Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009) - Page 80 - Blu-ray Forum

Agent Kay · 10-15-2021, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batman2000

Come on really you think this sites reviews are all perfect the review for the original back to the future trilogy blu ray was awful. it says it wasn’t grain reduced when it was so I take this site reviews with a grain of salt.

I was saying they were all shit equally

Scottishguy · 10-15-2021, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gates70

Watched on my 135" screen and it looks great. Perfect? No. Definitely an upgrade. These piece of shit accounts like Films at Home and HD Movie Source won't be happy until everything goes directly to digital and then they won't have a choice. Morons.

Nobody:
Scotsguy And His Incredible Emotional Regulation:

wright96d · 10-15-2021, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

You are probably right.

A friend once showed me Meet the Feebles and told me how Peter Jackson had talked about upgrading his old films, including that one, using the same techniques used on the World War film. My friend was excited for the prospect of this happening, and I was like "no no no no no no that would be an awful thing to do". He didn't understand why.

Christian Muth · 10-15-2021, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wright96d

I really don't think so. 4K is the only standard output format that can actually retain the full vertical resolution of a 2K anamorphic scan. If it was exported at the scan resolution, 2048x1536, I suppose all the resolution would be retained, but that's not a 2K export standard, and the industry loves their standards.

This PDF for the Arrilaser film recorder lists 1536 X 2048 as an output format for full-aperture 2K, so it looks like that is indeed a standard for film outs:

http://www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/mo...ILASER_BRO.pdf

Chris

wright96d · 10-15-2021, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

This PDF for the Arrilaser film recorder lists 1536 X 2048 as an output format for full-aperture 2K, so it looks like that is indeed a standard for film outs:

http://www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/mo...ILASER_BRO.pdf

Chris

But the question is not whether the filmout can output that resolution. We've already established it's a standard scanning resolution. It's whether or not it's actually a standard resolution for final export. I guess the only way we would know for sure is to talk to a colorist from the time period when filmouts were still regularly done. Or, whoever does the final master export.

Edit: I could be full of shit. Here's what Resolve lists as all of the 2K output formats. Full aperture is there. Isn't there a guy around here that does actual film restoration work? Maybe he would know what the most common output resolution is for an anamorphic 2K DI?

Edit 2: This ARRI white paper instructs scope to be delivered in 2048x858.

https://community.avid.com/cfs-files...5F00_Paper.pdf

Edit 3: My research isn't really turning up any new information so I think I'm going to stop. I'll leave it off at this. I think the fact that effects shots are done in 2048x858 (You'll notice effects shots from the 4Ks of Crystal Skull and Looper, for example, exhibit no textural improvement whatsoever from their Blu-Ray counterparts) suggests that even when filmouts were common, full aperture outputs weren't common. If they were, you'd expect effects shots to be done at the final output resolution.

coolguy25 · 10-15-2021, 10:33 PM

Please bump this it when it hits 14.99

motorheadache95 · 10-15-2021, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I get that side of it. But here it seems as if most people, Hunt included, regard a 2K DI as being the equivalent of some janky old telecine from that era that was bound for 8-bit SDR 709 Blu-ray and not the master-quality source that it is.

True, and I realize the benefits you get from a 2K DI. And I do note the ridiculousness of Hunt’s criticism of Basterds using that DI, considering he gave top marks to Lord of the Rings because he thought that what he was watching was a 4K rebuild. Really shows you the power of a “true 4k” placebo effect, haha.

I guess my only point was all these films are kind of locked in the way they are, with the digital tools of the time, and we know a 2K finish isn’t utilizing the 35mm negative to its full potential, plus scanning and digital mastering can keep getting better for films taken from a negative. But maybe we’ve reached a point where the difference would be subtle enough to be negligible in most cases. I wonder how different the UHD of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would really be upsampled from the 2K DI with the same HDR grade and color timing corrections.

ronboster · 10-15-2021, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolguy25

Please bump this it when it hits 14.99

It’s $15.99

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronboster

Gruv.com has this for $20 plus a 20% off code (and I think still has free shipping).

Use GRUVLOYAL20

Geoff D · 10-15-2021, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wright96d

But the question is not whether the filmout can output that resolution. We've already established it's a standard scanning resolution. It's whether or not it's actually a standard resolution for final export. I guess the only way we would know for sure is to talk to a colorist from the time period when filmouts were still regularly done. Or, whoever does the final master export.

