Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[Rhylliam]

Thanks! I'll give it a go when I get home. It's amazing how many other features had to be turned off out of the box in order to get a proper image.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Rhylliam

Thanks! I'll give it a go when I get home. It's amazing how many other features had to be turned off out of the box in order to get a proper image.

Don't mean this to sound snooty at all, I swear, but really most of those features should be off anyway. Dynamic contrast on low seems to be an exception for LG OLEDs, but in general processing modes are bad.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Don't mean this to sound snooty at all, I swear, but really most of those features should be off anyway. Dynamic contrast on low seems to be an exception for LG OLEDs, but in general processing modes are bad.

I'll just say that on my 2016 C6 OLED, I tried turning Dynamic Contrast to low and tested it with Blade Runner and it made the image a lot worse to me. I thought leaving it off looked way better. Maybe I'm not getting the full benefit of HDR without it, but to me it made the image look more blown out.

[Geoff D]

Dynamic contrast features can sometimes work pretty well but they don't tend to play nice with content shot on film with plenty of grain, the slight fluctuations in density (sometmes perceived as a very slight flicker, if at all) cause the algorithm to keep raising and lowering the brightness.

[StingingVelvet]

Well Ross and others say dynamic contrast needs to on low for recent OLEDs to have their HDR function properly. That sounded suspiciously like what people told me to do with my old Samsung 6300 to make up for shit HDR, but they said otherwise. I can't really say as I don't own an LG OLED.

In general though yes, dynamic contrast screws with gamma and should be off.

[bradnoyes]

I came across this thread about a year ago (

[Show spoiler]https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...16-series.html

) and after following the instructions (along with a few tweeks since some of those recommendations are not good) I found that my OLED65B6 had a vastly better picture when using Dynamic Contrast Low in HDR Game. I would have never thought that using Game Mode for movies would have been anything but a disaster, but for whatever reason it really did result in the best picture for me. Luckily, none of that matters anymore since I can use Dolby Vision for everything now, so no more game mode and no more weird processing features needed.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yeah the first thing I did when I setup my OLED was demo some Sony discs in the default Technicolor mode, was immediately impressed coming from the VIZIO P. That mode has all the extra crap already off except Dynamic Contrast which is on low. Then I shut it off watched the same content and it looked an awful like my 2 previous LED’s with clipped highlights and crushed black detail. Still very watchable but the low setting works very well. The extra brightness really helps as well. Still trying to decide which meter I’m going to buy then I’ll upgrade CalMAN and do some proper testing. I’ve been waiting to pull the trigger because I was considering getting the Z9 but I’m just too in love with my OLED.

I’ve only seen the slight raising and dropping of brightness in a few scenes on a few discs so the good outweighs the bad by a mile. It’s not perfect but my God I love it in my dark room.

[KcMsterpce]

I have read/heard that Dynamic Contrast is helpful on 2016 LG OLEDs. I don't use it on my C7, though. However, there are few exceptions, usually with low-nit HDR titles, but I mean I've only used it TWICE. Ever.

With the LG HU80KA projector, I find that HDR looks like shite if Dynamic Contrast isn't on. However, it also brings in macroblocking, occassional highlight blowouts and other artifacting.... but it depends on the movie, where sometimes it looks awesome.

[Rhylliam]

Wow. Thanks for the comments guys. I had Dynamic Contrast off, and standard contrast at about 50. If I placed Dynamic Contrast on low, it seemed a bit better. Still issues with the flickering however. Ugh.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Rhylliam

Wow. Thanks for the comments guys. I had Dynamic Contrast off, and standard contrast at about 50. If I placed Dynamic Contrast on low, it seemed a bit better. Still issues with the flickering however. Ugh.

Contrast at 50 for HDR10 content? It should be left at the default 100 setting for proper tone mapping.

[Cherokee Jack]

Funny, I agonized over how I should be using Dynamic Contrast on my uncalibrated MU8000 but have never had any flickering even when it's set to high. And that's including grainy films like Predator and Dracula. The major issue I notice is that some content will get noticeably blown out whites when it's set to high and/or just look too hot in general.

