or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Ghostbusters comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ghostbusters comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 208
steel_breeze makes an excellent point as well which ties in with my post above. We are watching "film" on video. I would think and hope we all want as film like or close to film like as possible, but the reality is BD is still video and compressed.
post #32 of 208
Thread Starter 


post #33 of 208
As a GB fan for 25+ years I was let down by this transfer, they could have cleaned it up a bit more. I don't mind the brightened pictures, but filter some of that excessive grain, noise or whatever the hell it is because quite frankly it was distracting.
post #34 of 208
That shot is amazing.
post #35 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjhu77 View Post

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs Disc 1 wasn't the movie only.

ok. not all the supps were on disc 2 but all that other stuff added up to very little space on the disc from what people who examined the contents said and there was no reason the better looking encoode from the sb disc couldn't have been on it too. it was a gimmick to sell 2 versions to the diehards. it should have just been one 2 disc set like gladiator was with a killer pic, audio on disc 1 even with the commentaries... the pq on the non sb spidey 2 disc was really poor compared to the other transfers of the time.
post #36 of 208
I think that last shot of Slimer in the proton stream shows there is significant difference between all three version. The BD is amazing and I have little doubt that this was from an all new transfer.

The shot of Venkman giving Egon the candy bar clearly show the detail difference. You can clearly see the "Crunch" bar label.
post #37 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post


The shot of Venkman giving Egon the candy bar clearly show the detail difference. You can clearly see the "Crunch" bar label.

What's weird is it's much clearer in the original DVD than in the 2nd one that was done years later. You can read "crunch" in the original but not in the 2nd...
post #38 of 208
Sweet, looks like Sony tweaked the BD to look almost right. In post #4 the grass is a natural shade of green unlike the DVD versions, and in post #5 the contrast was adjusted to not blow-out the bricks in the pavement.
post #39 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG View Post

As a GB fan for 25+ years I was let down by this transfer, they could have cleaned it up a bit more. I don't mind the brightened pictures, but filter some of that excessive grain, noise or whatever the hell it is because quite frankly it was distracting.

Thanks for the glowing comments. I hope to hear more great reviews from you about not screwing with the D(NR) machine on autopilot. Go Sony for throwing that machine away. Now just convince Paramount to do the same and Ill be anxious to hear similar reviews about them too.
post #40 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by troglobite View Post

Now just convince Paramount to do the same and Ill be anxious to hear similar reviews about them too.

Ironically, the two movies I bought and watched this week were GHOSTBUSTERS and FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 (Paramount). I watched the latter yesterday and I thought Paramount did a fantastic job. Very high bit rate AVC encode with proper looking grain and no detectable EE or DNR.
post #41 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

The shot of Venkman giving Egon the candy bar clearly show the detail difference. You can clearly see the "Crunch" bar label.

You've...you've earned it...

That shot comparison is a HUGE difference in quality, the detail of everything in that shot just kills the DVD. Very happycited to get this.

That said, I worry about the excessive grain people are reporting. Grain that is a visual defect needs to GO. Grain that is detail needs to stay.

Look at the candy bar shot - to the right is a woman in the distance in red. In the middle shot, you cannot even tell there are vertical stakes in the fence in the intervening ground!!! The BD clearly shows it. Anyone saying there isn't a night and day difference needs to be shot with a positron collider...
post #42 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex Robinson View Post

Ironically, the two movies I bought and watched this week were GHOSTBUSTERS and FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 (Paramount). I watched the latter yesterday and I thought Paramount did a fantastic job. Very high bit rate AVC encode with proper looking grain and no detectable EE or DNR.

Good to hear. I hope that means when a branching director's cuts and theatrical versions of the Star Trek films come out the same will be true. Ghostbusters proves grain isn't the Devil and is ok.

Now let's hope Labyrinth from Sony in September looks good an unmolested too!
post #43 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

Grain that is a visual defect needs to GO. Grain that is detail needs to stay.
.

Such a thing exists?
post #44 of 208
Considering all the absolute crap catalog titles that have hit bluray of late in regards to PQ I thought the detail was very good.
post #45 of 208
This one is looking really great. I can't wait until my disc arrives.
post #46 of 208
Xylon, I'd be interested in seeing a frame from the scene where Bill first enters the dark kitchen in Sigourney's apartment, just after he goes through the door.
post #47 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Sweet, looks like Sony tweaked the BD to look almost right. In post #4 the grass is a natural shade of green unlike the DVD versions, and in post #5 the contrast was adjusted to not blow-out the bricks in the pavement.

They're still way too hot but you're right it's better than the totally blown out dvd.

The transfer looks excellent in detail. I just can't get excited about the brightened look. It's the audio equivalent of playing everything loud.
post #48 of 208
Yeah, it's definitely nice to see that the grain hasn't been decimated. But this is Sony, AFAIK they haven't touched DNR or anything of the sort ever (and definitely not since they moved to BD50/AVC vs. BD25/MPEG2). Keep up the good work guys!
post #49 of 208
i also don't really like the bumped up contrast... but the increase in detail (except those areas where the bumped contrast causes details to be lost) is great

i'll wait until i can catch it for $15 or less
post #50 of 208
I just watched this release and it looks great.
post #51 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladic View Post

doesn't look like much of an improvement

You're joking, right?
post #52 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG View Post

filter some of that excessive grain.

Yes filter that grain and lets also sharpen it a bit more and make it look like Crank.
post #53 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG View Post

As a GB fan for 25+ years I was let down by this transfer, they could have cleaned it up a bit more. I don't mind the brightened pictures, but filter some of that excessive grain, noise or whatever the hell it is because quite frankly it was distracting.



whatever it is? it's needed to have the detail in the picture
post #54 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

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.

I thought it looked pretty darn good on my 92 in FP set-up, and I agree about the staircase scene, which is the only scene that appeared blown out/contrast boosted (on purpose)? There were a few spotty scenes peppered throughout, but I found the granular look at times reminiscent of CE3K - another stellar Sony Blu-ray in this case photographed by a different Hungarian master - Vilmos Zsigmond. In particular, the scene where Roy Neary is being interviewed by Lacombe has a pretty thick, noisy appearance in the darker recesses of the frame.

Very pleased with the disc. If the grain seems that intrusive, check your monitor's settings - I was really expecting a "crushingly ugly disc" as one Internet blogger told me (expecting something like the new French Connection disc), and in fact I found it quite beautiful and a very, very pleasant surprise.
post #55 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

What's weird is it's much clearer in the original DVD than in the 2nd one that was done years later. You can read "crunch" in the original but not in the 2nd...

Among other well documented reasons, the softer DNR'd look of the re-release was reason enough for me to skip a double dip at the time.

The Blu-ray is a fantastic upgrade.

I saw the Blu before I saw Xylon's pics here and one of the things I noticed was the wealth of detail in the optical effects - the Slimer screen grab above is a great example, but you'll notice quite a bit of stuff you've never seen before on home video.
post #56 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmishFury View Post

i also don't really like the bumped up contrast... but the increase in detail (except those areas where the bumped contrast causes details to be lost) is great

i'll wait until i can catch it for $15 or less

Then... go get it right now? It's $20 at retail and there's a $5 coupon that anyone can download and print off. Or get it at Amazon and use the SONYPIC5 coupon.
post #57 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

...the staircase scene, which is the only scene that appeared blown out/contrast boosted (on purpose)?

Yes...and I also think that a case can be made that it was on purpose.

As I've said, I have no special knowledge of what was intended but there is a legitimate argument that it could have been intentional (not necessarily the correct argument...just a legitimate argument).

The blown highlights on the mist completely obscures the physical presence of the steps. It gives the scene a more ethereal look as if things are floating.

I have absolutely no idea if that was the intention but that scene "works" fine for me because the look fits the scene...even if it doesn't fit some earlier presentations of the movie.
post #58 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

I found the granular look at times reminiscent of CE3K - another stellar Sony Blu-ray in this case photographed by a different Hungarian master - Vilmos Zsigmond. In particular, the scene where Roy Neary is being interviewed by Lacombe has a pretty thick, noisy appearance in the darker recesses of the frame.

Very pleased with the disc. If the grain seems that intrusive, check your monitor's settings - I was really expecting a "crushingly ugly disc" as one Internet blogger told me (expecting something like the new French Connection disc), and in fact I found it quite beautiful and a very, very pleasant surprise.

I love grain, and I love the "organic" grain look of the CE3K disc--it's one of my very favorites. I even watch the 1991 "director's cut" of BLADE RUNNER instead of the "final cut" 'cuz I like to see the grain of the optical effects--no kidding!

...but a lot of this GHOSTBUSTER "grain" looks like digital noise instead of photo-chemical silver halide crystals swimmin' around in the soup. I would love it if some fellow grain-enthusiasts would take a look at the scene where Dan Aykroyd first shows up in the crazy car that he's just bought, when Bill Murray is standing outside on the sidewalk and reacts to it. The grain looks very unnatural to my eyes... and that's not the only scene; it's just the most apparent.

At any rate, I'm not trying to condemn this disc. I thought the overall presentation felt pretty great. But I've been through the digital intermediate process myself--several times, and I know that if it's not carefully managed--sometimes with a very sparing use of DNR--you can pick up some non-organic digital noise along with the natural film-grain that you're trying to preserve. I honestly feel like this has happened here, to a certain extent.

EDIT: With many years experience backing me up, I can guarantee you that this film would not look this grainy if you projected a photo-chemical print. I guess that's what's bugging me; 'cuz I think the BD should re-create the theatrical experience as close as possible.
post #59 of 208
If people don't like the grain, they can use the DNR feature of their display or their player. That's why it is there. I am glad Sony chose to not use DNR for all of us. I wish the rest of the studios were as considerate.
post #60 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

If people don't like the grain, they can use the DNR feature of their display or their player. That's why it is there. I am glad Sony chose to not use DNR for all of us. I wish the rest of the studios were as considerate.

I really want to make sure my opinion is clear; I think there's a lot of misunderstanding:

--I'm unequivocally in favor of preserving the organic film grain and fine detail present on the original film; DNR should never be used to lessen the film grain

HOWEVER

--when you digitally scan a negative or other element from an original photo-chemical capture, you get some digital noise and an unnatural enhancement of the grain that would not be present in a projection of a photo-chemical print. This has to be carefully managed so you preserve the grain yet do not have an unnaturally "noisy" product.

THOSE DOING IT "RIGHT":
--CE3K, BLADE RUNNER, any Criterion release; just look at these and you'll see the glorious, swirling, organic film grain

In my opinion, what we're seeing on GHOSTBUSTERS is glorious, swirling, organic film grain PLUS a fair bit of "new" digital noise.

Please do not mistake me for a "grain hater"; nothing could be further from the truth!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Ghostbusters comparison *PIX*