Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by kannibaliztik

It's truly baffling how they just keep saying the same thing over and over and refuse to read any post explaining it or learn the smallest bit of information about it before coming here to complain

It's almost like the definition of "concern troll" and more like what's baffling is you lads slow on the uptake to them is feeding the very purpose their presence here hinges upon.

[DR Herbert West]

Probably another DVR sock.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Well, if anything.

This has shown the damage giving early review copies to ignorant people, who also have no means of showing objective evidence.

What a s*it show.

But that’s how it’s always worked, and we only get annoyed when their opinion doesn’t jive with our own.

Still, this reminds me of Scott Pilgrim’s UHD where FaH and his followers slated that for being a 2K upscale because they didn’t like how it looked, again being entirely ign’ant of how much digital work (over 1200 VFX shots) went into that original DI so it was always going to be an upscale, and also had no idea that the UHD was supervised by the film’s original editor, colourist, cinematographer, sound mixer and the director himself. If it doesn’t “pop” (ugh) like people want it to then blame the creatives, not some naively ill-informed technological crutch like upscaling.

We don’t know if QT had any involvement with the HDR pass on Basterds, fair enough, but with all the hand-wringing being done on his behalf it’d be so funny if he did actually okay it. And the Pilgrim example is there just to show that even when all the key creatives are involved, people aren’t always going to get what they want from it. It’s as if the UHD technology is there to serve the film, rather than the film serving the technology. Bizarre notion, I know.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But that’s how it’s always worked, and we only get annoyed when their opinion doesn’t jive with our own.

Still, this reminds me of Scott Pilgrim’s UHD where FaH and his followers slated that for being a 2K upscale because they didn’t like how it looked, again being entirely ign’ant of how much digital work (over 1200 VFX shots) went into that original DI so it was always going to be an upscale, and also had no idea that the UHD was supervised by the film’s original editor, colourist, cinematographer, sound mixer and the director himself. If it doesn’t “pop” (ugh) like people want it to then blame the creatives, not some naively ill-informed technological crutch like upscaling.

We don’t know if QT had any involvement with the HDR pass on Basterds, fair enough, but with all the hand-wringing being done on his behalf it’d be so funny if he did actually okay it. And the Pilgrim example is there just to show that even when all the key creatives are involved, people aren’t always going to get what they want from it. It’s as if the UHD technology is there to serve the film, rather than the film serving the technology. Bizarre notion, I know.

I'm greatful for everyday that passes FAH has never gotten his hands on anything that's come out of the Warner Archive division. But say he did gain access to them because of the low bar for becoming a partner, and then tried to "review" one of those discs.

The WA team is fanatical in creating the most filmic like digital transfers for home video, and their work rightfully now the stuff of legend.

That clown with one WA video could cause a lot of damage, just from people popping up for year's taking nonsense about it based on what he's saids. An extreme example? Perhaps. I'm just trying to illustrate the danger posed by just handing out partnerships to anyone that gets a lot of views on YouTube.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about the effect on sales, they'd be fine. Just the quality of discourse on this forum, and other places. As has been seen here in the aftermath of his IB video.

[Lotr_is_Soft]

Okay, it seems I made people angry. I am sorry, I was just expressing my opinion. From my experience the movies I've seen from native 4K looked, great while the one upscaled from 2K I found rather disappointing. I feel saddened kaniobalitzak thinks I am dumb because of that. Maybe it's a bad thing that opinions exist? You pay premium, you expect premium. I never said I was objectively right, though. Maybe people here have a ton of extra income, so they don't care. However, I expect premium.

So could you link me a good thread to educate me, since I am wrong apparently? In this thread, people are mixed https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...768 <br /> 19


To me, 2K movies look artificial, because they look "enlargened" and exaggerated, because they have a limited amount of data to work with. 4K native looks significantly more natural, as they don't have to enhance stuff.

Take a look at your hand from 100 cm and 25 cm away. You are seeing more detail 25 cm away. If you were to upscale 100 to 25, the results wouldn't be the same.

[DR Herbert West]

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

Okay, it seems I made people angry. I am sorry, I was just expressing my opinion. From my experience the movies I've seen from native 4K looked, great while the one upscaled from 2K I found rather disappointing. I feel saddened kaniobalitzak thinks I am dumb because of that. Maybe it's a bad thing that opinions exist? You pay premium, you expect premium. I never said I was objectively right, though. Maybe people here have a ton of extra income, so they don't care. However, I expect premium.

So could you link me a good thread to educate me, since I am wrong apparently? In this thread, people are mixed https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...768 <br /> 19


To me, 2K movies look artificial, because they look "enlargened" and exaggerated, because they have a limited amount of data to work with. 4K native looks significantly more natural, as they don't have to enhance stuff.

Take a look at your hand from 100 cm and 25 cm away. You are seeing more detail 25 cm away. If you were to upscale 100 to 25, the results wouldn't be the same.

To me, 2K movies look nothing of the sort, neither "enlargened" nor "exaggerated". I'm not saying 4K doesn't look betterer, but as people have repeatedly stated: 2K's been fine for giant cinema screens for the last 15 years and it's certainly good enough for us. I suppose you can't stand watching 1080p Blu-rays either?

YES we should have the best if we're paying for the best - though again it seems to come down to maximising the technology being the overriding point for some people, rather than accepting that x film could not and would never max out that technology - but the realities of how these 2K films were made cannot be evaded and demanding that everything be rebuilt is simply not possible. And yet I've seen scores of upscales that for whatever reasons have genuinely finer spatial resolution than the 1080p disc, and when HDR is factored in it can make them a significant (IMO) upgrade over the 1080p SDR disc.

