Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[BerryTheMusicMan]

Watched it for myself and it has never looked better .. my 2 cents .

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bostonyte

As the cat stated earlier, this was not shot on film, correct?

The cat said it was finished digitally, not shot digitally.

Originally Posted by Bostonyte

So there is an original negative, ie. film?

There is negative that went through the camera on the day, yes. But there is no finished cut of that negative into a final conformed "original negative" inclusive of VFX etc. The 2K digital source master is the primary rendition of the finished movie.

[jpilla415]

I wonder how many times this information is going to have to be repeated?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by jpilla415

I wonder how many times this information is going to have to be repeated?

Can we get back to the car. I liked the car.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by jpilla415

I wonder how many times this information is going to have to be repeated?

Ad nazium.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by jpilla415

I wonder how many times this information is going to have to be repeated?

Reposts are forever

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JPK

Most of the films released on 4K UHD from that period are in fact released as 'native 4K'. More so than from the decade after 2010.

Just did a quick skim through my 4K collection and the only ones that aren't 'native 4K' releases between 2000 and 2010 are Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Lord of the Rings, Fast & Furious, Pans Labyrinth, Shutter Island, Transporter 3, Toy Story 3 and Underworld by the looks of it.

Movies were still being finished photochemically well into the '00s so it's not surprising that many such titles on 4K UHD are from 'native 4K' masters, whereas most of the ones you've mentioned there ^ were finished digitally at 2K. And all were shot on film (bar Toy Story 3, for obvious reasons) and all were upscaled from 2K for their UHD versions.

Strangely though, none of those had people taking to social media in droves to lambast the studio for not doing "a new transfer", least not LOTR which actually has people thinking it's a 4K rebuild because of all the bullshit spread by the Digital Bits. See how it works? All you have to do is tell people it's 'native 4K' and they'll think it looks amazing, tell them it's an upscale and they'll act like someone shit in their cereal. It's really quite extraordinary.

Still, as the DI took hold the industry thought that there would be a quick transition to 4K and some movies from the mid-aughts were done in 4K like Wolverine Origins and Night At the Museum, but by the end of the decade people had settled on 2K as being "good enough" and there was the 3D boom to contend with, which was resolutely 2K in nature so workflows naturally gravitated back towards 2K. And most studios were not going to spend the money to do parallel 4K 2D and 2K 3D finishes, apart from Sony who had a vested interest in both technologies.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Ad nazium.

Heil Kitler!

[KubrickKurasawa]

Imagine making a film only to see it get a Marvel 2K DI transfer.

[Matt89]

LOL I definitely commented on the Digital Bit's review that they posted on fb.

My fav response: "Nobody would've known the movie was finished that way unless you were part of the production."

You honestly can't make this sh*t up. God these people are f*cking IDIOTS.

~Matt

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

I'm just done here lol.

That didn't last long......

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

Imagine making a film only to see it get a Marvel 2K DI transfer.

[Casual_G4m3r]

Ok, I swapped my copy of IB at BBY, and the new disc plays fine.

Apparently, I just had a defective copy. I was crushed that I had a bad copy, but all is well now. Woo hoo!!

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Matt89

LOL I definitely commented on the Digital Bit's review that they posted on fb.

My fav response: "Nobody would've known the movie was finished that way unless you were part of the production."

You honestly can't make this sh*t up. God these people are f*cking IDIOTS.

~Matt

Help choppering in buddy.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Still, as the DI took hold the industry thought that there would be a quick transition to 4K and some movies from the mid-aughts were done in 4K like Wolverine Origins and Night At the Museum, but by the end of the decade people had settled on 2K as being "good enough" and there was the 3D boom to contend with, which was resolutely 2K in nature so workflows naturally gravitated back towards 2K. And most studios were not going to spend the money to do parallel 4K 2D and 2K 3D finishes, apart from Sony who had a vested interest in both technologies.

