Inglourious Basterds 4K UHD (2009)

[cuzzin]

Elliott Coen from the Boutique Blu-rays YouTube channel put this disc on his best 4Ks of 2021 list, in stark contrast to its placement on FAH's worst of 2021 list. I think this guy is one of the few Blu-ray reviewers on YouTube whose opinions are actually worth a listen. He was one of the earliest to call out the 4K Lord of the Rings transfers while others were heaping praise on them.

Relevent portion starts at 5:03:

https://youtu.be/5BKFbo1bTwE?t=303

[manufanatic]

Finally watched the 4k and it was a top tier effort. Not sure why some all saying it’s bad like t2?

[manufanatic]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

Elliott Coen from the Boutique Blu-rays YouTube channel put this disc on his best 4Ks of 2021 list, in stark contrast to its placement on FAH's worst of 2021 list. I think this guy is one of the few Blu-ray reviewers on YouTube whose opinions are actually worth a listen. He was one of the earliest to call out the 4K Lord of the Rings transfers while others were heaping praise on them.

Relevent portion starts at 5:03:
https://youtu.be/5BKFbo1bTwE?t=303

Yes he was very gracious to other reviewers (films at home). And I agree with his assessment it looks good on 4k.

[nick4Knight]

A flawed release with a drawback here and there, but still smashes the BD in many key areas we tend to look to for improvement on this format. And I'm not talking resolution.

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

A flawed release with a drawback here and there, but still smashes the BD in many key areas we tend to look to for improvement on this format. And I'm not talking resolution.

Oh boy. How is it flawed?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by jerclay

Oh boy. How is it flawed?

Because at times it feels like contrast was boosted resulting in higher APL but not much of increase in highlight details. Also black levels are raised a tiny bit. YMMV.

[madfloyd]

This is probably system dependent but on my rig I cannot tell the difference between the blu and the UHD. I've gone back and forth many times on many scenes (my movies are ripped so I can bounce from one movie to another in seconds) and haven't been able to tell them apart.

The both look great to me. I am doing dynamic tone mapping and whether I use madVR or my Lumagen, they look pretty much identical. I could change settings in the tone mapping to make the UHD look worse, but not better.

This is not the case with most UHDs.

I'm not posting this to say there IS no difference but to say this might be a case of YMMV. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the UHD in my view.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by madfloyd

This is probably system dependent but on my rig I cannot tell the difference between the blu and the UHD. I've gone back and forth many times on many scenes (my movies are ripped so I can bounce from one movie to another in seconds) and haven't been able to tell them apart.

The both look great to me. I am doing dynamic tone mapping and whether I use madVR or my Lumagen, they look pretty much identical. I could change settings in the tone mapping to make the UHD look worse, but not better.

This is not the case with most UHDs.

I'm not posting this to say there IS no difference but to say this might be a case of YMMV. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the UHD in my view.

Gotta say dude, if you can't spot the difference in detail between them on a 138" screen then...wow.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by madfloyd

This is probably system dependent but on my rig I cannot tell the difference between the blu and the UHD. I've gone back and forth many times on many scenes (my movies are ripped so I can bounce from one movie to another in seconds) and haven't been able to tell them apart.

The both look great to me. I am doing dynamic tone mapping and whether I use madVR or my Lumagen, they look pretty much identical. I could change settings in the tone mapping to make the UHD look worse, but not better.

This is not the case with most UHDs.

I'm not posting this to say there IS no difference but to say this might be a case of YMMV. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the UHD in my view.

What projector do you have? The differences are noticeable on my tellies right off the bat.

[chewbabka]

This looks phenomenal. Full of fine detail, especially skin textures. The lighting in the cottage during the first scene really struck me. It’s all very natural and warm looking.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by chewbabka

This looks phenomenal. Full of fine detail, especially skin textures. The lighting in the cottage during the first scene really struck me. It’s all very natural and warm looking.

Truly! Because, FWIW, when I said "flawed" earlier this page I meant only that some have noted it's drawbacks and its fair to be honest about it. We can't claim its a REFERENCE disc or anything. But that to many it looks a huge jump from BD. And I would personally call it phenomenal for its non-resolution improvements alone. But even detail/resolution is no slouch of significant bump from the last format. If only less night and day from that one perspective.

[BDpotato]

I know this is all speculative but does anybody here know if we can expect more Tarantino movies to be re-released in UHD this or next year?

I can't find any information why specifically Inglourious Basterds was all of a sudden released in UHD. Usually they tie these things to some event (like a sequel coming out in theaters or something) or some publisher is losing its rights to a movie soon and wants to get another buck. But this was literally dropped out of nowhere.
There must have been a reason and probably a reason why other QT films may or may not come too in the near future?

[pnaschy]

Originally Posted by madfloyd

This is probably system dependent but on my rig I cannot tell the difference between the blu and the UHD. I've gone back and forth many times on many scenes (my movies are ripped so I can bounce from one movie to another in seconds) and haven't been able to tell them apart.

The both look great to me. I am doing dynamic tone mapping and whether I use madVR or my Lumagen, they look pretty much identical. I could change settings in the tone mapping to make the UHD look worse, but not better.

This is not the case with most UHDs.

I'm not posting this to say there IS no difference but to say this might be a case of YMMV. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the UHD in my view.

You should have gone to Specsavers.

[Mosley likes BFDI]

Would any of you compare the 4K transfer to Black Pearl's transfer since both are upscaled 4K?

[nissling]

Originally Posted by BDpotato

There must have been a reason and probably a reason why other QT films may or may not come too in the near future?

It’s Universal being Universal.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Mosley likes BFDI

Would any of you compare the 4K transfer to Black Pearl's transfer since both are upscaled 4K?

First compare Little Caesars and Denny's, since they're both food.

[Mosley likes BFDI]

Originally Posted by abdrewes

first compare little caesars and denny's, since they're both food.

lol!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by manufanatic

Finally watched the 4k and it was a top tier effort. Not sure why some all saying it’s bad like t2?

If anyone seriously thinks IB is on the level of T2 on UHD they have some serious issues.

A pretty damn good looking 2K DI with intact film grain vs a traditionally finished title that's a wax fest? One looking remarkably faithful to its source vs one not anywhere close? Yeah they're totally similar.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mosley likes BFDI

Would any of you compare the 4K transfer to Black Pearl's transfer since both are upscaled 4K?

Please stop

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Mosley likes BFDI

Would any of you compare the 4K transfer to Black Pearl's transfer since both are upscaled 4K?