Alas, you can't dust for HDR, you can't quantify on the packaging as to how much or how little it's going to add (unlike daft "four times the resolution of Blu-ray" type statements) and people don't want to put in the effort to see if it's actually an improvement or not, i.e. if it's not roasting their face they don't want to know. (And some don't give a shit about HDR regardless.) But by "people" I don't even mean normal punters, you all have betterer things to be doing than comparing discs for hours on end, but that's where the responsibility of being a "pro reviewer" comes into play. They should do the work so punters don't have to, but instead we have the blind leading the blind in the case of people like FaH, Movie Collector, Spare Change etc etc etc.

And BTW the hand thing is a terrible analogy.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

To me, 2K movies look nothing of the sort, neither "enlargened" nor "exaggerated". I'm not saying 4K doesn't look betterer, but as people have repeatedly stated: 2K's been fine for giant cinema screens for the last 15 years and it's certainly good enough for us. I suppose you can't stand watching 1080p Blu-rays either?

YES we should have the best if we're paying for the best - though again it seems to come down to maximising the technology being the overriding point for some people, rather than accepting that x film could not and would never max out that technology - but the realities of how these 2K films were made cannot be evaded and demanding that everything be rebuilt is simply not possible.

And BTW the hand thing is a terrible analogy.

Can we rebuild you Geoff?

[AreaFive]

Visual summary for this thread:

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Can we rebuild you Geoff?

No, as I'm only 2K and it would take too much time and money to turn me into TROO FORKAYS. I expect the reviews of me will be terrible.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, as I'm only 2K and it would take too much time and money to turn me into TROO FORKAYS. I expect the reviews of me will be terrible.

I'm 5ft 6. I'm lacking in verticle pixels.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I'm 5ft 6. I'm lacking in verticle pixels.

6ft 1 here. But I'm sure your compression is fine.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

6ft 1 here. But I'm sure your compression is fine.

Compression yes. Depression....well..

[Monterey Jack]

My copy just shipped from Gruv.

[ScottCopeland]

Not sure why, but my pre-order copy arrived almost a week early. I was really impressed by the PQ on the 4K disc, it looked and sounded amazing. Another nice touch was the 4K disc has all the extras from the SE BD, so no having to swap disc back and forth. It’s a really impressive package imho, much more impressive than the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 4K.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]To me, 2K movies look nothing of the sort, neither "enlargened" nor "exaggerated". I'm not saying 4K doesn't look betterer, but as people have repeatedly stated: 2K's been fine for giant cinema screens for the last 15 years and it's certainly good enough for us. I suppose you can't stand watching 1080p Blu-rays either?

YES we should have the best if we're paying for the best - though again it seems to come down to maximising the technology being the overriding point for some people, rather than accepting that x film could not and would never max out that technology - but the realities of how these 2K films were made cannot be evaded and demanding that everything be rebuilt is simply not possible. And yet I've seen scores of upscales that for whatever reasons have genuinely finer spatial resolution than the 1080p disc, and when HDR is factored in it can make them a significant (IMO) upgrade over the 1080p SDR disc.

Alas, you can't dust for HDR, you can't quantify on the packaging as to how much or how little it's going to add (unlike daft "four times the resolution of Blu-ray" type statements) and people don't want to put in the effort to see if it's actually an improvement or not, i.e. if it's not roasting their face they don't want to know. (And some don't give a shit about HDR regardless.) But by "people" I don't even mean normal punters, you all have betterer things to be doing than comparing discs for hours on end, but that's where the responsibility of being a "pro reviewer" comes into play. They should do the work so punters don't have to, but instead we have the blind leading the blind in the case of people like FaH, Movie Collector, Spare Change etc etc etc.

And BTW the hand thing is a terrible analogy.

It should be noted that LOTR_is_ soft uses a DVD player as his source component. I'm not equipment shaming, just pointing out he's comparing the films in DVD vs 4k UHD. Which one would assume would note an even bigger uptick in PQ.

**************************
Looking forward to seeing IB on 4k disc. For those looking for a deal, Gruv has a $19.99 price, plus their coupon for 20% off.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by ronboster

It should be noted that LOTR_is_ soft uses a DVD player as his source component. I'm not equipment shaming, just pointing out he's comparing the films in DVD vs 4k UHD. Which one would assume would note an even bigger uptick in PQ.

It should also be noted that English does not appear to be their first language, so most of the explanations people are giving are just not going to click for them.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ronboster

It should be noted that LOTR_is_ soft uses a DVD player as his source component. I'm not equipment shaming, just pointing out he's comparing the films in DVD vs 4k UHD. Which one would assume would note an even bigger uptick in PQ.

You'd think so, but that's the thing about being solely obsessed with numbers and specs and other minutiae at the expense of actually taking these things for what they are. That doesn't mean that folks will still like what they are, personal taste being what it is as well as the wide wide world of HDR tone mapping variances, but I wonder if they work themselves up so much that it becomes a pathological issue that they can't enjoy a 2K upscale.

People may then think to themselves "yeah but you go on about bewildering tech specs all the time" and I'd say "yeah, you're right, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating" which is what I try and do in my own reviews, the specs are there for reference and the words are to relay what it actually looks like.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Lotr_is_Soft

Take a look at your hand from 100 cm and 25 cm away. You are seeing more detail 25 cm away. If you were to upscale 100 to 25, the results wouldn't be the same.

[tama]

Atlantis Rising got banned eh?