Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

1984?

speaking of that we should get a new release of that and the other two films with no dnr and no edge enhancement 4k mastered and maybe color correction for extra measure.

[vincentric]

Originally Posted by Danny80916

I am watching part one I was kinda surprised by all the grain I was hoping for no grain

I just checked out my copy of GB1 and am loving the grain. Without any of it the movie would look like shit similar to what they did to Predator in that hunter edition crap.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by vincentric

I just checked out my copy of GB1 and am loving the grain. Without any of it the movie would look like shit similar to what they did to Predator in that hunter edition crap.

I wait for Predator UHD with DTS:X. I prefer grainy.

No DNR.

[uther]

Originally Posted by ray0414

It's pretty obvious that for part 1, they used some crap cameras. Part 2 for the most part has better looking scenes, sharper with less grain, more of a 4k look imo. Colors though look good without being over the top. And I don't buy the excuse of 1984 at all. There's plenty of other movies that I think look better, including back to the future which is also a 1984 movie.
.

Nice to know Sony did not overdo the color grading but BTTF was slagged for having DNR, EE and missing elements like sparks, it was the typical Universal botch job that got the studio a terrible reputation for transfers. It's clear your tastes favor the worst pq.

Originally Posted by Danny80916

I am watching part one I was kinda surprised by all the grain I was hoping for no grain like what they did for Patton when it was remastered

I see you have no idea what 35mm and 70mm film cameras are. Stick to new movies.

Originally Posted by c3rolla

I have a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup and i would give the audio 3 out of 5 stars. I guess for what the source was they did a really good job with the upgrade, but if you want to compare it with what I have come to expect from Dolby Atmos tracks, like Mad Max and Deadpool, it was a little disappointing.

Why in the world are you comparing old films audio to new films that spent at least a million on the audio??? Sony probably only spent a few thousand on the audio and dont expect that to change for any non-Atmos film.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by uther

Nice to know Sony did not overdo the color grading but BTTF was slagged for having DNR, EE and missing elements like sparks, it was the typical Universal botch job that got the studio a terrible reputation for transfers. It's clear your tastes favor the worst pq.

That botch job still looks better than Ghostbusters 1, which has been pointed out to use fast film stock that lowers the quality of the negative. Rescanning a low quality negative does not work miracles. Ghostbusters 2 easily beats part 1, because they decided to go in a different direction for how it was captured. The movies are 5 years apart, not 20. It's a shame that GB1 will never look as good as GB2. Had they known GB1 would be a timeless classic, they would have taken better measures to ensure the quality of the negative. As far as BTTF, disregarding the botch job, if they went back to the original negatives and rescanned for 4k and did it correctly, it would blow Ghostbusters 1 right out of the water because GB1 is stuck with a low quality negative forever, which is sad.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by ray0414

That botch job still looks better than Ghostbusters 1, which has been pointed out to use fast film stock that lowers the quality of the negative. Rescanning a low quality negative does not work miracles. Ghostbusters 2 easily beats part 1, because they decided to go in a different direction for how it was captured. The movies are 5 years apart, not 20. It's a shame that GB1 will never look as good as GB2. Had they known GB1 would be a timeless classic, they would have taken better measures to ensure the quality of the negative.

At the time, they just wouldn't have known how well it would be received. There's no telling what movie will or will not stand the test of time.

I don't have a crystal ball, do you?

[ray0414]

And I just realized, earlier I confused years with BTTF with nightmare on elm street (1984), which also has better quality than Ghostbusters 1. I'm just saying I don't buy the excuse that the movie is 30 years old for why the quality is low, its the film capturing decisions that were made.

[batman2000]

i hope they fix bttf trilogy with no DNR, no EE and put back missing elements like the sparks etc. and master it in 4k also the put the original audio tracks on them. also they should prep it for a future 4k release as well.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by ray0414

And I just realized, earlier I confused years with BTTF with nightmare on elm street (1984), which also has better quality than Ghostbusters 1. I'm just saying I don't buy the excuse that the movie is 30 years old for why the quality is low, its the film capturing decisions that were made.

There are no excuses... it's just that these are things out of the control of Sony. Any flaws are inherent in the original photographic process.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

There are no excuses... it's just that these are things out of the control of Sony. Any flaws are inherent in the original photographic process.

