Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Zapp Brannigan]

FaH also claimed in a reply that The Phantom Menace 4k looks better than this disc.

[singhcr]

[quote=Zapp Brannigan;19421206]FaH also claimed in a reply that The Phantom Menace 4k looks better than this disc.

Did I eat that packet of gravy that I found in the parking lot? You'd really have to hate something to say that TPM's UHD looks better.

[motorheadache95]

You know, I’ve actually stuck up for Hunt and the Bits for many years, during the old format war and when people thought he was irrelevant, I still enjoyed his reviews and updates. But he is starting to get on my nerves a little, between his flat out wrong information about the Lord of the Rings UHD transfers and his continued gripes about 2K DI transfers. It’s like, Bill, plenty of great transfers are from 2K DI’s and almost no releases bypass the DI for a 4K rebuild, why do you keep expecting it?

I’m not saying Inglorious Basterds looks great I haven’t seen it (Ima wait for Geoff) , maybe there is something wrong with it, but it wouldn’t be because they sourced it from the DI.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

But he is starting to get on my nerves a little, between his flat out wrong information about the Lord of the Rings UHD transfers

Let's call it what it is: A LIE.

Wrong information would have been addressed and corrected, that's what you do if you want to be taken seriously, but it's on his site since November 2020.

[Lotr_is_Soft]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

You know, I’ve actually stuck up for Hunt and the Bits for many years, during the old format war and when people thought he was irrelevant, I still enjoyed his reviews and updates. But he is starting to get on my nerves a little, between his flat out wrong information about the Lord of the Rings UHD transfers and his continued gripes about 2K DI transfers. It’s like, Bill, plenty of great transfers are from 2K DI’s and almost no releases bypass the DI for a 4K rebuild, why do you keep expecting it?

I’m not saying Inglorious Basterds looks great I haven’t seen it (Ima wait for Geoff) , maybe there is something wrong with it, but it wouldn’t be because they sourced it from the DI.

WDYM? I thought it was a standard for popular older (well, 2009 was not that long ago, but anyway) movies shot on film to be rescanned in 4K.

As an example, 300 is supposedly sourced from a 2K DI, and it's totally understandable, as it has so much CGI that redoing all of it in 4K would have been troublesome, even if it was the highest grossing movie of all time, which it obviously is not. So in that case, I get it.

I think LotR (which I am mixed about) is sourced from 2K, which is also understandable, since they wouldn't want to redo all of the CGI in 4K. However, I don't know why they wouldn't have taken the non-CGI footage from a scan, and then overlaid upscaled 2K CGI on top of it, which is what the Digital Bits guy implied, I believe. I am sorry if I am talking crap and something like that is not possible. What I am the most angry about is that they KILLED ALL THE FILM GRAIN. That's not acceptable.

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?

BTW, why is everyone angry at FAH already? Has anyone of you gotten a copy yet and it's great? I am sorry, it's just I am new to the thread.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan

FaH also claimed in a reply that The Phantom Menace 4k looks better than this disc.

Ballsy.

Stupid, but ballsy.

[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.

[blackprojection]

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?

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?

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

Kill Bill UHD hopefully next
colours are amazing in that, and would/could be great with HDR

Definitely want Kill Bill on 4K.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by blackprojection

...a label is gonna come around and release a "true 4K" version of this.

Good luck with that, it had a 2K DI.

[blackprojection]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

Good luck with that, it had a 2K DI.

35mm source is available, therefore it can be done right

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But but but...that was actually finished in 4K!! That must mean it looks amazeballs because FORKAYS are betterer!

Some people don't appreciate the beauty of a damn cinematic presentation like Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood has

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

WDYM? I thought it was a standard for popular older (well, 2009 was not that long ago, but anyway) movies shot on film to be rescanned in 4K.

As an example, 300 is supposedly sourced from a 2K DI, and it's totally understandable, as it has so much CGI that redoing all of it in 4K would have been troublesome, even if it was the highest grossing movie of all time, which it obviously is not. So in that case, I get it.

I think LotR (which I am mixed about) is sourced from 2K, which is also understandable, since they wouldn't want to redo all of the CGI in 4K. However, I don't know why they wouldn't have taken the non-CGI footage from a scan, and then overlaid upscaled 2K CGI on top of it, which is what the Digital Bits guy implied, I believe. I am sorry if I am talking crap and something like that is not possible. What I am the most angry about is that they KILLED ALL THE FILM GRAIN. That's not acceptable.

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?

BTW, why is everyone angry at FAH already? Has anyone of you gotten a copy yet and it's great? I am sorry, it's just I am new to the thread.

Well here's the first catastrophic error you are making with UHD. Viewing the format entirely, or firstly in terms resolution. That's marketing buddy, the whole nonsense of selling something in terms of resolution. And you've fallen for it. In actuality the bumb in resolution is way at the back when comes to meaningful improvements yielded by UHD.

Even analogue film, your 35mm, 70mm ect, while they generally benefit the most from native 4K. It doesn't just because it's been scanned at 4K res or higher mean everything in the image is going to by default be 4K when displayed natively at that resolution. But by default a larger sample size yields the most detail from elements.

But oh look, with have another variable. The quality of scanning analogue is dependent on the quality of elements avaliable for scanning. The film negative is always the best source, but an interpostive (intermindate positive, basically an edit of the camera negative before printing) is a decent second choice when doing a 4K scan or higher for something that's intended to be 4K native. Using an actual theatrical print is often considered a waste of time.

Even a negative or an interpostive in great shape is no guarantee of something is going magically look like gold. Hooray, more variables. The quality of film stock used in a production, the cameras, and just how good the DP was (director of photography).

So yeah I don't focus on is this true native 4K? Or is that 4K? I don't think in most cases anyone can truly tell. Not on a consumer level anyway. But we can perceive that better video compression, better scans are indeed doing a lot your standard HD formated Blu-ray can't.

So, yeah. Native 4K in a lot of ways is BS, and other ways it's not. Never eeeever take it at face value.

Now the real meat and potatoes with UHD is undeniably is HDR. Your high dynamic range. Unfortunately though a lot of people still have some funny idea's about it's implementation. Often focusing on the high and range, and forgetting the most important part which is dynamic. The dynamic part of an HDR container is what gives so much artistic control over the images luminosity, and people can grumble all they want with the likes of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood not looking like theme park ride. The fact remains HDR was still employed to create a more accurate presentation for home video of that film. Of course these people haven’t bothered to look into how exacting Tarantino was with the lighting when filming. Sometimes artistic intent does destroy retroactively the actual artistry of a film. But not in this case. It's a fantastic UHD, period.

The other great benefit of HDR is the expansion in colour spacing and bit depth. My favorite part of the whole UHD soup.

So, with all that said. Can you please give one single reason why 300 needed a 4K scan? I mean it was never natively 4K in cinemas for a start.

And don't take everything I've said as gospel. Someone might correct me on something, or expanded on points I've made.

Welcome to Blu-ray.com!

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by blackprojection

35mm source is available, therefore it can be done right

Shame it wasn't directed by a guy with total contempt for home media then

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by blackprojection

35mm source is available, therefore it can be done right

Get your wallet out then, Joel Silver.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by blackprojection

35mm source is available, therefore it can be done right

Image sharper than a katana? 600 MaxFALL?

[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?

[kannibaliztik]

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?

I've given up trying to understand what half the people on here are complaining about.

[Scottishguy]

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?

Whoa! Slow down egghead.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Not every Oled has a shitty LG ASBL issue

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

Chris