Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Angry Virginian

Out of curiosity, where can I find this information for other films?

Few years ago the Cinema Portal by Deluxe was public accessible. Unfortunately an account is now required.

https://cinema.bydeluxe.com/

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Not even Sony is rebulding movies from 2008-2015 from scratch (see Moon). It would be insane

The only movie of that period that was redone, because Spielberg can do anything, is the fourth Indiana Jones, as far as I can remember...

Yeah, and that was most likely because Spielbergo had a conformed neg cut created for the film, so even though the VFX is still upscaled (and it is) they had a very simple means of transferring the live action material, instead of scouring a salt mine for hundreds of pieces of separate film.

And double yeah, even Sony seem to have stalled with their rebuild program though losing Colorworks was prolly a part of that. Not that they don't still commission 4K remasters of movies finished out to film if they haven't done one already e.g. most of the film-based shows in Columbia Collection vol.2 are from extant 4K masters, but their means of producing a 2K to 4K rebuild on the cheap (though $100K isn't exactly chump change) in their own facility have gone. Or perhaps they stopped insisting on a cut negative for DI shows after a certain point in the past?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

People are clueless on how this all works

Thank YouTube for that

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well if you look closely at the top (horizontal) part of the windshield there, apart from the Blu-ray image being blurrier and grottier, the BD has jaggies there that don't show up on the 2K UH.. I mean.. 4K UHD. While the UHD doesn't have them there, but has them on the more vertical (diagonalish) lines in the hood that the BD blurrier image doesn't have. Maybe the Blu-ray has vertical downscaling and the UHD has horizontal upscaling, similar to what Geoff is conjecturing.


(I once asked a disc producer what he (or the techs) did when transferring a 2K extraction from Super-35 shot film if they used the 12µ 2k equivalent pitch of the 6µ pitch of the 4K Kodak Cineon scanner format. Did they take the resulting 2.39 836 x 2000 pixel S-35 Projector Aperture area and downscale it 4% to fit into the corresponding 804 x 1920 pixels on the BD 1080p master, or did they crop the sides 4% to 1920 and cropped the height 2% to 816 to get a 2.35 816 x 1920 pixel 1:1 image on the BD? He couldn't understand what I was asking so he could't say. Of course we were heavy into liquid spirits late into the early AMs so that could've been why .)

Look closer https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...0&l=1&i=5&go=1

[nissling]

Originally Posted by johnnyringo7

The BD looks great too

Oh yes, no shame should be put to that disc whatsoever but seeing it in 4K was still a magnificent improvement.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Look closer https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...0&l=1&i=5&go=1

The number of times that cars been posted now, I feel like I'm in the forecourt of an Arnold Clark, looking at second
Renaults with 50,000 miles on them.

[wright96d]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Changing from the HDR 2020 10k nit 940 video levels to sRGB/709 SDR 100 nit 220 (video) or 256 (computer) levels will always have tonal and contrast compression artifacts, that's why things like DV and Panasonic's optimizer are used to horshoe the signal into the sub-10,000 nit TVs we all have today. You either clip or compress.

The 8-bit 4K shots we added to early reviews went to 300nits w/o changing the PQ curve, above that level they compressed the highlights to put it mildly, severely. This was done at the time because, A: older computer monitors reached 100nits, new ones 300nits or so. B: That way if you set up your computer monitor to 300 nits at least you could accurately see how the tones below the limit were rendered (if you viewed the shots in the mastering conditions, (normally very very dark room*) and your computer monitor was correctly calibrated/profiled (meaning, you're telling you're computers OS the monitor is for example at 2.2 sRGB, and it's really at 2.2 sRGB, then the image would display in PQ (which would look kind of like 2.4 gamma* in you 2.2 sRGB display)

*So thats why we added a black background on the screenshots display pages cus it you look at true PQ renderings in bright rooms with white computer backgrounds and 100nit monitors, HDR will look dark in comparison)

And the 2020 colors were done the same, they fitted to your display's primaries to their limit, be it that your monitor was sRGB709, P3(iMacs), or Adobe 1998, etc. but below your monitor limits at least they'd be one to one, with the above the limits rendered at the limits.

