Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Sony Japan has a better idea for the cover art:



Out August 3rd, 2016. Click the pictures to order from Amazon. They are almost 100% certain to be the identical UHD discs to the USA (the Blu-rays have already been confirmed as such).

Miles better, I could not live with that nasty art

[robgmun]

Jesus! Finally! The plain old black background is always by far the best!

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed PT, it's more the wider gamut and dynamic range that will probably bring the greater benefits to GB1. Those 65mm VFX shots should look mighty fine in 4K res though.

yet people were saying that hdr and wide color gamut would ruin older films

[Geoff D]

indeedy

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by batman2000

yet people were saying that hdr and wide color gamut would ruin older films

HDR can indeed ruin older films when they are inappropriately re-graded to accomodate it. I'm not aware of anyone saying that about WCG, though- it won't ruin anything.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by batman2000

yet people were saying that hdr and wide color gamut could ruin older films

Corrected for hyperbole

[Opips3]

I knew Bluray.com reviews UHD 1/2 less star than bluray.

Reason reviewer some missed no HDR or SDR on UHD problem.....

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

HDR can indeed ruin older films when they are inappropriately re-graded to accomodate it. I'm not aware of anyone saying that about WCG, though- it won't ruin anything.

so what you're saying is we could be dealing with a similar situation to what we had with dnr and edge enhancement in the beginning with ultra hd blu rays

[reanimator]

Bill Hunt over at thedigitalbits.com has posted his review of the new 4K disc. Saying in part...

... this is without a doubt the best that Ghostbusters has ever looked on disc, besting the previous Blu-ray by a good measure.

He qualifies his review by pointing out what we've always known: GHOSTBUSTERS is a grainy, anamorphic movie and will never have the sleek polish of an all digital production (to which I say, thank goodness). He concludes...

If this is an example of the kind of quality we can expect from older films on the 4K Ultra HD format, then all I can say is: “Bring ‘em on!” I can’t wait to see Labyrinth, The Fifth Element, Lawrence of Arabia, Das Boot, and other deep and classic catalog titles like this. For vintage films, it’s important to remember that the goal of a 4K presentation isn’t to deliver an absolutely pristine or perfect image… it’s simply to deliver the very best possible experience of the film. So, for longtime and expert cinephiles at least, the chance to see beloved older films in this level of quality is a real treat.

Read the entire review here...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/g...ters-4k-uhd-bd

[MattPerdue]

I'll believe it when I see it. Or hear from someone a bit more trustworthy.

[batman2000]

like who?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by MattPerdue

I'll believe it when I see it. Or hear from someone a bit more trustworthy.

Someone still butthurt Bill thought Blu-ray was the right choice over HD DVD?

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

HDR can indeed ruin older films when they are inappropriately re-graded to accomodate it. I'm not aware of anyone saying that about WCG, though- it won't ruin anything.

review up on thedigitalbits..."enhanced with a new HDR color timing pass" and they actually "downtoned" the grain....wtf???
The reviewer does claim it never looked better ,but what i was afraid of is happening...adding HDR just "cause we can" and thinning the grain "cause people might not like the grain.
Oh boy,no words left...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by peterraes

review up on thedigitalbits..."enhanced with a new HDR color timing pass" and they actually "downtoned" the grain....wtf???
The reviewer does claim it never looked better ,but what i was afraid of is happening...adding HDR just "cause we can" and thinning the grain "cause people might not like the grain.
Oh boy,no words left...

You're skewing the review. How about the actual words instead of your "interpretation"?

there’s almost certainly been some grain reduction employed, yet the film still retains its original photochemical texturing. What’s more, when you look closely, you start to realize that you’re seeing a lot more fine detail in this image than you ever have before. The film’s color palette has always been a bit muted, but the colors too are more vibrant here than ever before. The High Dynamic Range really adds to the viewing experience, lending extra pop to the paranormal elements and enhancing the depth and dimensionality

[pawel86ck]

reanimator@ thanks for digitalbits review. I was wondering how UHD version would look like, because 4K HDTV had HUGE compression problems (and that was huge, 100GB video file)

here's screencap from this 4K HDTV video file, so anyone can see these compression issues
http://www.imagebam.com/image/a08a40458258496

When it comes to noise reduction mentioned in this Ghostbusters UHD thedigitalbits review, before people blame samsung player and thought, that this player was applying some slight DNR, but later on I have read that all UHD movies are encoded with filtering in order to mask compression problems. Diditalbits reviewier dont mention compression problems in ghostbusters UHD disc review, and that's what really matters to me . Macroblocks can run whole experience, for example I have compared Salt 4K HDTV version with UHD version, and prefer UHD disc over 4K HDTV version (these compression artifacts are distractiong, while UHD version still looks very sharp and detailed and without these compression macroblocks). If ghostbusters UHD disc looks the same as Salt UHD, then it's good enough for me.

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

reanimator@ thanks for digitalbits review. I was wondering how UHD version would look like, because 4K HDTV had HUGE compression problems (and that was huge, 100GB video file)

here's screencap from this 4K HDTV video file, so anyone can see these compression issues
http://www.imagebam.com/image/a08a40458258496

When it comes to noise reduction mentioned in this Ghostbusters UHD thedigitalbits review, before people blame samsung player and thought, that this player was applying some slight DNR, but later on I have read that all UHD movies are encoded with filtering in order to mask compression problems. Diditalbits reviewier dont mention compression problems in UHD disc review, and that's what really matters to me . For example I have compared Salt 4K HDTV version with UHD version, and prefer UHD disc over 4K HDTV version (these compression artifacts are distractiong, while UHD version still looks very sharp and detailed and without these compression macroblocks). If ghostbusters UHD disc looks the same as Salt UHD, then it's good enough for me.

so did they do dnr to this new release?

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by batman2000

so did they do dnr to this new release?

4K 2160p is four times sharper than 1080p.

UHD movie is good for dots grain.

[pawel86ck]

so did they do dnr to this new release?

I didnt saw Ghostbusterd UHD disc, so I dont know. I'm just guessing, that it can be just standard codec HEVC filtering (like in Salt UHD and other UHD discs), not necessarily DNR. Thedigitalbits reviewer is seeing a lot more fine details in this UHD image compared with BD, and DNR would destroy fine details unlike HEVC codec filtering.

[Opips3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad...f_an_image.gif

[batman2000]

when will we get comparison pics between the 4k mastered and this release?