Ghostbusters Special Edition (Merged)? - Page 9

The box has misprint 1.33
The case has actual 2.35

Buy it!

They are both Widescreen. The box is a misprint.

Also, in the back of the box, "widescreen" is listed as one of Ghostbusters' special features.

Maybe that's there just to add to the confusion

I picked up a copy today, got home, saw 1.33 and thought 'Oh damn, I grabbed the wrong one'. Then I remembered the confusion when the specs and art were released and knew it was just that the box was wrong and I was good to go.

Won't be the first time Columbia's confused anyone with misprints.

my box has the uncorrected info; GB1=1:33 fullframe.
But it is indeed 16:9 widescreen.

Thanks, guys. Guess I'll be picking this up on the way home tonight.

anyone watch the ghostbusters cartoons that are on the ghostbusters 2 dvd? one of the voices sounds very much like a fat cat.

JACOB

This was posted on the DavisDVD.com website back in June:
Ghostbusters [update]

Hang up your phones and stop typing those angry letters. As soon as you guys started inundating Sony with your concerns regarding the fullscreen Ghostbusters, word has come that the film indeed will be presented in its original 2.40:1 anamorphic glory. I had suspected that the problem may have been due to a mix-up with the pre-release information and the back cover artwork assembly. But a combination of (incorrect) info from the phone rep along with Sony's press site led to yesterday's call to arms. So, once again, let's all relax because all is right with Venkman and the boys. The Ghostbusters Gift Set is back on my pre-order list. Thanks go to everyone who called and wrote with their concerns.

Ghostbusters

It seems that the back cover art I posted a few days ago for the upcoming Ghostbusters 1 & 2 Gift Set caused quite a stir among readers and fans. Specifically, if you look closely in the spec grid at the bottom of the packaging it looks like one of the features is listed as being "1.33:1 Fullscreen." Well, I did some digging around and called Sony to find out what this was all about. Strap in, kids. The first Ghostbusters film is being presented fullscreen only. Yes, you read that right. The sequel is anamorphic, but the original is pan & scan.

For the life of me, I can't seem to wrap my head around this decision. The press release states that the films feature new transfers - so why is one of Sony's crown jewels being short shrifted with a fullscreen-only presentation? Beats me. The person I talked to didn't have any explanation either other than to give me the customer care line. So maybe we should all call that number and let them know what a terrible decision they've made. I, for one, was going to buy the Gift Set. But now, no way.

I know a lot of people are going to be upset about this, so I urge you to be calm and respectful when calling Sony. The phone numbers I was given are 310-244-4000 and 1-800-860-2878. I called the "800" number and the phone tree doesn't seem to lead to any customer complaint option, so you might want to try the first number instead. You can also email them with your thoughts at sphe_customer_service@spe.sony.com. Remember, there's a better chance of fixing this mistake if we all act like civilized people.

I agree that we should all be civilized when voicing complaints. But on the other hand maybe studios will start getting the message that we will never tolerate even the possibility of showing movies in Pan & Scan instead of its true OAR. Printing error or not, there shouldn't even be a Full Screen option available. Even I was hesitant on buying Ghostbusters at first because of this misprint, but thanks to you guys I feel assured.

Yeah, the late Lorenzo Music was the orignal voice of Peter Venkman in The Real Ghostbusters, as well as the voice of Garfield in Garfield and Friends. Interesting to note that Bill Murray, the original Venkman, went on to voice the cinematic Garfield.

I just got the set today. I haven't watched the movies yet except for a few select scenes. I didn't have the original DVDs except for the VHS that came out the same time (15th Anniversary edition) so this is the first time I've seen GhostBusters in its OAR. So I am satisfied with this purchase. A great price too.

I also watched the two animated episodes. The first one is obviously on the earlier episodes as the animation really shows while the second one is probably the later ones as its much smoother and has the GBII character designs for the secondary characters.

Except it was never meant to look like that. This is Ghostbusters (1984), not a Technicolor musical.

So both discs offer boosted colors and contrast, the same extras minus trailers. Still no extras for GBII. Oh, and it comes in a hideous green box. Yeah, this is really special.

