Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
On that subject he is a film restoration expert and says this looks good.
Is he wrong ? Maybe he is but i would think he knows a damn sight more about film than you or i put together.
You assume too much, but that's fine, this is not the issue at hand.
As for the rest of your post: you're correct, this argument will remain unsettled until we hear from Reitman himself. It's actually one of the smarter posts I've read in this discussion. So, we'll leave it as it stands.
If you don't see how the second picture makes the grain look digitized, then our definition of what constitutes as proper film grain is obviously different. And again, we'll leave it at that. But frankly, I'd much rather trust my eyes and the ten years of experience backing it up than listen to Harris (another person who's done little to impress with his assessments).
But one minor nitpick; this line of logic, "if the filmmakers approve, then it must be right", implies that Friedkin did a superb job on 'French Connection' and that Lucas did everything right to the original 'Star Wars' trilogy. After all, both filmmakers defend their "restorations" as always being the intended look. I know that the work done on those films is quite drastic, and some may not even see the connection. But the point is in the fact that these films were approved by the original makers and according to the prescribed logic, we, as fans, are forced to accept it with no say in its appreciation. Arguing in defense of the alterations done to 'Ghostbusters', but reject the work done to 'French Connection' and the 'Star Wars' trilogy (all three of which have been approved by their creators) is illogical, ineffective, wishy-washy, want to have their cake and eat it too, or whatever aphorism that comes to mind.
Yes, 'Ghostbusters' has never been looked so good and detailed, but it will always come down to "what if, given the proper restoration". I'd like to quote the comments from steel_breeze, as it's a well-written impression similar to my own, and call it quits in the argument on my part:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze
Let me preface all my following comments by saying that I'm a professional cinematographer who has shot 17 feature films; I've gone thru the photochemical color-timing process, as well as the Digital Intermediate process (at top houses like Efilm and Modern VideoFilm); I'm watching on a 92-inch 2.35:1 Carada BW screen, projected from a Panasonic PT-AE1000U which I've calibrated myself to be just about perfect...
Having finally watched GHOSTBUSTERS in its entirety, I don't think the overall contrast level is terribly objectionable, although it is definitively more "crunchy" than you could get in the photo-chemical realm. The main sequence that stands out as being "overly-cooked", however, is the much-talked-of Gozer showdown on the top of the building.
The simple face is: if you were watching a photo-chemical print, there would be detail in the white smoke that's billowing down the staircase. On this BD, it is completely blown-out and devoid of any detail. The other shots that are completely un-filmlike are the closeups of Dan Aykroyd when he's being asked "Are you a god". You'll see that the bright spots on his face have "clipped" in a way that only video can. Again, on straight film, this bright area would "roll off" in a much more natural way and not be "white holes" of no detail.
I'm a major MAJOR supporter of grain-preservation on BD, but I must admit that even I was surprised by some of the heavy grain levels in this release. At times, it looked more like electronic noise left over from the scanning process than organic film grain (to my eyes, anyway). I'm sure it wasn't helped by the boosted contrast levels.
EDIT: For excessive "noise" that doesn't look like grain, check out the scene when Bill Murray reacts to the hearse that Dan Aykroyd just drove up in. Weird textures goin' on.
Overall... it is the best it's ever looked on home video, but it definitely could have been better. Since "could've's" are useless, I'll enjoy this release 'til the next one comes along.