Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Lotr_is_Soft]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

But, but, but, but, but.

But they didn't. Give it a rest.

All I am saying is, criticising a release because it's not native 4K is perfectly legit.

[Lotr_is_Soft]

Originally Posted by ronboster

You are obviously hell bent on taking over this thread to take about anything but this title. So, I'll play along

********************************
So you are pounding sand about 2k scans and you ask this question:



What are you using for a TV/projector and source component? I'm not asking to shame anyone's equipment, but it seems someone coming from a dvd source to 4k (even a 2k scan ) should be able to see the difference in resolution. And for F sake, don't bring up LOTR as an example. It's been addressed in your original thread (that was merged into the sticky for posts that don't deserve your own thread).

I have Samsung Tu 7000, but I am planning to get an OLED soon, as I realize the current one is substandard.

I was just asking people if it thought it was a good release or maybe you shouldn't bother upgrading. There have been many a botched 4K release.

So you think IJ 4K will be a noteworthy improvement over the DVD/not a waste of money?

[Fat Phil]

Not to distract from all this sophisticated repartee, but anyone else going through some serious back and forth on Zavvi's Uber Collector's Edition?

I swear, I've logged into my account like three times with the intention of cancelling it. It's a ridiculous behemoth and I totally don't need it.....but then I see it again and ... just... can't... do it I know it's like £90 of tatty bullshit but they're only producing a 1000 copies. No way I wouldn't be able to flip that f*cker further down the line for more money.

Eh, I'll cancel it tomorrow....mmmm....maybe.

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

My reaction entering this thread after a 2-day hiatus...

Hahaha! Yes, I think that I could have toned it down a bit in hindsight, but that's my style. It wasn't my intention to inflame people.

Definitely a Costanza moment...

George going crazy in movie theater - YouTube

[ViewtifulJC]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

All I am saying is, criticising a release because it's not native 4K is perfectly legit.

It’s not because it was never native 4K…like ever, lol. You might as well criticize the movie for not including Gandalf the Grey showing up to kill Hitler, too. It was never gonna happen so why make up fantasies in your head and get mad about it?

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulJC

The funniest outcome from all this would be the disc really is bad and everyone loses

I don't think it is. When you put the facts together, it sounds like a good enough release. Just probably not a revelation when compared to the 1080p Blu-rays.

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by nissling

Mad Max Fury Road has been a big favorite for many ever since it got released. One of my personal favorite UHDs is Ready Player One, subjectively speaking. Some scenes look absolutely breathtaking in UHD with HDR.



I've worked with film scanning and restoration for quite some time and believe me when I tell you that the work is rarely like you think it is. CG is practically never redone or added into a new scan, unless you're George Lucas. At very most fades (optical or A/B) and credits are recreated digitally with scans of untouched negatives.

I remember one film where the image froze while the title was shown on screen. That dupe neg was simply too shabby for our taste so we scanned the original negatives (35mm Eastmancolor 5247), made the exact same frame freeze for the exact amount of time and combined it with the text on top. Once the time codes matched, I could then start on the color timing, followed by a dirt removal and finally adding a bit of fake grain. Yes, fake grain. Why? Because a digital frame that's been duplicated to stay on screen for like 45 seconds will look entirely static, making the restoration extremely evident. With the fake grain applied, carefully tuned, you honestly wouldn't be able to tell that it was done digitally.

In 4096x3072, I think this single title sequence took me at least three hours to complete. Not because the work is any complicated as far as VFX or color timing goes, but because the work is started from scratch and my goal is to replicate the original experience you'd get from watching a 40 year old print. Of course a print would be softer, much softer, but the colors and timing of the titles were exactly the same - Which is a way to show respect to the creator's intent.

I've also worked close with directors and DPs who are all extremely picky when it comes to color timing and spot inaccuracies right away. Most of them, I'd probably say 90-95%, want to stay true to the original look and are very confident on how their films are supposed to look. At least in Sweden. Very few are like Wong Kar-wai or James Cameron.

Now why am I telling you this?

Because the kind of work you're asking for is so much more than just simple CG that can be re-added. It's about staying true to the original film. The first example shows how time consuming a simple sequence can be to work with. That is not to say that higher resolutions cannot improve, because it surely can, but many directors aren't really this... Technical. They see their work in other ways than we, home theater enthusiasts, do. And I think it's primarily because most people don't care like we do neither. I do all my scans in 4K nowadays regardless of the source, but for those films that I've finished in 2K, I honestly just let them be. For now at least.

