Ghostbusters and Dr. Strangelove: First reviews

[spectator]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

I think the point was, maybe thats how it is meant to look, and the 1999 dvd could be the wrong transfer

Right. Hot highlights does not necessarily mean incorrect.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by spectator

Right. Hot highlights does not necessarily mean incorrect.

Exactly. I don’t believe this is a mistake at all. I think the intention here (and every version since the 1999 dvd) is to make the smoke appear more celestial, and the set more “heavenly” – which was almost certainly the intent by Kovacs in the first place. Anyone holding up the 1999 dvd as being in any way definitive is completely off base.

[pohsib]

As I've pointed out in many of my posts, I'm by no means the expert you guys are. Anyway, I've always thought the 1999 DVD looked dark. Am I the only one who actually likes a somewhat "brighter" image, as long as it isn't washed out?
To me, the lighter Gozer pic looks much better.

I'm excited about Ghostbusters on BR finally, been shaking the trees today hoping to find an early release somewhere.

[gwsat]

I am REALLY looking forward to seeing the classic Dr. Strangelove on BD. It is among the funniest movies ever made and may be the slyest. Because of the communist conspiracy that so long delayed its release, I need it soon in order to replenish and purify my precious bodily fluids.

[jd213]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

I think the point was, maybe thats how it is meant to look, and the 1999 dvd could be the wrong transfer

It seems that the director actually supervised the 1999 transfer: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1573842-post44.html

I don't know how reliable the stories are about the DP supervising the 2005 transfer are, but if the matte lines are more visible in the Blu-ray then I'd take any statements about the 2005 version being "how it was meant to be" with a grain of salt.

[Dex Robinson]

I think we put a lot if misplaced faith in the idea of director or DP "supervised transfers."

We assume that these guys are carefully checking every detail and making sure it conforms to a specific artistic vision and level of quality. Honestly, I think in lot of cases, the directors or DPs are signing off on a piece of work they did 20 or 30 years ago and likely have no specific rememberance of what they intended it to look like.

I recall the old Anchor Bay DVD of IGUANA that had a transfer supervised by director Monte Hellman. After it was shipped, somebody noted that a critical scene was missing from the film. Hellman's response was something like, "Hey, you're right...I never noticed it".

I think we'll have to let a film like GHOSTBUSTERS stand on it's own merits and see if we like the way it look. I'm hoping it looks GOOD because I don't know if we'll ever find out for sure what looks RIGHT.

[FitzRoy]

I like how "pro" reviewers advance their DNR agenda with sentences like "Grain haters beware! All kinds of swirling grain up in here!" Right, because DNR gets rid of it without destroying detail? Buy a clue, the best possible image is one that isn't filtered. The only way to remove grain without destroying detail is to go back in time and shoot the film with a digital camera.

I'm not too bothered by the smoke scene, because the original is absurdly dark and a bad decision. But the slimer change is a bit distracting. He looks ethereal in the first version, the revision makes him look like a frickin bright green cartoon.

[rou021]

Originally Posted by Damnationdoormat

Looking through boxes today...

I still have my copy on Beta too.

[Damnationdoormat]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I think we put a lot if misplaced faith in the idea of director or DP "supervised transfers."

We assume that these guys are carefully checking every detail and making sure it conforms to a specific artistic vision and level of quality. Honestly, I think in lot of cases, the directors or DPs are signing off on a piece of work they did 20 or 30 years ago and likely have no specific rememberance of what they intended it to look like.

Reminds of the countless Evil Dead treatments approved by Raimi/Campbell, even Anchor Bay's ridiculously color tweaked and cropped "Book of the Dead" hackjob.

[paku]

There's a great review and comparison for Ghostbusters at DVD Times. The Blu-ray is a bit contrasty, but highlight and shadow detail are improved over the 2005 DVD, the blooming of the fog is not as severe for example. Also the Slimer issue has clearly been corrected.

[Thunderbolt8]

Originally Posted by jd213

It seems that the director actually supervised the 1999 transfer: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1573842-post44.html

and in the dvdtimes review was claimed that kovacs supervised and approved this blu-ray transfer.

"t’s important to note that The Digital Bits are claiming that Sony have confirmed that Ghostbuster DoP László Kovács supervised and approved the Blu-ray transfer and its colour timing, which if true means that the 1999 DVD was not the be all and end all when it came to the matter of how Ghostbusters was intended to look, certainly you get the impression that the 1999 DVD is too warm as pink hues tend to dominate in the image, which has the effect of decreasing the variety of colour."

[dvdmike007]

Originally Posted by paku

There's a great review and comparison for Ghostbusters at DVD Times. The Blu-ray is a bit contrasty, but highlight and shadow detail are improved over the 2005 DVD, the blooming of the fog is not as severe for example. Also the Slimer issue has clearly been corrected.

It looks like they split the difference

[rdclark]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I think we put a lot if misplaced faith in the idea of director or DP "supervised transfers."

We assume that these guys are carefully checking every detail and making sure it conforms to a specific artistic vision and level of quality. Honestly, I think in lot of cases, the directors or DPs are signing off on a piece of work they did 20 or 30 years ago and likely have no specific rememberance of what they intended it to look like. ****

Amen. And we also need to keep in mind that being a film director or DP is no guarantee that they know anything about video technology, or about what's possible, or what a good video transfer even looks like. And if presented with a transfer that subjectively looks better than what they remember or have gotten used to seeing, it might be hard not to say "heck yeah, let's go with that!" Even if the "improvement" doesn't stand up to the sort of close scrutiny on a frame-by-frame basis that people on AVS might later subject it to.