I've basically found that content that has a reputation for looking too dark on some sets (cheaper/uncalibrated, I know...) generally looks best to my eyes on the high setting whereas I try to leave everything else at low. Turning it off is not an option on my set. All HDR content looks like you're watching with heavily tinted sunglasses when Dynamic Contrast is turned off even when the room is almost perfectly dark.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Funny, I agonized over how I should be using Dynamic Contrast on my uncalibrated MU8000 but have never had any flickering even when it's set to high. And that's including grainy films like Predator and Dracula. The major issue I notice is that some content will get noticeably blown out whites when it's set to high and/or just look too hot in general.

I've basically found that content that has a reputation for looking too dark on some sets (cheaper/uncalibrated, I know...) generally looks best to my eyes on the high setting whereas I try to leave everything else at low. Turning it off is not an option on my set. All HDR content looks like you're watching with heavily tinted sunglasses when Dynamic Contrast is turned off even when the room is almost perfectly dark.

The MU8000 has poor peak brightness and color volume, which is why the HDR looks dark and muted. Using dynamic contrast can make it appear more normal, but it's not the same as seeing the images as intended and its processing will mess with the image somewhat. You might want to try SDR conversion if you have a player that does it well.

I went through the same thing with my old KU6300.

[Khronikos]

Does Amazon ship with slipcovers still at all?

I barely see this around. One of the only discs I kind of want to get with a slip that I do not have.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

Does Amazon ship with slipcovers still at all?

I barely see this around. One of the only discs I kind of want to get with a slip that I do not have.

My copy from a few months ago didn't have one, but you might get lucky.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The MU8000 has poor peak brightness and color volume, which is why the HDR looks dark and muted. Using dynamic contrast can make it appear more normal, but it's not the same as seeing the images as intended and its processing will mess with the image somewhat. You might want to try SDR conversion if you have a player that does it well.

I went through the same thing with my old KU6300.

Apologies for the late reply.

First of all, standard BD's do very well on the set. Older films with grain especially just look beautiful on it. The F13 BD collection for example probably won't win any awards for picture quality but they're all a real pleasure to watch on the MU8000.

As for HDR, I first tried a cheaper Samsung before settling on the MU8000 and the cheaper one was dim no matter what I did with settings, including Dynamic Contrast. The MU8000 is not supposed to be an HDR titan but the scores I've seen have been in the 'good, not great' range rather than downright poor and that's been my experience since working with the Dynamic Contrast setting. On the one hand, the setting is an unmitigated success with my PS4 Pro. The Pro/MU800 combo with Dynamic Contrast turned on literally fixed the colors and brightness on the main franchise I play. Samsungs don't seem to play nice with the PS4 unfortunately and that results in the image cutting out occasionally but that's the only issue I have when playing games on the set.

Things are more complicated when watching HDR films. I actually turned off HDR as you suggested when I was trying to make the Westworld UHD look more like the BD and stream but found that the loss of resolution and contrast gave me a duller image. I eventually just accepted that high Dynamic Contrast's occasional blown out whites would be acceptable since it made the rest of the show look crazy good. Same for Unforgiven. Goodfellas is the main 'dark' UHD I've used to experiment with my settings and I go back and forth on which Dynamic Contrast setting is best for it. Switching to SDR is not an option as the colors look off when I try that. I was actually surprised to find that a photo of a still with Dynamic Contrast turned to high looked pretty close to Geoff's photo of the same still from his superior and calibrated set. Not a scientific comparison by any means but it still kind of shocked me.

Perhaps the Dynamic Contrast function in some sets compensates for the gross disparity in range of perceived brightness on some HDR films like Goodfellas? I'm just talking out of my ass here but it kind of makes sense given what more informed posters have said about the problems inherent in TV's failing to account for the max brightness of the content they're displaying. Again, I'm just an ill-iformed cretin speculating so please don't throw your tomatoes in my direction.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Perhaps the Dynamic Contrast function in some sets compensates for the gross disparity in range of perceived brightness on some HDR films like Goodfellas? I'm just talking out of my ass here but it kind of makes sense given what more informed posters have said about the problems inherent in TV's failing to account for the max brightness of the content they're displaying. Again, I'm just an ill-iformed cretin speculating so please don't throw your tomatoes in my direction.