And this is without even getting into how difficult it is to recreate CG without altering the original look. We're talking keying, matting, rotoscoping, 3D modeling, shading, added motion blur, fake grain etc... If you can go back to the original project files, if they're even available with all other content you'll need, modern hardware and software may not handle it properly. Going back to older hardware and software may be a solution for compatibility but then the 4K workflow is not guaranteed to be reliable. Of course you can try to build a house of card at the same height as the Empire State Building. Or you can be satisfied with three stories and everyone else will be just as satisfied.



Don't buy it then. I'm very selective when purchasing UHDs, especially if it's a film I already own.


Lower bitrate won't give you a more pixellated image. If compression doesn't suffice you will get macroblocking and posterization, which in turn reduces sharpness and textures but not really in the way that you're describing it.

If it's pixellated due to the resolution, a higher bitrate won't change anything.

Great post! Cheers.

[ViewtifulJC]

Originally Posted by Atlantis Rising

I don't think it is. When you put the facts together, it sounds like a good enough release. Just probably not a revelation when compared to the 1080p Blu-rays.

Worst case scenarios, we’ll always have the still very good blu-rays which upscale very well to most 4KTVs. The UHD being good is just a bonus.

[sfmarine]

I am on #TeamRAH as he worked on The Godfather and Lawrence of Arabia restorations.

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

This thread went off the rails faster than the tavern scene.

I expect some locking and purging soon.

Nah, it's all over now. I hold no grudges. It's just men talkin' tough. We've all seen too many movies! We think we are badasses, but we aren't! Peace.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by nissling

Mad Max Fury Road has been a big favorite for many ever since it got released. One of my personal favorite UHDs is Ready Player One, subjectively speaking. Some scenes look absolutely breathtaking in UHD with HDR.



I've worked with film scanning and restoration for quite some time and believe me when I tell you that the work is rarely like you think it is. CG is practically never redone or added into a new scan, unless you're George Lucas. At very most fades (optical or A/B) and credits are recreated digitally with scans of untouched negatives.

I remember one film where the image froze while the title was shown on screen. That dupe neg was simply too shabby for our taste so we scanned the original negatives (35mm Eastmancolor 5247), made the exact same frame freeze for the exact amount of time and combined it with the text on top. Once the time codes matched, I could then start on the color timing, followed by a dirt removal and finally adding a bit of fake grain. Yes, fake grain. Why? Because a digital frame that's been duplicated to stay on screen for like 45 seconds will look entirely static, making the restoration extremely evident. With the fake grain applied, carefully tuned, you honestly wouldn't be able to tell that it was done digitally.

In 4096x3072, I think this single title sequence took me at least three hours to complete. Not because the work is any complicated as far as VFX or color timing goes, but because the work is started from scratch and my goal is to replicate the original experience you'd get from watching a 40 year old print. Of course a print would be softer, much softer, but the colors and timing of the titles were exactly the same - Which is a way to show respect to the creator's intent.

I've also worked close with directors and DPs who are all extremely picky when it comes to color timing and spot inaccuracies right away. Most of them, I'd probably say 90-95%, want to stay true to the original look and are very confident on how their films are supposed to look. At least in Sweden. Very few are like Wong Kar-wai or James Cameron.

Now why am I telling you this?

Because the kind of work you're asking for is so much more than just simple CG that can be re-added. It's about staying true to the original film. The first example shows how time consuming a simple sequence can be to work with. That is not to say that higher resolutions cannot improve, because it surely can, but many directors aren't really this... Technical. They see their work in other ways than we, home theater enthusiasts, do. And I think it's primarily because most people don't care like we do neither. I do all my scans in 4K nowadays regardless of the source, but for those films that I've finished in 2K, I honestly just let them be. For now at least.

And this is without even getting into how difficult it is to recreate CG without altering the original look. We're talking keying, matting, rotoscoping, 3D modeling, shading, added motion blur, fake grain etc... If you can go back to the original project files, if they're even available with all other content you'll need, modern hardware and software may not handle it properly. Going back to older hardware and software may be a solution for compatibility but then the 4K workflow is not guaranteed to be reliable. Of course you can try to build a house of card at the same height as the Empire State Building. Or you can be satisfied with three stories and everyone else will be just as satisfied.



Don't buy it then. I'm very selective when purchasing UHDs, especially if it's a film I already own.


Lower bitrate won't give you a more pixellated image. If compression doesn't suffice you will get macroblocking and posterization, which in turn reduces sharpness and textures but not really in the way that you're describing it.

If it's pixellated due to the resolution, a higher bitrate won't change anything.

So basically I was right about LOTR? That they were stuck with a poor source now in present terms. And were damned if they done nothing, and damned if they did something. So continued along the same workflow Jackson had started in post using modern tools to effectively complete what their vision was?

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Not to distract from all this sophisticated repartee, but anyone else going through some serious back and forth on Zavvi's Uber Collector's Edition?