Edit: I could be full of shit. Here's what Resolve lists as all of the 2K output formats. Full aperture is there. Isn't there a guy around here that does actual film restoration work? Maybe he would know what the most common output resolution is for an anamorphic 2K DI?

Edit 2: This ARRI white paper instructs scope to be delivered in 2048x858.

https://community.avid.com/cfs-files...5F00_Paper.pdf

Edit 3: My research isn't really turning up any new information so I think I'm going to stop. I'll leave it off at this. I think the fact that effects shots are done in 2048x858 (You'll notice effects shots from the 4Ks of Crystal Skull and Looper, for example, exhibit no textural improvement whatsoever from their Blu-Ray counterparts) suggests that even when filmouts were common, full aperture outputs weren't common. If they were, you'd expect effects shots to be done at the final output resolution.

I'm not sure here but you seem to be conflating the DI with the final digital distribution master, but the two are not the same process.

So if people want to run a 2K anamorphic project in a 'flat' desqueezed aspect all the way through then they can do, but they can also run it with the files in their native squeezed anamorphic form as shot & scanned and just desqueeze in the localised playback of those files, thus preserving the x2 vertical resolution throughout the image chain without needing the bandwidth of a 4K pipeline. The Last Jedi was a recent example, the whole thing was finished out to 2048x1716 as befits the overriding 'scope acquisition, and for the final 4K master they uprezzed the horizontal x2 to create the 'industry standard' 4096x1716 deliverable.

And it makes even more sense that they'd finish out to anamorphic if shot anamorphic in the era of filmouts because then they don't have to add a fake digital 'squeeze' to a desqueezed file (REMEMBER: the prints for 2.35 widescreen shows had to be anamorphic regardless of how they were shot), they can keep the quality that was there originally. Why doesn't this give a 2x boost to the VFX shots you mentioned then? They could well have been done at flat 2K to save time and money, still doesn't mean the whole thing was finished flat though.

Oh, and UHD has four times the chroma resolution of HD, not double.

edit: short but sweet discussion on this from 2009 at cinematography.com where several members weigh in, most of them concurring that yes, an anamorphic DI is actually a thing and it's very much filmed out in that way. https://cinematography.com/index.php...-intermediate/

KubrickKurasawa · 10-16-2021, 01:25 AM

Take it from Betty "It's 2K upscale" for all you Pulp Fiction Fans you might get the reference

wright96d · 10-16-2021, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not sure here but you seem to be conflating the DI with the final digital distribution master, but the two are not the same process.

Yeah, I probably am. What is the difference, exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So if people want to run a 2K anamorphic project in a 'flat' desqueezed aspect all the way through then they can do, but they can also run it with the files in their native squeezed anamorphic form as shot & scanned and just desqueeze in the localised playback of those files, thus preserving the x2 vertical resolution throughout the image chain without needing the bandwidth of a 4K pipeline. The Last Jedi was a recent example, the whole thing was finished out to 2048x1716 as befits the overriding 'scope acquisition, and for the final 4K master they uprezzed the horizontal x2 to create the 'industry standard' 4096x1716 deliverable.

And it makes even more sense that they'd finish out to anamorphic if shot anamorphic in the era of filmouts because then they don't have to add a fake digital 'squeeze' to a desqueezed file (REMEMBER: the prints for 2.35 widescreen shows had to be anamorphic regardless of how they were shot), they can keep the quality that was there originally. Why doesn't this give a 2x boost to the VFX shots you mentioned then? They could well have been done at flat 2K to save time and money, still doesn't mean the whole thing was finished flat though.

edit: short but sweet discussion on this from 2009 at cinematography.com where several members weigh in, most of them concurring that yes, an anamorphic DI is actually a thing and it's very much filmed out in that way. https://cinematography.com/index.php...-intermediate/

Thank you for all that information about anamorphic, especially about The Last Jedi, and the forum thread. Do you have any forum threads like that about compressionists talking about high pass filtering?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, and UHD has four times the chroma resolution of HD, not double.

I mean, yeah, I know that. I was just thinking in terms of vertical/horizontal resolution, not number of pixels.

Geoff D · 10-16-2021, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wright96d

Yeah, I probably am. What is the difference, exactly?