Yes, dynamic contrast will help make up for the HDR and color volume deficiencies. Not sure if any of them are still around but lots of people when UHD launched who had lower nit and lower color volume sets were posting about using dynamic contrast to compensate. The problem is that messes with your gamma and can cause artifacts and whatnot, so you're not seeing the "true image." How much that bothers you is up to you though, not everyone's a puritan. For me it drove me insane, I wanted the "real mccoy," but most people won't care. If it looks good to you then enjoy!

[Khronikos]

Can somebody tell me if the UK version still comes in a slipcase on Amazon on any consistent basis?

[Bond84]

I was one of the folks who needed to have Dynamic Contrast set to low in order for my HDR10 to not look washed out and dim (Dolby Vision didn't need it), and to help cover up some nasty vertical banding on my set. The UB820 completely cured that, even with all the adjustment sliders to 0. I now have all my settings to their appropriate defaults and I feel like I'm finally seeing real HDR for the first time. I'm really glad that I ditched the Oppo. I feel terrible for saying that, but it is what it is.

And I rewatched Goodfellas this past weekend and it looked perfect.

[singhcr]

I saw this tonight, and damn what an improvement.

I've only seen a handful of UHD discs so far and sometimes I was questioning exactly what HDR is supposed to be. Was it my OLED not being bright enough? Am I just super spoiled with the two or so discs I've seen or expecting something that it isn't? I just saw Dredd UHD and wasn't that impressed with it.

At first, the image wasn't wowing me. Isn't HDR all pop and eye-searing brightness? Is my TV even capable of that? Or is it the movie?

Ghostbusters, to me, feels like watching a pristine 35mm showprint in my own house. It has very rich color and contrast that gives the image a lot of depth, yet it looks very natural. When the librarian was down in the basement, you could really see the transition between the lit areas by the bare bulbs and the shadows. The wood was very rich looking, and her clothes had a healthy amount of saturation to it. When Dana was surrounded in fog, you could see an ethereal glow around her body.

Practically every shot had a palabable level of fine detail to it that I haven't seen with 35mm content before. I could make out text on cereal boxes, and the stitching on the Ghostbusters uniforms. When it was bright outside during the exterior establishing shots of the GB HQ, you sure saw it. Black levels were solid, and the compression held up despite the heavy grain field. The HDR really helped sell the ghosts, who to me looked better than a lot of recent CG I've seen. It was easier to make out parts of the image that were out of focus or geometrically distorted around the edges due to the anamorphic lenses which also gives a shallow DOF.

It's hard to describe, but I just enjoyed the hell out of this transfer. There were a handful of moments where the grain seemed a little noisy, but overall it resolved very naturally and was sharp. The color was very healthy and saturated without looking garish. It looked like mid 1980s fast film, and I mean that in a very complimentary way. I didn't find it to be overbearing at all.

The image had great depth with natural, rich color, contrast, and blacks (go OLED! Lol) and the star of the PQ show for me was the beautifully resolved grain that also yielded a surprising detail boost as well. It reminded me of why I love the look of film so much. When you combine a great photochemical source with a presentation that is unattainable with the resolving power of 35mm theatrical prints and is pristine in every way, it's like the best of both worlds. This transfer felt like a hot bath- too hot to relax and sit into at first, but eventually it's a wonderful, relaxing experience that you don't want to stop when it's time to get out.

Just for kicks, I put in the included Mi4K BD. It was mushy, flat, amazingly devoid of grain, and looked pathetic next to the UHD. It felt like the difference between seeing my projected Fuji Velvia slides on a nice big screen and then turning around and viewing the scans of those same slides on my SDR PC monitor.

So anyone who says that 35mm film, even the grainy as balls 1984 Kodak stock that GB was shot on, can't benefit from a 4K scan and HDR/WCG color space, they're nuts. This was a treat and a steal at $15. Well done, Sony, well done.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Ghostbusters, to me, feels like watching a pristine 35mm showprint in my own house.

Yep! This was the movie that sold me on UHDs. I had a crappy HDR television that couldn't display anything very well, but even on that I saw how much this movie was improved and how much more like a film print it looked like. It motivated me to upgrade my television and I never looked back.

Once you get used to it you'll find HDR adds a nice richness and depth to every movie on some level, and you'll start missing it when it's not there. It's still these 4k scans of the negative that look the best on the format though, IMO.