Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

But you'll be using a Panasonic?

Depends what remote I pick up first. Why are you aksing?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Depends what remote I pick up first. Why are you aksing?

Just with all the talk about the highlights. Perhaps HDR optimizer might be in order.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Just with all the talk about the highlights. Perhaps HDR optimizer might be in order.

I don’t think so, my telly can do 1200 nits before it starts clipping colour and 1800 nits before it clips luminance.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

The guy that didn't want burned in subs will be happy, as the UK and Euro releases are player generated. All titles are also player generated.

To give Universal some credit, they've attempted to match the colour and font of the theatrical subs, as much as possible.

These are all player generated:

[Show spoiler]

Yup, looks great, if only it was the same for my language In Polish (and probably for all other languages) it's the same as on BD - just basic subtitles, which looks clunky on all those chapter title cards.

My steelbook came today so I skipped through some scenes and it looks great, I don't understand how can you say it's barely any upgrade from the BD. What is wrong with those people?

Those elevated blacks seems to be the only problem; on my OLED it looks glourious after lowering the brightness from 50 to 48.

[sanjuro78]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Yup, looks great, if only it was the same for my language In Polish (and probably for all other languages) it's the same as on BD - just basic subtitles, which looks clunky on all those chapter title cards.

My steelbook came today so I skipped through some scenes and it looks great, I don't understand how can you say it's barely any upgrade from the BD. What is wrong with those people?

Those elevated blacks seems to be the only problem; on my OLED it looks glourious after lowering the brightness from 50 to 48.

That's the only thing I noticed as well, about the elevated blacks. I messed around with a few settings to try and lower them but I'll try overall brightness later. The colors really look nice and those Richardson pools of light really pop now.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by sanjuro78

I messed around with a few settings to try and lower them but I'll try overall brightness later.

Depending on your TV's brand it might be called differently. On Sony TVs it's called "Black level".

[chocolat]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Depends what remote I pick up first. Why are you aksing?

Please pick up the remote that comes from the OCN of the finished film.

[BorisKarloffice]

I remember when I saw this film in theaters. The 35mm image with its glorious grain and gate weave lit up the screen just like God intended. But immediately I knew something was wrong.

Leaving my seat and placing my eye just 6 inches from the screen, ruler in hand, ignoring the complaints from other moviegoers, I was able to confirm my wildest fears: incredibly, inconceivably, this so-called 35mm print was sourced from a 2K digital intermediate.

I was aghast. I collapsed into a nearby seat, spilling another patron's popcorn. "What are you doing you schmuck, we're tryna watch the movie!" he said.

"You don't understand!" I cried. "This film was mastered in 2K instead of 4K! Can't you see it?"

I asked to see the projectionist to find out if there had been an error, if they had been sent a bootleg or a workprint by accident. They wouldn't let me in. I wrote to the studio, even to Tarantino himself, asking how they could be so careless, so disrespectful of their film as to master it in 2K. I received no response.

Imagine my surprise to find just a few years later that the great Roger Deakins, a man whom I had once respected, had shot In Time in measly 1080p on the so-called "camera" they call the Alexa!

Truly barbarian times we live in. I haven't seen a single film or bought a single blu-ray since.

[cuzzin]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Depending on your TV's brand it might be called differently. On Sony TVs it's called "Black level".

Brightness and black level are separate settings on Sonys. You indicated it was the brightness that you lowered, not the black level; just curious which it actually was.

[sanjuro78]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Depending on your TV's brand it might be called differently. On Sony TVs it's called "Black level".

I do have a Sony and haven't touched black level yet.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

Brightness and black level are separate settings on Sonys. You indicated it was the brightness that you lowered, not the black level; just curious which it actually was.

I know, that's why I specifically said it's called "Black level" on Sony TVs.

I have LG TV where black level is set by the option called "Brightness" (like in most TVs), which is what I lowered.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

US version has landed. Will be watching tonight.

Enjoy it Geoff. Waiting for your review!

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

I remember when I saw this film in theaters. The 35mm image with its glorious grain and gate weave lit up the screen just like God intended. But immediately I knew something was wrong.

