Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[Geoff D]

Hahahhaaa, it's great that you're going bananas for stuff that I think is a fairly minor upgrade, while stuff that you think only has 5% extra over the BD e.g. Passengers is a massive upgrade to me on UHD.

Still, I'm glad that you're FINALLY getting something of the 'wow' that other folks be getting with UHD.

[HeavyHitter]

I'll definitely pick this and probably II up at some point with a really nice deal. Maybe they'll do another combo type thing again. I think with FP I might notice a little more detail as I did with Goodfellas.

[rroeder]

This was the first movie I saw on UHD last June when it came out, I honestly did not like the UHD, thought the bluray looked better. The 2nd one was better without excessive grain, and I usually like a little grain cause of the added detail.

I know I'm in the minority tho, I wonder if its cause I have a 4k SDR tv?

[Sky_Captain]

Seems to be the common theme on the 'It looks like poop, oh no it doesn't' roundabout.

[mzupeman]

The grain can look a little chunky but only in certain shots. Otherwise it seems extremely well resolved. HDR definitely provides that 'pop' though. Seeing the whole finale with the colors and bright lights in an evening backdrop is just gorgeous.

[rroeder]

Next time I watch it I will give the UHD another try, I had just gotten the Samsung player and these movies so maybe I've dialed things in better. I noticed added detail and even the colors were a little more vivid but the picture seemed off, thought maybe the HDR>SDR conversion was wonky.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

The grain can look a little chunky but only in certain shots. Otherwise it seems extremely well resolved. HDR definitely provides that 'pop' though. Seeing the whole finale with the colors and bright lights in an evening backdrop is just gorgeous.

Yeah, the grain doesn't look amazing from shot to shot (this is one of the few extant titles I'd love to see on a 100GB disc) but the Blu looks downright mushy in comparison, and the UHD resolves about as much extra detail as it can. I mentioned in my write up from aaaaages ago that the wide establishing shot of the firehouse has some brickwork visible on the building to the right that's simply smooshed away on the BD.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hahahhaaa, it's great that you're going bananas for stuff that I think is a fairly minor upgrade, while stuff that you think only has 5% extra over the BD e.g. Passengers is a massive upgrade to me on UHD.

Still, I'm glad that you're FINALLY getting something of the 'wow' that other folks be getting with UHD.

I'm sure my preferences are related. I notice the upgrade on stuff like Passengers, it just doesn't blow me away as much for whatever reason. With film though it seems to be much more obvious to me. I don't think it's a coincidence that I'm a big fan of real film in general. We likes what we likes.

Also it's worth noting I watched Passengers first thing when I got my player and have since then upped color a bit and lowered backlight a bit in HDR mode. So it might look better now.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, the grain doesn't look amazing from shot to shot (this is one of the few extant titles I'd love to see on a 100GB disc) but the Blu looks downright mushy in comparison, and the UHD resolves about as much extra detail as it can. I mentioned in my write up from aaaaages ago that the wide establishing shot of the firehouse has some brickwork visible on the building to the right that's simply smooshed away on the BD.

I saw a ton of stuff like that. In the "Peck being handed the folder" shot I mentioned above there's a lot more detail in the wall behind them, the guy's pants, his face, stuff like that. Lots of medium distance detail not there on the BD. I think HDR is a big part of it because there's a lot more brightness to a lot of the outdoor scenes and also a lot more dark areas surrounding brighter things like the lamps in the library.

[javy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course it does.

And the art on this site is accurate, the covers for GB 1 & 2 are the classic ghost devices against black rather than those photoshop monstrosities seen on the US set. I ordered from Amazon a few weeks ago and both came with slips.

When I first seen the art for the US I didn't like it either. But the more I looked at it I came to love it. It's got the Ghostbusters, Stay Puft, Ecto-1, Slimmer, and Dana looking hot. I actually bought the 4k version because the artwork, even though I don't have a 4k setup (yet). But yeah it doesn't beat the classic VHS cover though.

[ModernSage]

I just bought the blu rays

[rexcrk]

Breaking in my new 4K HDR TV with this movie. Looks really good!

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hahahhaaa, it's great that you're going bananas for stuff that I think is a fairly minor upgrade, while stuff that you think only has 5% extra over the BD

Did you ever get equipped with HDR? I would imagine that the HDR, specifically on a catalog title like this, would be just as much of the upgrade (perhaps more so) than the increased resolution. I suspect this is a big part of the reason why he's more blown away by the disc than you were.

