Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Can someone condense 56 pages into a single comment

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Well he's now called us keyboard warriors who won't put a face behind our opinion.

What is a tough guy like you ever going to do buddy?

[dcx4610]

Yet another in a long line of Amazon fails for me. Ordered virtually instantly when it went up for pre-order:

Arriving Tue, Oct 26

...nope.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

What is a tough guy like you ever going to do buddy?

You ever heard a guy with a thick Scottish, who's already monotone in his natural speech, trying to minimise his accent? And trying to speak "standard English"?

Otherwise I might be tempted to openly do a video.

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Unfortunately he's not interested in doing content regularly. Only discs he likes.

Is he the only uhd blu ray review of this caliber?

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Anhedonie

"It's an upscale" isn't legitimate criticsm of the picture quality of this particular release. In fact we're given the 2K DI that was shown at theatres with the addition of HDR for home viewing.

Okay but "with the addition of HDR" is still not the correct way to think of this format. Without the reduction toward SDR is the better way. As most titles merely just open up the range to what already exists in the source. Either by scan and consequent grading or in the DI files/pipeline.

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Can someone condense 56 pages into a single comment about this release

[tama]

Haha hilarious 🤣

[chocolat]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Can someone condense 56 pages into a single comment about this release: buy or pass? I can't follow most of the comments in this thread.

it's the wurst release of the year

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by chocolat

it's the wurst release of the year

It’s KnockWurst release of the year!

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by AreaFive

[JPK]

You lot can be as condescending as you like, but you're kind of missing the point here.

Two questions:

1. Was this shot on 35mm?
2. Is this movie full of CGI that would require a painstaking and expensive re-render to create a 4K DI?

Excuse me if my expectations are too high for a film that did 320mil at the box office and should have had a bit more effort put into the release.

[tama]

Originally Posted by JPK

You lot can be as condescending as you like, but you're kind of missing the point here.

Two questions:

1. Was this shot on 35mm?
2. Is this movie full of CGI that would require a painstaking and expensive re-render to create a 4K DI?

Excuse me if my expectations are too high for a film that did 320mil at the box office and should have had a bit more effort put into the release.

Holy ****ing hell people are still posting this nonsensical crap after several pages of post explaining the process and why?

On another note my steelbook has shipped out and will be here tomorrow. I'll get to see this puppy first hand now.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by JPK

You lot can be as condescending as you like, but you're kind of missing the point here.

Two questions:

1. Was this shot on 35mm?
2. Is this movie full of CGI that would require a painstaking and expensive re-render to create a 4K DI?

Excuse me if my expectations are too high for a film that did 320mil at the box office and should have had a bit more effort put into the release.

It was filmed with Fujifilm Eterna-CP Type 3513DI stock yes. You can go Google that, or wait till someone will explain that film stock better than I could.

[JPK]

Originally Posted by JPK

You lot can be as condescending as you like, but you're kind of missing the point here.

Two questions:

1. Was this shot on 35mm?
2. Is this movie full of CGI that would require a painstaking and expensive re-render to create a 4K DI?

Excuse me if my expectations are too high for a film that did 320mil at the box office and should have had a bit more effort put into the release.

OK. I will concede on this one after trawling back through the thread and seeing Geoff's post.

I'll say this again: Tarantino's movies have been finished DIGITALLY since the Kill Bills apart from Hateful 8, and in those digital finishes he uses more ones and zeros than you might expect. Hell, I thought the same as some folks do, that Basterds was all done in-camera and has no CG so it'd be a doddle to "scan the negative" in 4K, right? But then someone posted this interview with VFX legend John Dykstra https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/dykstra...rious-basterds about the work they did on Basterds, and while there was no "3D" CG ****ery there was loads of digital work to erase wires/rigs/people from shots, to add muzzle flashes to guns, to do bluscreen composites, to stop a "dead body" from breathing and so on, carried out with the mantra that the work be essentially invisible in the filmic space.

In some cases due to source limitations, there is not enough difference in the end product to warrant an upgrade. This is going to be one of those times for me.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by JPK

OK. I will concede on this one after trawling back through the thread and seeing Geoff's post.




In some cases due to source limitations, there is not enough difference in the end product to warrant an upgrade. This is going to be one of those times for me.

Film, home video is never as simple as it might appear on the surface. If it was as simple as some people make it out to be, hell anyone could do it.

You gotta always be scratching beneath the surface, to find out what is really going on.

[iaragorn1]

Originally Posted by JPK

OK. I will concede on this one after trawling back through the thread and seeing Geoff's post.




In some cases due to source limitations, there is not enough difference in the end product to warrant an upgrade. This is going to be one of those times for me.

It seems that you gave up before even seeing it and are relying on some yahoos that might be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If you aren't that much of a fan of the film, etc., that's fine. Otherwise wait until a lot more eyeballs have seen it and it's not as easy as saying it's an upscale.

[nick4Knight]

Who cares if it's just an upscale... Why are we being so charitable to the insinuation that is even a factor? It's 2021 that viewpoint should have shamed into the dirt as that of a unrepentant dullard.

I'm all for good faith positions. Educated differences of opinion. This is different. This is peak 2018 logic that was being dutifully deconstructed that calendar year.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Who cares if it's just an upscale... Why are we being so charitable to the insinuation that is even a factor? It's 2021 that viewpoint should have shamed into the dirt as that of a unrepentant dullard.

I'm all for good faith positions. Educated differences of opinion. This is different. This is peak 2018 logic that was being dutifully deconstructed that calendar year.

Bet your waking up down there everyday hoping the situation has improved.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by JPK

Geoff's post (20-30 pages back) shed a bit of extra light on this specific case, which is a specific case and shouldn't be bundled up with your average FAH watcher complaining about something they wouldn't even be able to notice on their mid tier edge lit Samsung.

It is an easy (and rational) assumption to make that there was a 4K DI available for this film. Django was his next film and had one, as does the Hateful Eight and OUATIH. My only 'crime' here was not taking the time to read all 57 pages to see what I was walking into.

That's funny because to anyone who knows anything it's not rational. Actually your "crime" is the assuming a whole lot you did there. Just asserting things based on having inadequate knowledge without doing some cursory looking into it outside posting fishing for it.

It's pretty common knowledge that before the 2010's there was never 4K DI's and last I checked this was a 2009 movie. And Tarantino is a film flagwaver not a pioneer of stuff like pipelines that would end up on home video. He doesn't care about any of that.

Even amazing discs like Prometheus, Pacific Rim and whatnot with great detail to the master are from the 2012 era are 2K DI. So Django isn't (having been in production the same year) a better placed title to have better PQ because of it's 4K DI. It's just not. That's the point. This stuff means nothing in of itself.

Tarantino being a film person doesn't make it magically unique like he may have had the clout to insist on a 4K DI and effects. And if he had insisted on that or somehow being able to? Then we would see a native 4K disc. They wouldn't somehow ignore an existing 4K DI and go with a 2K master Lol

It's just demonstrable. There is no connection to be made that you tried to, nor connection to be critical of not having been made, in any of this.