I swear, I've logged into my account like three times with the intention of cancelling it. It's a ridiculous behemoth and I totally don't need it.....but then I see it again and ... just... can't... do it I know it's like £90 of tatty bullshit but they're only producing a 1000 copies. No way I wouldn't be able to flip that f*cker further down the line for more money.

Eh, I'll cancel it tomorrow....mmmm....maybe.

[Gacivory]

Inglourious Upscales?

Upscales Bastards?

What should the thread title become?

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulJC

Worst case scenarios, we’ll always have the still very good blu-rays which upscale very well to most 4KTVs. The UHD being good is just a bonus.

Exactly. I would suggest holding off on the 4K of Inglourious Basterds until it is proven to be a worthy upgrade. You should do this with every 2K and 4K release these days All too often there is a problem then a few months later a new 4K release is announced! Years of experience with bad transfers, cut versions, sound screwed up, no original mono, etc has taught me to wait for the reviews to come in. Getting a release on street date is only worth it if you are 100% sure that the release is perfect. That's one of the reasons that Criterion held off on 4K for so long, they wanted to see the format perfected as they themselves are a team of 40 perfectionists!

It will be interesting to see their 4K releases in the coming months and years.

The Leopard (1963) would look stunning in 4K on a huge screen. Not a well-known film, so it's hard to see people spending $43 on it if they have the Blu-ray. That's the problem with Criterion's collection - is it worth it to press 100,000 copies of such films and charge $50 for them? I think that Criterion should just charge the normal rate of $27 for their 4K and 2K sets, even if that is 3 discs. They need to start charging $27 for a single film on 4K and 2K sets and offset the cost somehow. Very few people in the UK will spend £40 for a single movie on home video if it's something they can get on a great quality Blu-ray for £18 or 2-for-£25 in a sale.

Maybe if Criterion didn't be so lavish with the artwork, they could sell their releases at "normal" prices like the other labels do. I know we love the artwork, but if it is adding to the budget then why not just make more austere packaging? At this stage, it's the quality of what is on your screen that is paramount. Citizen Kane shouldn't cost $43 on 4K. If Warner put it out, it would cost around $20. You can buy Lord of the Rings Trilogy for $20. Criterion need to re-think their pricing this decade. $27 is enough for a single movie on a 2K and 4K set. More for boxed sets, but people aren't gonna shell out $43 a pop for black and white art films. if a stone-classic, Top 100 movie, then yes, but not the dubious films they've been pumping out over the past few years. If they were licensing from Warner and Universal and the other studios, they should be licensing films like, Mean Streets, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ. Do a Scorsese 4K boxed set and individual releases! I could see that happening. Martin Scorsese: 15 Films (1967-1995) from Who's That Knocking at My Door? to Casino. $299.95 for 15 legendary films. Why not? That would be a MASSIVE seller.

Crazy idea?

[brownstones19]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Inglourious Upscales?

Upscales Bastards?

What should the thread title become?

"hell"

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by brownstones19

"hell"

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world 2K Upscales look good on 4K discs.” - Some Blu-Ray users.

[Atlantis Rising]

Originally Posted by brownstones19

"hell"

It was a fun discussion. I learned a lot from people who are knowledgeable about film. If people get triggered then so be it. They don't have to engage. There's a million other choices in life. A heated discussion is good for you in our age of snowflakery. We all love movies, let's always remember that. Falling out over technical issues is stupid. Peace.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Inglourious Upscales?

Upscales Bastards?

What should the thread title become?

How about just Inglourious.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

How about just Inglourious.

That idea is Glourious!

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

I have Samsung Tu 7000, but I am planning to get an OLED soon, as I realize the current one is substandard.

I was just asking people if it thought it was a good release or maybe you shouldn't bother upgrading. There have been many a botched 4K release.

So you think IJ 4K will be a noteworthy improvement over the DVD/not a waste of money?

You are in another world that I can't relate to...you believe:

"Many botched 4k release"

"Criticising (sic) a release because it's not native 4K is perfectly legit"

And you are coming from media being 480P DVD. Yet, you believe the above statements to be true. You remind me of the fan who thinks their college team could compete in the NFL...not acknowledging the next level is such a cut above, it's rare that even the top rookies make an impact at the NFL level the first year.

So, I can't say whether you based on your world view of 4k will see an improvement worth the money. I don't know what you find an acceptable level of improvement vs dvd to define a waste of money.

If I were you. I would read the threads dedicated to X title and see what members have a similar world view of improvements and follow their lead. I would also read the reviews from this site and others and see if you agree with their view of some of your current titles and follow their lead on future purchases.

It's become pretty obvious from your first post to the current posts you have it all figured out, so asking for other's opinions is really a waste of time for you and anyone who bothers to respond.