A Few Words About A few words about...™ Ghostbusters -- in Blu-ray

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, May 27, 2009.

  1. Jim_K

    Jim_K Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,090
    Likes Received:
    2


    Let's see. One guy likes preserving film grain as long as it's not too grainy. check. Another claims it's the worst BD transfer by far. check. Another that equates grain with aliasing. check. and a reviewer that describes grain as "noise" in the same sentence. umm....yeah, got it.

    Too much grain, not enough grain.

    This is exactly why I ignore 99.99% of reviews and just evaluate the PQ myself, on my own system with my own eyes.

    The one thing that does concern me is the contrast level for this release. It's curious that RAH hasn't acknowledged this question.
     
  2. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,194
    Likes Received:
    5,003
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris

    To me, it looks much like the film that I first saw in 1984. Way back then there was occasional image softness, a good healthy dose of heavy grain in interiors, and effects that look very much like pre-CGI effects.

    My take is that "it is what it is" -- which is what it was. This isn't about the transfer, but rather the original elements.

    RAH
     
  3. Brian Borst

    Brian Borst Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0

    I have to agree with you. Too bad most people tend to forget that. I guess some people will go on and compare it to, like Blade Runner, and wonder why it doesn't look 'as good'.
     
  4. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,917
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    I agree. Five years ago I saw the 70mm blow-up in Seattle at the Cinerama Dome and it had grain the size of golfballs.


    I think so far it's handled grain better than DVD ever did. The use of codecs other than MPEG-2 helps.
     
  5. David (C)

    David (C) Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't BR get a complete 4k digital restoration?
     
  6. Brian Borst

    Brian Borst Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's why it probably looks better [​IMG] .
    But some people will either ask why they don't look the same as both are 'older movies'. Or worse, they're going to compare it to a film like 'How the West Was Won' and complain that that one looks far better.
    Or they want every older film to have a 4K digital restoration.
    Neither is going to happen.
     
  7. Mr. Pacino

    Mr. Pacino Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,194
    Likes Received:
    5,003
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris

    Films from the 1960s and beyond are generally not in need of restoration.
     
  9. BillyFeldman

    BillyFeldman Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    And people need to learn what these 70s and 80s films looked like - many shot with heavy diffusion (popular at the time) and cameramen pushing film like crazy in low-light situations - some of the release prints of certain films now considered classics, like Ghostbusters, were loaded with grain (especially films like Ghostbusters, which is loaded with opticals) and never looked that good theatrically. But that goes for many others from that era.

    Also, in that Digital Bits review of Dr. Strangelove, the guy says people are always surprised by how well black and white does on Blu-Ray. Why are people surprised? The handful of black and white films I've seen look fantastic and I say bring on more and more.
     
  10. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,340
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    People are surprised that B&W films look so good are of the (incorrect) mindset that B&W has less detail than color. What makes B&W so great in HD is that they can capture a lot more of the grey scale detail, which is usually dialed down for SD to reduce color banding.
     
  11. Jim_K

    Jim_K Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,090
    Likes Received:
    2

    Thanks,

    I saw this 3 times in the theaters back in 84 but for the life of me would not be able to recall details such as gain level, softness, etc. Probably because I never paid much attention to those types of details back then.

    Nor could I honestly say after all these years and viewings on cable, VHS, LD, DVD, etc which contrast level matches the original theatrical look.
    [​IMG]

    I will say the contrast level on the old transfer is more aesthetically pleasing to me FWIW.
     
  12. ManW_TheUncool

    ManW_TheUncool Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,961
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    The BK
    Real Name:
    ManW

    I never bought the new transfer DVD. But judging from the screencap comparison, I'd say neither one is all that pleasing to me. Something in between probably w/ more selective tweaking would've been much better, IMHO. Seems like they probably needed finer control over the contrast tweak -- no idea if that's all that feasible in the video transfer world, but would be simple enough to yield decent results in the digital still photography world.

    Of course, I'm not suggesting they do such contrast tweaks contrary to the original filmmakers' artistic intent. But considering the actual/practical issues surround this film (and others like it), I'd think the film could use better tweaks than what was done for that new transfer DVD.

    _Man_
     
  13. Craig_Ehr

    Craig_Ehr Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    1
    $5 off on Amazon with code: SONYPIC5
     
  14. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    7,973
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    Thanks ! Worked on Dr Strangelove too![​IMG]
     
  15. JayDerek

    JayDerek Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    the code 'ghostblu' also works for $5 off and is stackable w/ 'sonypic5'
     
  16. Jeff Robertson

    Jeff Robertson Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2000
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    13
    Real Name:
    Jeff Robertson
    Strange...it is not currently available for pre-order from Amazon.
     
  17. Craig_Ehr

    Craig_Ehr Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    1

    It appears that the stackable coupon maybe caught their attention...either that or so many people used the coupons to pre-order they've run thru their primary allocation already. I doubt Amazon intended those coupon codes to be stackable at any rate so I wouldn't be surprised if they only end up honoring one $5-off per order.
     
  18. Ethan Riley

    Ethan Riley Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    343
    Just pre-ordered it--I tried both coupons--amazon's only accepting one!
     
  19. Jeff Robertson

    Jeff Robertson Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2000
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    13
    Real Name:
    Jeff Robertson
    I can pre-order again also but I cannot for the life of me see where I enter the coupon code.


     
  20. Craig_Ehr

    Craig_Ehr Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    1

    It's on the payment page - same entry field for gift-certificates and promotional codes. You can also enter it on the final page when you confirm your order...there's a space for it there too.
     

Share This Page