Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[Christian Muth]

Wonderful review, Geoff, except for this part:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...Richardson first twisted Tarantino's arm to use a DI on the Kill Bills because they were shooting in Super 35 and couldn't get first generation prints to view in dailies (the spherical process having to undergo an optical squeeze on prints to be viewed in the intended 'scope 2.35 ratio)...

Did Richardson actually say that re: screening dailies? Because it's not the case. It's very easy to modify a projector to screen a Super-35 direct-from-the-negative print (i.e., dailies) with the proper framing, the projector just needs to have the aperture plate swapped out. This is how test screenings and dailies were screened for Super-35 movies all the time in the pre-DI era. I was involved in the test screening of a Super-35 film way back in the late 1990s, and it was the actual Super-35 workprint and screened in a regular movie theater and framed for 'Scope, we just needed to refit the existing projector with a new aperture plate prior to the screening and link it with an interlock mag track reader for the sound.

Chris

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Wonderful review, Geoff, except for this part:



Did Richardson actually say that re: screening dailies? Because it's not the case. It's very easy to modify a projector to screen a Super-35 direct-from-the-negative print (i.e., dailies) with the proper framing, the projector just needs to have the aperture plate swapped out. This is how test screenings and dailies were screened for Super-35 movies all the time in the pre-DI era. I was involved in the test screening of a Super-35 film way back in the late 1990s, and it was the actual Super-35 workprint and screened in a regular movie theater and framed for 'Scope, we just needed to refit the existing projector with a new aperture plate prior to the screening and link it with an interlock mag track reader for the sound.

Chris

Just passing on what was said in the AC article, they could’ve watched them flat no doubt but they seemed to be convinced there was no way to view first generation prints for dailies.

[Synchg]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Wonderful review, Geoff, except for this part:



Did Richardson actually say that re: screening dailies? Because it's not the case. It's very easy to modify a projector to screen a Super-35 direct-from-the-negative print (i.e., dailies) with the proper framing, the projector just needs to have the aperture plate swapped out. This is how test screenings and dailies were screened for Super-35 movies all the time in the pre-DI era. I was involved in the test screening of a Super-35 film way back in the late 1990s, and it was the actual Super-35 workprint and screened in a regular movie theater and framed for 'Scope, we just needed to refit the existing projector with a new aperture plate prior to the screening and link it with an interlock mag track reader for the sound.

Chris

you tell that know it all-limey, chris. u tell 'em

[Geoff D]

I may have jumped to my own conclusions about why they couldn’t screen first generation prints, but it’s there in black and white that they were unable to do so. For reference:

Richardson says there was never any debate about how to obtain Kill Bill's widescreen aspect ratio. The production filmed in the Super 35mm format using Richardson’s preferred Panavision Platinum cameras, fitted with Primo lenses and configured for 3-perf shooting. Nevertheless, both Richardson and Tarantino had lingering reservations about maintaining visual fidelity in the oft-maligned format, citing traumatic experiences on Casino and Reservoir Dogs, respectively.

Unable to screen first-generation prints, Richardson considered the next best thing: a digital intermediate (DI), executed at Technique. “This is the best approach available right now, and it’ll only get better,” he observes. “There’s no reason it shouldn’t become the mainstream way of doing things.”

https://ascmag.com/articles/kill-bil...e-vows-revenge

Was it as simple as “An aperture plate, an aperture plate, my photochemical kingdom for an aperture plate”?

[Christian Muth]

I get what they say re: 1st generation prints for the theatrical release- the final theatrical prints would all be from the optically-printed anamorphic IN dupe, so they couldn't have any real first-generation "show prints"- but dailies are another story. I sincerely doubt they weren't able to screen Super-35 dailies in the proper aspect ratio during shooting.

Chris

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by jh901

Don't do it again.

Thanks.

Because you said it? I'm going to do whatever the hell I want (I didn't do anything bad before)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

I get what they say re: 1st generation prints for the theatrical release- the final theatrical prints would all be from the optically-printed anamorphic IN dupe, so they couldn't have any real first-generation "show prints"- but dailies are another story. I sincerely doubt they weren't able to screen Super-35 dailies in the proper aspect ratio during shooting.

Chris

No, you’re right, I’ve clearly misunderstood that part. Should’ve taken the reference to prints literally rather than trying to be all clever, like. But I still mentioned that they were leery of the final printed result when using S35, so that’ll do.

[Onlysleeping23]

Also part of the issue might be it was shot 3-perf super 35, so the projector would need to be modified in addition to swapping the aperture plate.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Onlysleeping23

Also part of the issue might be it was shot 3-perf super 35, so the projector would need to be modified in addition to swapping the aperture plate.