There are plenty of film people, especially old school ones, who have never worked in video.

[dvdmike007]

Mine just turned up

[FoxyMulder]

I can't believe Sigourneys fabulous legs aren't on the back cover of this release.

[Matt_Stevens]

OK, can we have confirmation on how this scene is going to look?



The new transfer often looked superior to the older one, but at times it looked terrible. If this is the kind of thing we will still see, I'll stick with my DVHS copy, thank you very much (complete with remuxed 5.1! HAHA!).

[dvdmike007]

Its betewwn the two, can do an off screen shot of the scene later if you like

[spectator]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I think we put a lot if misplaced faith in the idea of director or DP "supervised transfers."

We assume that these guys are carefully checking every detail and making sure it conforms to a specific artistic vision and level of quality.

While you make an excellent point that we really don't know what level of video expertise a given supervising cinematographer has, I find it hilarious/troubling/pathetic/frightening that some folks around here still persist in claiming they know better than that cinematographer, anyway. Yes, the cinematographer is a somewhat unreliable source, but at least he was actually involved in the production and knew what look he was aiming for at some point. Maybe the cinematographer no longer best understands the intended look and how to achieve it, but there is, at least, a chance that he does. Whereas, what chance is there that, except in extremely unusual circumstances, some Blu-ray consumer has ever known those answers?

[dvdmike007]

Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens

OK, can we have confirmation on how this scene is going to look?



The new transfer often looked superior to the older one, but at times it looked terrible. If this is the kind of thing we will still see, I'll stick with my DVHS copy, thank you very much (complete with remuxed 5.1! HAHA!).

[sharkcohen]

Ok, I remember the smoke in that scene being blinding white when I saw this as a kid. Yah, I know, 'how could you possibly remember that from seeing it so long ago as a kid'. Well, I do.

[dvdmike007]

Would love to see what the criterion laserdisc looked like for the smoke, anyone have a copy to hand ?

Edit: looks blown out on the cover

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by spectator

While you make an excellent point that we really don't know what level of video expertise a given supervising cinematographer has, I find it hilarious/troubling/pathetic/frightening that some folks around here still persist in claiming they know better than that cinematographer, anyway. Yes, the cinematographer is a somewhat unreliable source, but at least he was actually involved in the production and knew what look he was aiming for at some point. Maybe the cinematographer no longer best understands the intended look and how to achieve it, but there is, at least, a chance that he does. Whereas, what chance is there that, except in extremely unusual circumstances, some Blu-ray consumer has ever known those answers?

I will take a cinematographer approved transfer any day of the week over one where some guy working for the studio has set everything on autopilot.

So i agree 100% with your post.

Now with directors like Friedkin revisiting their work it's a whole different kettle of fish but i will take this transfer as approved by the cinematographer and be happy with it. They needed to put Sigourneys legs on the back cover though just like the 1999 release.

[dvdmike007]

This is a great looking disc BTW, its better than I have seen the movie in HD over the years

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I think we put a lot if misplaced faith in the idea of director or DP "supervised transfers."

Fair enough. But if we can't fall back on a director or DoP to approve their work - obvious Friedkin-like insanity aside - then who does decide what a movie should or shouldn't look like? You? Me?

And Foxy, we get it. As gorgeous as Sigourney is in Ghostbusters, you don't have to mention her legs in every post. Well, not unless you post a picture, obviously.

[John Ballentine]

Geeeze. I might still have that Criterion ($99.99) Laserdisc (CAV w/ 3 poorly timed side breaks)...

[Josh Z]

I believe Ivan Reitman was critical of the Criterion LD transfer when that disc was released.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Fair enough. But if we can't fall back on a director or DoP to approve their work - obvious Friedkin-like insanity aside - then who does decide what a movie should or shouldn't look like? You? Me?

And Foxy, we get it. As gorgeous as Sigourney is in Ghostbusters, you don't have to mention her legs in every post. Well, not unless you post a picture, obviously.

Yes well since you mention it. Here's an artistic pic. It must be artistic as it's in black and white and contains legs.

Is that edge enhancement around her lower body ?

[KMFDMvsEnya]

I've only heard that the DP approved of the 1999 DVD release not the one found on the the BR and the DVD rerelease. In comparison of the two the 1999 looks darker but from the current pix of the BR it looks like it is on the other extreme. I'd prefer a happy medium between the two.

Guess I'll find out in a week or two when I get my copy from Amazon.

Best Regards
KvE

[vanilla rice]

While you make an excellent point that we really don't know what level of video expertise a given supervising cinematographer has,

remember the QT-approved Reservoir Dogs DVD transfer years back? everybody pretty much agreed that it sucked.

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8

and in the dvdtimes review was claimed that kovacs supervised and approved this blu-ray transfer.

"t’s important to note that The Digital Bits are claiming that Sony have confirmed that Ghostbuster DoP László Kovács supervised and approved the Blu-ray transfer and its colour timing"

The GHOSTBUSTERS cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs passed away in July of 2007.