I completely agree with that, that was always my arguement.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by batman2000

i hope they fix bttf trilogy with no DNR, no EE and put back missing elements like the sparks etc. and master it in 4k also the put the original audio tracks on them. also they should prep it for a future 4k release as well.

Definitely. Alot of people would buy that day 1 including me. A full remaster from the original negatives would be awesome.

[ray0414]

By the way, I thought the last 30 minutes or so of the movie looked great. From the shutting off of the containment unit to the end, looked good. The hdr and WCG really gave some oohs and ahs in that part of the film.

[spatafore]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Ghostbusters 4K Blu-ray

ugly as hell artwork

[BluRayWish108p]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Ghostbusters 4K Blu-ray

Wait wheres Winston ? Over thirty years later and the guy is still getting cropped out of the image. They crop him out of many scenes on the fullscreen VHS version of the film. His names doesn't even show up in most of the movie posters yet Rick Moranis's name does. The original GB2 dvd only shows the main three guys on the cover. He auditions to do the voice for his own character in The Real Ghostbusters 80s cartoon and gets passed over for Arsenio Hall. I also noticed that in most scenes from both films he speaks off camera a lot. It's like they show as little as they can of the guy in the films. Yes I know they wanted Eddie Murphy but it's thirty years later and they are still giving him the shaft. Did he piss off someone in power or something? He deserves more respect than this!

[Resettito]

It's kind of sad to see people who are only used to today's mostly crappy and generic and bland looking digital stuff and go "Yo what the hell is that thing?" when seeing film grain associated with film acquisition (you know, the superior format) on a movie.

Also, it's been said, but film cameras are just boxes, what makes the look are the lenses and film stocks used.

[waff]

Originally Posted by Resettito

It's kind of sad to see people who are only used to today's mostly crappy and generic and bland looking digital stuff and go "Yo what the hell is that thing?" when seeing film grain associated with film acquisition (you know, the superior format) on a movie.

Also, it's been said, but film cameras are just boxes, what makes the look are the lenses and film stocks used.

It's not about being "used to today's mostly crappy and generic and bland looking digital stuff", it's about getting the cleanest, clearest picture possible. I don't open my eyes and see things through a sands storm. I see clear, grain free lifelike images. That's what I want from a movie. I love movies, both classic and modern but if they all had grain removed, I'd be completely fine with that. Let's all be honest with ourselves, it adds nothing to the image quality other than it's just what was part of the original source.

When I see movie reviews that say, "... just the right amount of grain..." I'm hoping that means none at all.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by waff

It's not about being "used to today's mostly crappy and generic and bland looking digital stuff", it's about getting the cleanest, clearest picture possible. I don't open my eyes and see things through a sands storm. I see clear, grain free lifelike images. That's what I want from a movie. I love movies, both classic and modern but if they all had grain removed, I'd be completely fine with that. Let's all be honest with ourselves, it adds nothing to the image quality other than it's just what was part of the original source.

When I see movie reviews that say, "... just the right amount of grain..." I'm hoping that means none at all.

Movies are not made to mimic reality and they will never otherwise. Every movie has stylistic choices in terms of image, not only color palette.

Having that out of the way... grain is inherent to the process when shot on film. It is the same in photography but that doesn't get blown up so you don't see the grain. If you remove the grain you are destroying the picture. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

[waff]

Originally Posted by Eny-

Movies are not made to mimic reality and they will never otherwise. Every movie has stylistic choices in terms of image, not only color palette.

Having that out of the way... grain is inherent to the process when shot on film. It is the same in photography but that doesn't get blown up so you don't see the grain. If you remove the grain you are destroying the picture. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

First off, I agree with everything you wrote. But there are always comments suggesting that grain is adding to the picture quality or if one does not like grain, they are perceived as being ignorant. All that is nostalgia being used to make others appear inferior. A crisp, clean image can be very desirable, and seeing grain on a movie can be undesirable to some. But to claim that it makes a picture or movie look better is fairly nonsensical. Just because the grain is in the source material doesn't mean everyone has to embrace it as being the superior or even the preferred approach.

[dvdmike]

This thread went full bluray.com
You never go full bluray.com

[waff]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

This thread went full bluray.com
You never go full bluray.com

Sorry, my bad.