could have been. I'll pick it up when it's cheap, but I'm in no rush.

[Tuc0]

Originally Posted by evanft

Shame that this didn't get a rescan. Looks like it's an upgrade over the standard BR, but nearly as big of a difference as it could have been. I'll pick it up when it's cheap, but I'm in no rush.

Rescan of what?