What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ Ghostbusters -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Jim_K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2000
Messages
10,087


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.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,271
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
 

Brian Borst

Screenwriter
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,137

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'.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
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.
 

Brian Borst

Screenwriter
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,137

That's why it probably looks better :D .
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.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,271
Real Name
Robert Harris

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

BillyFeldman

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
592
Real Name
Billy Feldman
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.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,622
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.
 

Jim_K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2000
Messages
10,087

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.
[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/e/e3/htf_imgcache_42549.jpeg] [/url]

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

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,877
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_
 

ToEhrIsHuman

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
439
Location
San Diego, CA USA
Real Name
Craig Ehr

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.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,280
Real Name
Ethan Riley
Just pre-ordered it--I tried both coupons--amazon's only accepting one!
 

Jeff Robertson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 4, 2000
Messages
502
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.


 

ToEhrIsHuman

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
439
Location
San Diego, CA USA
Real Name
Craig Ehr

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,103
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
1
Top