Oh, that’s a great point. There are no 3-perf projektors AFAIK [edit] though if there are, they weren't available to the production at that time, seeing as they were shooting in China. So they'd have had to monkey around with printing the 3-perf neg to 4-perf dailies and could that have been done without an optical step? [edit 2:] Nope. So now I'm leaning back towards the dailies thing (albeit with incorrect reasoning the first time around!), as although show prints for exhibition are a nice thing to have you wouldn't shoot Super 35 if you were desperate for one, as even if this was a 4-perf S35 photochemically-finished show you still wouldn't get a 1st gen contact print from it that you could run in theatres with the correct AR.

Thanks to you and Chris for weighing in.

[Dragun]

Why did they shoot Super 35 instead of anamorphic?

[Onlysleeping23]

Originally Posted by Dragun

Why did they shoot Super 35 instead of anamorphic?

Shooting 3-perf saves film stock, enough so that the cost savings paid for the DI according to Richardson.

Panic Room was filmed this way too. As well as many tv shows in the early aughts, as 3 perf is almost perfectly 1.78.

[kristoffer]

Finally got this and to me this is quite the upgrade. The fact you can see grain now makes it much closer to a theatrical experience for me. The colours also look nice in HDR.

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by johnnyringo7

Because you said it? I'm going to do whatever the hell I want (I didn't do anything bad before)

No, because it's annoying to scroll past a massive quote. As a courtesy, we generally put most, if not at all, of the post in spoiler tags.

[johnnyringo7]

Finally got to see Inglourious Basterds in UHD and it was a great experience:

First, the amount of new founded detail on every single shot it's outstanding!. On this point it's a mayor upgrade over the prior bluray (and here's another proof that a 2K DI can show a wonderful level of detail depending on the type of lenses used and the style the DP has chosen).

Second, the image now has a very fine layer of grain which gives the film a classic and very cinematic look.

Regarding the colors, I did not notice a great difference in the palette, however, the faces now present a much more varied range of colors and details and they look more accurate and realistic. Some colors are now much more striking, for example the reds of Nazi flags that shine with great intensity.

The use of HDR increases the brightness considerably (perhaps a little more than I would have liked and that's my only complaint about the transfer), the dark areas present a higher level of detail as well as the highlights.

Finally I don't have any issues with black levels, not not deep not too light (the increased contrast as Geoff said helped it).

I can not understand how some qualify this new 4K transfer as disappointing, when in my opinion Universal did a magnificent job because the improvements in relation to the old but excellent blu ray are significant.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

What do you mean?

The Sony 900 series isn't so bad that one of its users should have their criticisms of a movie's picture quality disregarded because of the TV. Why would just that disc be an exception anyway, as if the other discs he praised were on a different TV? His opinion is probably shit anyway, but an OLED or whatever isn't required.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

The Sony 900 series isn't so bad that one of its users should have their criticisms of a movie's picture quality disregarded because of the TV. Why would just that disc be an exception anyway, as if the other discs he praised were on a different TV? His opinion is probably shit anyway, but an OLED or whatever isn't required.

FAH is one of those people who could have the greatest set up on Earth but their opinion would still mean less than zero to me as they have no idea of what they're talking about tech-wise and generally have very populist tastes as to what looks good to them. Which is fine when preaching to that crowd, it's why he has 70K+ subscribers, but if you want to know what a UHD transfer actually looks like then you're shit out of luck with him.

[PissedOffPeoN]

Reviews should be like is it an upgrade over the blu ray and not 4k crispy like people always want. Should of got it when it was 10-15 bucks.. oh well lol maybe next sale. Still waiting for that Tarantino 4k box set to pop up one day.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by PissedOffPeoN

Reviews should be like is it an upgrade over the blu ray

That can be a pretty low bar, though. I disagree.

[PissedOffPeoN]

Ya set myself low, so when it actually is really good i am way more excited.. Like for example when lord of the rings 4k came out, i thought it was gonna be an easy 10/10 and we got half good half bad.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

FAH is one of those people who could have the greatest set up on Earth but their opinion would still mean less than zero to me as they have no idea of what they're talking about tech-wise and generally have very populist tastes as to what looks good to them. Which is fine when preaching to that crowd, it's why he has 70K+ subscribers, but if you want to know what a UHD transfer actually looks like then you're shit out of luck with him.

He chose Inglourious Basterds and Goodfellas as the worst transfers, in the latter and even without still having the physical version, on YouTube 4K clips I could see more detail and a more refined grain than watching the remastered bluray on TV.