Since computer monitors didn't do 1500 nits and highlight compression artifacts would show up, you could also check the raw RGB PQ 2020 image (grey and muted on your sRGB/SDR monitors) version of the shots too to check if the raw image before conversion was fine / had the highlight detail you were looking for.


These days most other sites and people do HDR shots with software "conversions" to sRGB/709 SDR, which like DV and Panny's Optimizer, are all forms of tone mapping, which is in a sense another kind of "remastering" to fit your screen, and highlights, shadows, tonal curves and colors on screenshots will not look exactly like they do on the disc and may have artifacts, like the beard sunlit sparkly highlights maybe, trying to fit in something "bigger" than they can hold.

Like I said before, the first HDR to SDR conversion I did was explicitly a linear conversion. No flattening/compression of the highlights. It's like pressing 1000 nits into MadVR. Except I did it in Davinci Resolve.

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Look closer https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...0&l=1&i=5&go=1

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Look closer https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...0&l=1&i=5&go=1

I did. If you're gonna look 4K images in 16K TV sizes without scaling, everything is jaggies.

Better in Glourious 32K too. It's the HDR of jaggiesism

[Scottishguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im3J...ature=youtu.be

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Which was zero.

lol, I was waiting for that

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well if you look closely at the top (horizontal) part of the windshield there, apart from the Blu-ray image being blurrier and grottier, the BD has jaggies there that don't show up on the 2K UH.. I mean.. 4K UHD. While the UHD doesn't have them there, but has them on the more vertical (diagonalish) lines in the hood that the BD blurrier image doesn't have. Maybe the Blu-ray has vertical downscaling and the UHD has horizontal upscaling, similar to what Geoff is conjecturing.


(I once asked a disc producer what he (or the techs) did when transferring a 2K extraction from Super-35 shot film if they used the 12µ 2k equivalent pitch of the 6µ pitch of the 4K Kodak Cineon scanner format. Did they take the resulting 2.39 836 x 2000 pixel S-35 Projector Aperture area and downscale it 4% to fit into the corresponding 804 x 1920 pixels on the BD 1080p master, or did they crop the sides 4% to 1920 and cropped the height 2% to 816 to get a 2.35 816 x 1920 pixel 1:1 image on the BD? He couldn't understand what I was asking so he could't say. Of course we were heavy into liquid spirits late into the early AMs so that could've been why .)

I don’t believe that the people that are intimately involved in creating these discs understand what’s being asked. That sounds like something Raymond would ask in Rainman.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

I did. If you're gonna look 4K images in 16K TV sizes without scaling, everything is jaggies.

Better in Glourious 32K too. It's the HDR of jaggiesism

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...&l=1&i=11&go=1

Yes look at all the jaggies at that zoom size! Oh, wait

[MisterXDTV]

Based on what I saw IMO I don't care about the 2K master but I really like the color grading of the BD much more...

It can happen sometimes when you are basically adding HDR to Digital masters that were made way before it became a thing

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The number of times that cars been posted now, I feel like I'm in the forecourt of an Arnold Clark, looking at second
Renaults with 50,000 miles on them.

I am aware, but the reply was saying the jaggies are worse on the BD if you look close

Originally Posted by Ruined

Thank YouTube for that

It existed before then, and from all my ignore list

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Like I said before, the first HDR to SDR conversion I did was explicitly a linear conversion. No flattening/compression of the highlights. It's like pressing 1000 nits into MadVR. Except I did it in Davinci Resolve.

mmm, can you describe what you mean as HDR->SDR linear conversion, you took the PQ and converted it to gamma space putting 10,000nits 100% as SDR 100% (255,255,255), or...?

Since I've never used MadVR I don't know what "like pressing 1000 nits into MadVR" means exactly

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

I am aware, but the reply was saying the jaggies are worse on the BD if you look close

I'm just having a laugh. The jaggie car conversation is a billion times better, and more amusing than the garbage than what came before it.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Tok

I don’t believe that the people that are intimately involved in creating these discs understand what’s being asked. That sounds like something Raymond would ask in Rainman.

We both have big noses.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

I am aware, but the reply was saying the jaggies are worse on the BD if you look close

Well left windshield is worse than right

[Deciazulado]

Inglourious Basterds 4K Blu-ray Steelbook

[Scottishguy]

I demanded the thread is renamed to Inglourious Carsterds now