I think that’s the real problem people have, that of the industry mastering practices of that period of time, which was to master movies in “good enough” quality. But then people like Bill Hunt are misdirecting their grievances with the actual UHD transfer, which can only be sourced from its final master short of doing a rebuild restoration project.
I can honestly sympathize with the complaint he mentions, that the movie has to be sourced from a digital finish from 2009, which isn’t going to be ideal compared to having a fresh 4K scan at the source. But that’s it, that’s the movie, and it’s a product of its time, where many films were finished in 2K— they just were, as it was the first decade of the digital era. We’re still getting a better representation of that finished master with HDR and color, and that’s going to be as good as it gets for most of these movies of the era.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Help choppering in buddy.

LMAO after correcting him, the guy told me to f*ck off and die.

I am SCREAMING.

These guys are the biggest losers. They don't even want to learn. They just want to perpetually wallow in their own manufactured outrage.

~Matt

[chrisandy007]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Movies were still being finished photochemically well into the '00s so it's not surprising that many such titles on 4K UHD are from 'native 4K' masters, whereas most of the ones you've mentioned there ^ were finished digitally at 2K. And all were shot on film (bar Toy Story 3, for obvious reasons) and all were upscaled from 2K for their UHD versions.

Strangely though, none of those had people taking to social media in droves to lambast the studio for not doing "a new transfer", least not LOTR which actually has people thinking it's a 4K rebuild because of all the bullshit spread by the Digital Bits. See how it works? All you have to do is tell people it's 'native 4K' and they'll think it looks amazing, tell them it's an upscale and they'll act like someone shit in their cereal. It's really quite extraordinary.

Still, as the DI took hold the industry thought that there would be a quick transition to 4K and some movies from the mid-aughts were done in 4K like Wolverine Origins and Night At the Museum, but by the end of the decade people had settled on 2K as being "good enough" and there was the 3D boom to contend with, which was resolutely 2K in nature so workflows naturally gravitated back towards 2K. And most studios were not going to spend the money to do parallel 4K 2D and 2K 3D finishes, apart from Sony who had a vested interest in both technologies.

I thought QT was a big film guy - did Bob convince him to go with a DI rather than photochemical timing?

[Casual_G4m3r]

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a trend here?

Meaning, that most everyone (maybe all?) who has the disc in hand, and have seen how it looks on their setup (with their own eyes) is saying that it looks good, myself included.

Not to flame anyone, but I do feel it's important to judge the disc on its own merits, and not necessarily on the fact it was taken from a digital source. In this modern era, I would guess a lot of movies are from a digital source.

No, this was not shot digitally (the beautifully rendered film grain proves otherwise), but the source for this disc is apparently digital.

To that, I say who cares, because this disc is worth the upgrade.

IMO, YMMV, Etc.

[Matt89]

Yup, all the fools commenting on how the disc is "bad" are saying that merely based on what they read on the DigitalBits or that moron on YouTube. None of these clowns actually own the disc, as they're all claiming that they won't be buying it. It's absolutely nonsensical. These people are convinced a disc that they haven't even seen is bad and are thus refusing to buy it, and therefore will never actually see for themselves that they're wrong.

People who have watched the disc (myself included) are saying it actually looks great and is a worthwhile upgrade over the blu-ray.

~Matt

[GasmaskAvenger]

Got my pre-order from Target.com and the 1080p disc is, interestingly enough, the disc from the Tarantino XX box set.

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I think that’s the real problem people have, that of the industry mastering practices of that period of time, which was to master movies in “good enough” quality. But then people like Bill Hunt are misdirecting their grievances with the actual UHD transfer, which can only be sourced from its final master short of doing a rebuild restoration project.
I can honestly sympathize with the complaint he mentions, that the movie has to be sourced from a digital finish from 2009, which isn’t going to be ideal compared to having a fresh 4K scan at the source. But that’s it, that’s the movie, and it’s a product of its time, where many films were finished in 2K— they just were, as it was the first decade of the digital era. We’re still getting a better representation of that finished master with HDR and color, and that’s going to be as good as it gets for most of these movies of the era.

I don't see any sympathy to be had. It's a total non issue. All a 2K DI finish means is your restricted from being able to scan a bigger sample size. Yeah it can be great when the possibility exists to get a bigger juicy sample. But it's chicken feed in most home viewing cases vs colour information, increased dynamic range, and better video compression.