Mark, I'm not sure what you think Ghostbusters was meant to look like, but its suppose to look the way it does on the new release. In fact yesterday on a morning show interview with Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman, the director revealed that he was actually allowed to participate in the creation of this transfer, and it finally has his approval. Just one viewing and it's obvious the colors are much more natural, instead of overlayed in pink and blue hues. I understand the extras are more important to you, and there isn't anything here to really warrant your attention. But it's worth noting that there actually is some new content here. Aside from the T.V. shows, there are actually additional behind the scene stills in the production galleries, not included in the original release. It's not much more, but it shows some effort. I suspect there was some work done for what was initially a more elaborate set that got downsized.

If the screenshots in this thread are indeed what the new transfer for GB looks like than Ivan needs to stay out of the telecine suite. No previous transfer of GB has looked so obviously contrasty and color saturated. It reminds me of the hideous boosted colors in the Star Wars Trilogy set. Someone else also mentioned the Divimax edition of Halloween. Complete disregard of how the orginal movie was timed.

The new bonus content is also disappointing to hear about. After all these years and we can't even get one extra for GBII. That's kind of funny and sad at the same time.

Ok, I keep my old DVDs of GHOSTBUSTERS 1 & 2... They do fine.

I got suckered into upgrading this based on the screen shots. I was shocked to see how bad it looked when I actually put it in my DVD player. There's a lot more grain present on this release. There are just as many dust spots on the print, if not more. Finally, there's an annoying flicker effect that can be seen in many scenes during the film. Check out the goblin statue when Dana's cab pulls up (chapter 6) or the hotel walls when Slimer is first revealed (chapter 12). Ghostbusters 2 does look a bit better but I'm upset that I wasted my time getting this. I'll be selling this new edition.

Keep your old Ghostbusters disc.

Hm. What kind of TV & DVD player do you have?

It looked better than it ever has before on my calibrated Sony KD34XBR960, Onkyo 802 DVD in 480p.

Yeah Matt, I noticed the grain and dirt too, it was distracting. But it's a result of the improved clarity, the grain and dirt was just as present in the previous release, it was just harder to notice because the picture was so soft. Also interesting is that now the colors of the grey uniforms in the first film actually match those in the second film. Nice and grey all around instead of that weird purple.

sounds like a normal cthv job same transfer as the first and a bit of a play on an color editor just like the superbit discs.

They need to make a new hd master

Care to qualify that Mark? If Dustin is correct then we finally have it looking how the director prefers. Sure, the appearance of grain has perceptively increased (it is film, after all) and other artefacts are more visible (I wonder how the optical shots have held up?) but issues like these are to be expected with such a bright, sharp transfer.

The old R1 release of GB1 was so indistinct, with it's dull colour timing and soft detail. It's bugged me for years - and now I can finally see an all-time favourite of mine as I've always wanted to see it. It's Ghostbusters - you want dark and dingy, go spin Se7en...

Just picked this up yesterday. I had not purchased the earlier versions in hopes of a "Special Edition" of some sort. Would've liked to see the trailers as well, but, oh well...$12.99 at Best Buy...can't beat that for both movies...

Anybody know if there will be an official HTF review of this release?

Here's a page of some more screen comparisons that really show the improvements of the new transfer. It also disproves the "they just turned up the brightness" argument, as many shots sport deeper blacks than before. Even with the heavy compression of the jpegs you can make out a tone of added detail.

http://www.realghostbusters.net/gb1.html

View a 35mm print in the theater and come back here saying it looks accurate. From the screenshots it doesn't even look like a new transfer, just contrast boosting, crushed blacks, and added color saturation. It might be pleasing to your eyes but it just looks amatuerish, especially the blown highlights. The Superbit version doesn't look that much better though.

I've gone to great lengths to see Ghostbusters on the big screen three times Mark. I've seen two old prints of it, that were purely for fun. And I've had the chance to see a newly mastered print that I was looking forward to for technical reasons. It still wasn't that good. For a current print to be able to accurately display the film, Sony would have to pay to have the 20+ year old film restored. If they can't pay for new extra features on the DVD, I doubt they're going to do major restoration work anytime soon. All we'll get is digital restoration...for DVD's like this one. This is a small re-release on DVD, if you don't want it fine. But I'd appreciate it if you would stop complaining about how bad the transfer is when you haven't even watched it.

hmmm, can't wait to watch this projected on 185" based on screenshots.

So... is the new transfer of GB faithful to those subpar prints you saw or not?