I scanned through this one last night and I'm certainly pleased with it, though at times I do feel with HDR that the contrast is so great that things get a bit TOO bright and TOO black, making me question if I'm seeing true darkness in the negative...or crush. Then again, I know that's always been somewhat of an issue on GB1 in general. I basically think it takes some getting used to. We've been looking at this (and all) film in SDR for decades, after all.

[StingingVelvet]

I didn't really notice any more crush than was already on the 4k remastered blu. You definitely lose some detail compared to the older master, but perhaps that detail was never meant to be there. It's an age old question.

[Trekkie313]

How noticeable are the glass matte paintings?

I saw this projected in 4K and you could see the transparency at that resolution.

[Geoff D]

I've seen transparencies in the mattes and opticals since the VHS days, but the newer transfer really helps with certain opticals like the demon dog as it runs from the building, the gamma is higher so it helps to hide the square garbage matte around the creature which was horribly blatant on the original GB Blu-ray.

If you can see those travelling mattes then the gamma in the source transfer is far too low, this has long been the Achilles heel of home video transfers, not just for GB but in general. Sure, it may crush shadow details down vs the older transfers but sometimes you really aren't meant to be able to peer into every corner of a film negative.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Did you ever get equipped with HDR? I would imagine that the HDR, specifically on a catalog title like this, would be just as much of the upgrade (perhaps more so) than the increased resolution. I suspect this is a big part of the reason why he's more blown away by the disc than you were.

I scanned through this one last night and I'm certainly pleased with it, though at times I do feel with HDR that the contrast is so great that things get a bit TOO bright and TOO black, making me question if I'm seeing true darkness in the negative...or crush. Then again, I know that's always been somewhat of an issue on GB1 in general. I basically think it takes some getting used to. We've been looking at this (and all) film in SDR for decades, after all.

Oh, I love how the disc looks but from what I can tell it's got a more limited HDR range than the average modern HDR grade. And yes, I'm still using an SDR TV, point being that the SDR conversion is assuming that the source has a wide amount of range and so it's applying its usual dynamic range compression, but when it does so I end up seeing LESS range than what the actual Blu-ray provides because it's over-compressing it, if that makes sense. I use the contrast slider to pull it back like I do all Sony titles (them having been mastered at >1000 nits maximum content light level) but that still only brings it back in line with what the Blu-ray shows in terms of range.

So yeah, I think I'd need an HDR TV in order to appreciate this one at its fullest. But I may be about to rectify that, so...

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So yeah, I think I'd need an HDR TV in order to appreciate this one at its fullest. But I may be about to rectify that, so...

I would actually say Ghostbusters is among the titles that showed the LEAST difference going from the 6300's HDR to SDR and now to the 8000's HDR.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I would actually say Ghostbusters is among the titles that showed the LEAST difference going from the 6300's HDR to SDR and now to the 8000's HDR.

Which demonstrates my point exactly about how it's got a more limited range than most other HDR stuff. My problem is that whatever subtle range extensions are there are being lost during the SDR conversion, because the converter thinks it's dealing with this big 'pot' of range when in reality it's more like a little pot put inside a big pot - so when the big pot is squashed down then the little pot inside it is being squashed into an even tinier size!

I ain't saying it would become some amazing spectacle on a proper UHD TV, but I would at least get every vestige of the available range that's been mastered to disc.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which demonstrates my point exactly about how it's got a more limited range than most other HDR stuff. My problem is that whatever subtle range extensions are there are being lost during the SDR conversion, because the converter thinks it's dealing with this big 'pot' of range when in reality it's more like a little pot put inside a big pot - so when the big pot is squashed down then the little pot inside it is being squashed into an even tinier size!

I hear ya. I like that the older movies are being given more restrained HDR passes though, for the most part matching film's inherent larger range rather than going crazy-town with it.

[singhcr]

I've always wondered how they determine the HDR grade for catalog titles, or even standard 709 grading for that matter. Film has quite a bit of latitude to it so the final product can change drastically, hence things like answer prints.

So in the absence of an answer print or the DP, how does one know how to grade the DI? Do you use a theatrical print and match it by eye via projection (even though they do vary quite a bit from what I have heard) or do you really on "rules of thumb" for a particular stock? Who's to know if the footage was meant to be pushed 2 stops or some unusually strong printing lights were used when making a positive print?

I have been scanning medium format film that I shot (color negative) and it's amazing how drastically you can vary the look.