Thank you for all that information about anamorphic, especially about The Last Jedi, and the forum thread. Do you have any forum threads like that about compressionists talking about high pass filtering?

I mean, yeah, I know that. I was just thinking in terms of vertical/horizontal resolution, not number of pixels.

Top: The final deliverables to cinema and home video have to be certain resolutions to fit DCI and home video spec (which is why people who make movies in non-standard ratios like 2:1 have to letterbox their movie inside a 1.85 container for the DCP), but the actual DI or even the resultant source master (what all other masters are derived from) does not have to be one set resolution. Fincher did a 6K DI on Gone Girl for a 5K digital source master with deliverables set at the usual 2K and 4K resolutions.

Middle: not that I can think of, there are very few compressionists who actually engage with people on forums and the ones that do e.g. David Mackenzie don't do any of that crap when encoding a BD. But FWIW there was a VFX supervisor who's worked on a lot of big shows who posted on AVForums for a while, he said that 1K proxies of his work still looked betterer than the final Blu-ray equivalent in most cases, though things like compression and subsampling of colour play into that as well.

Bottom: Cool.

Agent Kay · 10-16-2021, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wright96d

Yeah, I probably am. What is the difference, exactly?

Thank you for all that information about anamorphic, especially about The Last Jedi, and the forum thread. Do you have any forum threads like that about compressionists talking about high pass filtering?

I mean, yeah, I know that. I was just thinking in terms of vertical/horizontal resolution, not number of pixels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wright96d

I really don't think so. 4K is the only standard output format that can actually retain the full vertical resolution of a 2K anamorphic scan. If it was exported at the scan resolution, 2048x1536, I suppose all the resolution would be retained, but that's not a 2K export standard, and the industry loves their standards.

That World War film permanently warped Peter Jackson's taste. A Blu-Ray would've been just as DNR'd.

Yep, his Beatles thing looks like shit, so much DNR

wright96d · 10-16-2021, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Yep, his Beatles thing looks like shit, so much DNR

Dear God almighty. Nothing could've prepared me for how bad that was going to look. Not even you telling me it would be bad.

Edit: It's even got that motion interpolation shit going on. What reason would they have possibly had to do that to the footage? Was it undercranked for some reason?

Edit 2: Actually, I think it's just the one shot at 4:48. But it just feels really weird overall. Almost like Paul's been haphazardly comped into the shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Middle: not that I can think of, there are very few compressionists who actually engage with people on forums and the ones that do e.g. David Mackenzie don't do any of that crap when encoding a BD.

I'm now watching the interview he did with Home Theater Geeks and I'm absolutely mesmerized.

Pieter V · 10-16-2021, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Nation's Pride (6 minutes) is now in HD, right?

To anwser my own question. It's still in SD.

BDpotato · 10-16-2021, 11:23 AM

(click to open in new tab as the bright colors in this forum's theme ruin the perceived contrast)

What is this shit? Did they have the intern do the 4K conversion and color grading on his old iPad? You don't even need an $40,000 grading monitor to see the blacks are raised/video levels are incorrect. It's especially noticable on an OLED TV. I swear this keeps happening more and more.

Note: the black bars above/below are part of the video stream and they are in fact proper black, so it's not a player issue as they would've been incorrect as well.

This is also not a "directors style decision" like people usually like to claim in response. We have the old Bluray for comparison and the blacks are perfect there throughout the entire movie - while on this crappy UHD all transitions, chapter title cards, intro, even the end rolling credits you can clearly see the black is wrong. Even on the "Weinstein Company" production logo in the beginning it's obviously a mistake. Therefore the entire movie has incorrect levels/brightness.

I'm so sick of this amateur bullshit. I was looking forward to this disc as I love Tarantino movies and besides his last Once Upon A Time in Hollywood there's no 4K releases of his movies.

Deciazulado · 10-16-2021, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDpotato

(click to open in new tab as the bright colors in this forum's theme ruin the perceived contrast)

you can use Dark Mode neutral background by clicking on the moon on the top right of the page or selecting it from the drop menu on the bottom left.

There's also a Classic Style theme that has a light grey background instead of light blue if you want a neutral background to not skew color balance.

ronboster · 10-16-2021, 12:56 PM

Quote: