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 3

post #61 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'm telling you with all the reviews out there in internet land making such a deal about the grain on this release it's only going to lead to more DNR.

Too many reviewers making a fuss about grain.

I do understand what Steel_Breeze is saying though but even if this release contains more grain than it should for the opening twenty minutes or so i would rather take that than the alternative of DNRing the image. Of course they could probably have spent a little more time fine tuning it but i guess time ran out and costs increased.
post #62 of 208
I too would rather just take this "noisy" release in stride instead of making too much "noise" of my own that leads to excessive DNR. I was just trying to differentiate digital noise from glorious film grain--there absolutely IS a difference... but I'll shut up now, so my well-intentioned ruminations don't lead to evil.
post #63 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

--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.

Since on new transfers pretty much everyone uses the same few telecines/scanners and they are all quite uptodate why would some transfers have this digital noise and others not? Or are we talking about grain aliasing? In that case machines with internal 4K or higher scanning elements would have an advantage over native 2K machines.
The appearance of grain on Blu Rays is an interesting subject and complex. Not only it depends on the properties of the film element and the original scan but also all the post processing applied and finally the compression for the disc. And then the display adds its own characteristics too. Some grainy examples I find rather unattractive looking too, and other examples not at all.
post #64 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

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!

Apologies steel_breeze, my comment was not intended to seem directed at you, I was only speaking generally.
post #65 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I'm telling you with all the reviews out there in internet land making such a deal about the grain on this release it's only going to lead to more DNR.

Too many reviewers making a fuss about grain.

I agree. I think these people more than anyone else are responsible for the DNR mess on so many catalog titles.

I'm really glad to see Sony did the right thing on this release. They seem to be more driven on original intent and principle instead of trying to make reviewers and gamers happy.
post #66 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel_breeze View Post

--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.

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

I think the slightly excessive look of the grain, and/or noise, is simply due to the altering of the picture. Brightness, Contrast, and other things were boosted. This makes the grain stand out more, and enhances it just as much as the other picture elements the contrast boosting and other enhancements do. On grainier film stocks the effects is amplified even more. Same with digital camera pictures if anyone wants to easily try this on their own.
post #67 of 208
Quote:

very nice work on touching up the special fx there.. although on the strong side, it's not too much to look completely out of place.

actually.. i suppose i should wait until i see the full motion video before making assumptions.
post #68 of 208
Thread Starter 
post #69 of 208
I like that the color scheme looks more like the original CS dvd than the pumped up WE. It's also opened up slightly on the bottom. So good job on that scene.
post #70 of 208
I think the colors and contrast usually look pretty natural in this release. Only the climax looks a little funky, but it could be argued it was meant to be that way. I saw a bit of wavering a few times, but detail is strong and the picture is film-like. I can't see anything to argue about. It's a shame so many so-called "reviewers" just don't get it.
post #71 of 208
Just watched (brand new Panasonic TH-65PZ850U) and I have to say thought it looked great. It's exactly how I remembered it when I saw it in the theater, down to the "transparent" visual effects of the demon dogs and the obvious matte shots that had that grainy look that was mentioned in most of the Harryhausen films. The Gozer scene did jump out at me also a big jump in contrast considering what the lighting had been previously but it didn't bother me. Sound left a little to be desired, agree that some of the center dialogue dropped off from time to time (always makes me wonder is something wrong with my system) but overall glad I bought it.
post #72 of 208
I personally didn't think it was too bad, just not as clear as i'm use to on Blu Ray.
post #73 of 208
I think it looks wonderful. I thoroughly enjoyed the viewing. All the time realizing that this is a grainy 1984 film, I think it reproduced what people saw in the theater 25 years ago to the best ability of 50GB of space. Great show.
post #74 of 208
I remember seeing this at the drive-in the sound was over the radio in fantastic mono and the screen had rust marks all over but it was the family all together and I was fourteen and it was still a blast. This presentation is fantastic and definitely better than my drive-in viewing. I would suggest if you like this film to go out and get it, you will not be disappointed.

Later Everyone
Brian
post #75 of 208
I picked this up yesterday and watched it with my kids last night. Looks better than I ever remember seeing it, although I didn't see it in the theater.
post #76 of 208
I finally watched this disc last night. I'll be honest, I thought it looked like complete garbage.

This forum tends to be so concerned with the hunt for digital artifacts, that those overwhelm all other aesthetic considerations. If a disc has the tiniest bit of edge ringing or DNR, that's it, it's the worst Blu-ray ever. No other aspect of picture quality matters. If one pixel is out of place, it's the end of the world.

Ghostbusters represents the opposite end of that spectrum. It doesn't have many overt digital artifacts like e.e. or DNR. Thus people have pronounced it to be a great and "film-like" transfer. Hooray, we can see grain!

And yet, if you step back and look at it from an aesthethic perspective, this disc is just plain ugly. It's faded and dull, and overwhelmed in grain that does not at all look natural. Between the color balance that's too blue and the contrast that's been boosted, flesh tones are almost completely washed out. It looks like you're watching a TV that's been set for the "Cool" color temperature mode.

The picture is dull, drab, soft, flat and ugly. Does it look "film-like"? Maybe if we're talking about a 3rd or 4th generation dupe print.

I know that Ghostbusters hasn't had a great history on home video. Maybe this is, by some measure, the "best" that it's looked on video. But I still have a very hard time believing that this is the movie that Laszlo Kovacs shot. Even accounting for the photographic trends and film stocks in use at the time, this disc looks well below par.

And as bad as it looks, it sounds even worse. The high end of the audio has been rolled off so much that there's practically none left. It's all mid-tones and some artificially boomy bass. It sounds hollow and flat and just awful.

Even for the $9.99 I paid, this disc is my biggest disappointment of the year.
post #77 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I finally watched this disc last night. I'll be honest, I thought it looked like complete garbage.

This forum tends to be so concerned with the hunt for digital artifacts, that those overwhelm all other aesthetic considerations. If a disc has the tiniest bit of edge ringing or DNR, that's it, it's the worst Blu-ray ever. No other aspect of picture quality matters. If one pixel is out of place, it's the end of the world.

Ghostbusters represents the opposite end of that spectrum. It doesn't have many overt digital artifacts like e.e. or DNR. Thus people have pronounced it to be a great and "film-like" transfer. Hooray, we can see grain!

And yet, if you step back and look at it from an aesthethic perspective, this disc is just plain ugly. It's faded and dull, and overwhelmed in grain that does not at all look natural. Between the color balance that's too blue and the contrast that's been boosted, flesh tones are almost completely washed out. It looks like you're watching a TV that's been set for the "Cool" color temperature mode.

The picture is dull, drab, soft, flat and ugly. Does it look "film-like"? Maybe if we're talking about a 3rd or 4th generation dupe print.

I know that Ghostbusters hasn't had a great history on home video. Maybe this is, by some measure, the "best" that it's looked on video. But I still have a very hard time believing that this is the movie that Laszlo Kovacs shot. Even accounting for the photographic trends and film stocks in use at the time, this disc looks well below par.

And as bad as it looks, it sounds even worse. The high end of the audio has been rolled off so much that there's practically none left. It's all mid-tones and some artificially boomy bass. It sounds hollow and flat and just awful.

Even for the $9.99 I paid, this disc is my biggest disappointment of the year.

Robert Harris says this about this.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3563105-post1.html

The HD video master of Ivan Reitman's 1984 Ghostbusters had the input of cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs, and as such must be considered incontestable as far as a Blu-ray is concerned.

Those who saw the film theatrically 25 years ago, may or may not recall that the look varied from sequence to sequence. While some interiors seemed to have a pushed, grainy look, fully exposed exteriors appeared to have far less apparent grain. Some of the film is sharp, some parts lesser so.

Created from an archival 35mm interpositive, what has been delivered via Blu-ray is Ghostbusters as it originally looked, and I couldn't be happier.

I'm certain that there will be some who will find the grain too course, to evident, too brown, too angular, not pretty enough, or in one of my favorite phrases, simply about one would expect from an old (read: antique) film from a bygone era.

Love it or hate, this is Ghostbusters as created and released in 1984. Still a fun film and perennial home video favorite, it holds up well after a quarter century. It's appearance on Blu-ray also makes it one of those legacy titles that has made its way through every home video format, inclusive of CED, arriving after the end of production of CED hardware.

Those who remember the film from its theatrical release will be thrilled with the new Blu-ray. Those who have only seen it on inferior home video formats will find themselves in for a treat. And those few who are new to Ghostbusters are in for a fun ride into the ancient past of filmmaking, when special effects were special effects without the aid of computers. And it all works beautifully.

A terrific Blu-ray release that holds true to the Sony / Columbia ethic of making their films on Blu-ray continue to look like film.

Like Dr. Strangelove, Ghostbusters is encoded for all three regions.

Recommended.



Well i ordered it last week and it's shipped so i expect it sometime this week. I don't know whether i'll watch it straight away or leave it till later in the year. I might take a peek at it just to see what all the fuss is about.

I see no reason to doubt that Kovacs could have supervised an HD edition remaster back in 2006/2007 before he died.

It seems this one is either a love it or hate it affair.
post #78 of 208
Aside from a few dated special effects shots and some slightly out of focus bits, I thought it looked very good. I especially liked some of the interior shots at Dana's apartment (before things get crazy there).
post #79 of 208
Only reason I took a chance on this title was due to the low $9.99 price.

Just watched:
I was actually pleasantly surprised. Maybe my expectations were lowered somewhat - and that kinda helped. No demo material here - but vastly improved vs: the DVD. (but still...)
post #80 of 208
IMO the transfer is acceptable if you exclude the brightness boosting and blown highlights in a few scenes.
post #81 of 208
The DVD WE shots show a very clear attempt to oversaturate colors to make the film look prettier, where the Blu-ray has obviously been retoned back down to where it needs to be to look the way it was intended. Ghostbusters looks damn good.
post #82 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzupeman View Post

The DVD WE shots show a very clear attempt to oversaturate colors to make the film look prettier, where the Blu-ray has obviously been retoned back down to where it needs to be to look the way it was intended. Ghostbusters looks damn good.

The cinema print of GB didn't look like the BD though. It has a much warmer red/brown colour scheme. GB was never a pretty film and the version I saw projected last year was flat in contrast and very very warm-looking (it was also riddled with damages and splices and had optical sound, but that's another story).

I think the disc is ok but they have definitely pumped the contrast up, which may have added to the grain issue.
post #83 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Where? Even Xylon's screenshots show way below high definition. Was it that soft in the theater?

Can we stay on target here? Ghostbusters?

Anyways, I'm not going to really take comments into consideration about how a film print looks a quarter century after it was released, and I'm not going to be relying on what people said 'this is how it looked 25 years ago'! This is the best I've ever seen Ghostbusters look, and for 20 bucks, I'm not going to be complaining.
post #84 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzupeman View Post

Can we stay on target here? Ghostbusters?

Anyways, I'm not going to really take comments into consideration about how a film print looks a quarter century after it was released, and I'm not going to be relying on what people said 'this is how it looked 25 years ago'! This is the best I've ever seen Ghostbusters look, and for 20 bucks, I'm not going to be complaining.

Did I say it wasn't the best it has ever looked?

The theatrical colour scheme, particularly at the climax, differs from the BD presentation. As the high contrast on the BD is quite obviously causing highlights to blow out (rooftop scene), it is probably incorrect.

I saw Ghostbusters during it's theatrical run and again last October and the 1999 DVD is the closest in colour sceme to the theatrical presentation. The BDis the best presentation so far of the film, but it has been changed.
post #85 of 208
I can't find that bright glass scene anymore.. was it removed?
post #86 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Banana View Post

Did I say it wasn't the best it has ever looked?

The theatrical colour scheme, particularly at the climax, differs from the BD presentation. As the high contrast on the BD is quite obviously causing highlights to blow out (rooftop scene), it is probably incorrect.

I saw Ghostbusters during it's theatrical run and again last October and the 1999 DVD is the closest in colour sceme to the theatrical presentation. The BDis the best presentation so far of the film, but it has been changed.

Oh so now this board knows better than the director or director of photography who both supervised this new transfer.

Why don't people focus their efforts on transfers which really got screwed up rather than ones which have actually been approved by the makers.

Oh and Josh i don't understand you at all. On the one hand you have a little dig at this board and it's members who dared to suggest the Trek movies were less than perfect but you found them to be generally great and then you yourself come on to this thread and say Ghostbusters is terrible despite the evidence suggesting it's exactly how the makers wanted it.

Point being that evidence suggests Star Trek - The Motion Picture is not how director Robert Wise wanted it yet you praise it. There was proof provided in that thread by one of the people who does a commentary track on it that they changed Robert Wises approved version yet to you it's great.

You say of this film it's how you would expect a third or fourth generation film print to look but then i would ask you how you know what Ghostbusters was supposed to look like. How does anyone here know for sure because our memories do not go back to 1984. Surely the two people who would know how Ghostbusters was meant to look is Ivan Reitman and Lazslo Kovacs both of whom approved this transfer.

As for the final scenes being blown out. I would suggest you are not meant to see the steps. I would suggest you are actually getting the film the way it's supposed to look and those steps should be invisible and that all other home versions have always been wrong.

Lets put it this way the 2005 version did have some blown highlights so Kovacs and Reitman supervise this HD edition and change aspects of it so that it no longer contains blown highlights. Do you really think they would leave the ending if they thought the highlights were blown after changing other aspects of the transfer. Obviously it's intentional and you aren't supposed to see the stairs.

Can i just mention one word to you Josh and i know this may irritate you and is probably a little mean of me.

Traffic

The point i would make is reviewers can often get things wrong and should really take care with their words.
post #87 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Oh so now this board knows better than the director or director of photography who both supervised this new transfer.

Have I said anything other than the transfer is changed? The blowing out of contrast may well be intentional but it doesn't mean it's how it was originally. I think the disc is ok overall but the look is changed and the contrast is blown out. I'm not sure I've read anywhere that Ivan Reitman was involved in the transfer but I'll take your word for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Why don't people focus their efforts on transfers which really got screwed up rather than ones which have actually been approved by the makers.

Some transfers can be an example of both being approved by the makers and a disater. The French Connection, Boys in the Band and (to a lesser extent) The Last Emperor spring to mind.

The 2005 Ghostbusters DVD also has the approval of the makers and it is, without doubt, dreadful. The blu-ray is much better.
post #88 of 208
I had the 1999 disc, never saw the 2005 disc. watched the 99 disc about a month again, and the blu-ray a week ago. Blu-ray looks great. the 99 disc didn't look bad for a DVD either though.
post #89 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Even Kram who over exaggerates issues a lot is saying this looks good apart from the ending.

The whole transfer is still overbrightened/gamma cranked though.
post #90 of 208
I still want to see a screenshot comparison of the dark scene where Venkman enters Dana's kitchen.
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*