I would've gladly rushed out to pick up this boxset if it offered anything new. You know, like a commentary for GBII, or a deleted scene. Eeven a still picture of a deleted scene. Just some effort. Instead we get blown highlights that mask detail. I don't see how anyone would be happy about that.

I haven't popped in the new GBII yet, but I hope that isn't the case. The uniforms in the sequel were definitely made from a darker material. It was a dark grey.

I'd have liked some good extras too. Way back on page 3 or 4 of this thread there is an excerpt of an interview with Reitman done back in May about DVD commentaries. He mentions recording new ones for both of the GB's. And there was talk about a year and a half ago of a 20'th anniversary set that was suppose to come out late last year. Some think that is what this is, just released late. But I think Sony dropped plans for that all together, got this new transfer ready for its looming Blu-Ray format and decided to go ahead and use it for an up to date DVD release, as the older editions have been out of print for a while now. It seems that because they included the previous features, many perceive they have dropped the ball. But had they released the package with just the films, then the focus would have only been on the new transfers, and seen as a classier release. So really the disappointment comes from not getting what all fans want, instead of actually being disappointed with what IS on the disc.

We both seem to know the movie well, so I'll tell you, Mark,(or anyone who's very familiar with the previous looks) exactly what to expect when watching this new one. When the film starts and you see the shots of the library or Dana's apartment building, it's a little off putting. It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't feel right because it's different. And it doesn't seem better. But this is only apparent in daytime shots, with natural lighting. When they are inside the library it doesn't look that way. By the time Ray buys the Ambulance this feeling goes away, and by the time the movie is over the improvements will be clear.

The previous release didn't have a full scale of contrast. Where 0 is pure black and 100 is pure white, the old transfer only showcased a 10-90 scale. About the blow-out. To be clear it is only that top 5-10 percent that gets blown out, not just a blanket increase of brightness. This has clearly good effects, and some that may or may not be bad. It makes glowing objects actually glow with light, like the proton streams and ghosts. Take a look at that link I gave a couple of posts up and look at the scene by the Containment Unit. At first I thought the frames were mismatched because there are two red lights that are on in the new transfer, and they're off in the old one. Then I realized that the frames were the same, you just couldn't tell the lights were on in the old one because the top end was too low. Now, the only problems that may exist with the change are the ones we saw in the screencaps in this thread, like the Ecto-1/Ambulance daylight shot. There is a loss of picture detail there that we saw in some of the older releases. This may be wrong, it may not. It is possible that is how it is suppose to look. For example there are many films that will showcase a nude actress in the dark, so you can't make out their naughty bits. Turn the brightness up and you can make out everything, including "pasties" that cover-up the actress, that clearly we aren't suppose to see. So, just because the detail is in the print, doesn't mean we're meant to be able to see it. I can't make the call on whether that is the case here or not, but I can tell you that the number of shots affected in this way don't add up to more than a few minutes worth of footage at the most. There are few scenes that take place in broad daylight, and this just highlights that fact. It's the only thing that can really be considered a negative aspect, and if so it's a very small one.

As far as the comparison to the film prints, I don't know what to tell you. I loved being able to watch it on the big screen and had to travel several hundred miles to be able to do so. They were experiences for me that I'll never forget. But no film thats two decades old is going to hold up without some kind of work done to it. I'd say it was the way it was meant to be experienced, but not the way it was meant to be seen.

I don't think you can go wrong with these, especially since you only end up paying 7 dollars per movie. The booklet wasn't very good by the way, but does have some pictures never published before. I bought it, knowing full well that I'll be keeping the previous releases, as well as my old VHS copies. And that I'll be getting it on Blu-Ray (probably within a year or two). Eventually Sony will give us some new features, but its always about the movie for me. DVD has spoiled us; with so many special editions they aren't that special anymore.

EDIT: They had two sets of uniforms in the sequel Greg, the original colored ones from the first film, and the dark ones that were only seen in the montage, and used for the poster.

It's still incorrect. Film isn't like video where there's a below black and above white level that's not meant to be seen on a calibrated set. Screenshots from this new transfer clearly show a loss of detail in the highlights, like the detail on the police car's roof. I'm not going to say the previous transfer was perfect (too much DNR) but at least it preserved these details and had no color bleeding issues.

You're right though, I'm going to have to buy this set to compare for myself. I just wish I could be more enthusiastic about buying the same two movies again together.