Leaving my seat and placing my eye just 6 inches from the screen, ruler in hand, ignoring the complaints from other moviegoers, I was able to confirm my wildest fears: incredibly, inconceivably, this so-called 35mm print was sourced from a 2K digital intermediate.

I was aghast. I collapsed into a nearby seat, spilling another patron's popcorn. "What are you doing you schmuck, we're tryna watch the movie!" he said.

"You don't understand!" I cried. "This film was mastered in 2K instead of 4K! Can't you see it?"

I asked to see the projectionist to find out if there had been an error, if they had been sent a bootleg or a workprint by accident. They wouldn't let me in. I wrote to the studio, even to Tarantino himself, asking how they could be so careless, so disrespectful of their film as to master it in 2K. I received no response.

Imagine my surprise to find just a few years later that the great Roger Deakins, a man whom I had once respected, had shot In Time in measly 1080p on the so-called "camera" they call the Alexa!

Truly barbarian times we live in. I haven't seen a single film or bought a single blu-ray since.

I think you're dramatizing a bit. In relation to Roger Deakins, his last work which is 1917 was filmed in native 4K resolution and is a masterpiece of modern photography.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by johnnyringo7

I think you're dramatizing a bit. In relation to Roger Deakins, his last work which is 1917 was filmed in native 4K resolution and is a masterpiece of modern photography.

You took that seriously?

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You took that seriously?

Oh I'm dead serious. I actually removed my eyes in 2012 so I wouldn't have to see any sub-4K films ever again. I am dictating this to an assistant currently.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You took that seriously?

You don't?

[cuzzin]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I know, that's why I specifically said it's called "Black level" on Sony TVs.

I have LG TV where black level is set by the option called "Brightness" (like in most TVs), which is what I lowered.

Nah, brightness is brightness. Black level is black level. I have a Sony.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by johnnyringo7

I think you're dramatizing a bit. In relation to Roger Deakins, his last work which is 1917 was filmed in native 4K resolution and is a masterpiece of modern photography.

Yeah the user is joking.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Yeah the user is joking.

Very much so.

I have always been a resolution "apologist" so to speak. I don't have a 4K setup yet, but I've seen my share of films on the big screen mastered in 2K, 4K, 4K upscaled from 3K, 35mm printed from 2K and 4K, photochemical 35 and 70mm, various flavors of IMAX including 15/70 and 4K Laser, etc. And of course films like Drive, The First Avenger, Tron Legacy, Avatar, Real Steel, Ted, and Superman Returns that were shot in measly 1080p.

I don't recall ever noticing a difference unless I went looking for it, and even then, only on particularly large screens. Inglourious Basterds looked great in 35mm from a 2K DI. Doctor Strange looked great in 2K on the Bullock Museum's 6 story high IMAX screen, the biggest theater screen in Texas.

I don't care that much. The dynamic range of Laser IMAX and Dolby Cinema are the real prize and the real reason I'm planning to get a UHD setup.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

Very much so.

I have always been a resolution "apologist" so to speak. I don't have a 4K setup yet, but I've seen my share of films on the big screen mastered in 2K, 4K, 4K upscaled from 3K, 35mm printed from 2K and 4K, photochemical 35 and 70mm, various flavors of IMAX including 15/70 and 4K Laser, etc. And of course films like Drive, The First Avenger, Tron Legacy, Avatar, Real Steel, Ted, and Superman Returns that were shot in measly 1080p.

I don't recall ever noticing a difference unless I went looking for it, and even then, only on particularly large screens. Inglourious Basterds looked great in 35mm from a 2K DI. Doctor Strange looked great in 2K on the Bullock Museum's 6 story high IMAX screen, the biggest theater screen in Texas.

I don't care that much. The dynamic range of Laser IMAX and Dolby Cinema are the real prize and the real reason I'm planning to get a UHD setup.

Spoiler alert from someone that's watched his fair share of UHD Blu-rays.

[Show spoiler]4K resolution is only a marginal improvement in most cases. A little more spacial detail.