Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[cochon]

Originally Posted by Blu Cider

What a strange post. Look... some of us like our old shot on film releases to exhibit the natural grain inherent to those shooting techniques while others prefer a more clean image. No one is censoring anyone and no opinion is “right”. It’s a matter of personal taste and it makes for mostly good debate.

If you've read more than a couple of words of my post it should be very clear I like film grain.

Originally Posted by maverick22

Do you own an OLED?

No, I don't by my own choice, do you own anything bigger than a 55" OLED TV?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Blu Cider

What a strange post. Look... some of us like our old shot on film releases to exhibit the natural grain inherent to those shooting techniques while others prefer a more clean image. No one is censoring anyone and no opinion is “right”. It’s a matter of personal taste and it makes for mostly good debate.

Actually, art isn't an opinion. Someone may want a cleaner image, but they should respect the film the way it was made regardless of what the "like" or not. Without degrading tools like DNR, there would be no debate, because there would only be the option of how the film was originally shot and made, which is always 100% the correct way. Movies like Ghostbusters didn't just suddenly become grainy on blu-ray, they were always grainy, and yes, it was clearly visible in theaters. If someone wants to alter the image to fit what they "want," then they simply don't respect the art or any of the artists who created the movie in the first place. I'm assuming these same people don't go to museums complaining that they want the visible brush strokes removed from all the paintings, which is exactly the same thing... but maybe they are delusional and do.

[ROSS.T.G.]

This was the 3rd UHD I watched and looks fantastic. It’s easily one of the best discs on the market. Reference thru and thru.

[maverick22]

Originally Posted by cochon

If you've read more than a couple of words of my post it should be very clear I like film grain.


No, I don't by my own choice, do you own anything bigger than a 55" OLED TV?

Hopefully I didn't offend you in any way. That wasn't my intent. I was just wondering because heavy grain looks crappy on my OLED. It looks like moving particles/ants/sparkles. Just like to hear if others are experiencing the same thing.

[cochon]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

This was the 3rd UHD I watched and looks fantastic. It’s easily one of the best discs on the market. Reference thru and thru.

I am sorry, do I read your post right???

3 discs watched and easily one of the best in the market? Reference???

You need to watch a few more UHD's before calling something reference. I have like twenty discs may be more and I am not sure I will dare to make such statement.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by cochon

I am sorry, do I read your post right???

3 discs watched and easily one of the best in the market? Reference???

You need to watch a few more UHD's before calling something reference. I have like twenty discs may be more and I am not sure I will dare to make such statement.

No, you didn’t read it correctly.

I have 60+ discs and it was the 3rd disc I have watched. Yes it is a reference disc from that era. Of course it’s a subjective statement but if someone is a fan of the movie, likes the look of film than most certainly they will love this disc.

Again subjective, 99% of statements made in these threads are.

[cochon]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Hopefully I didn't offend you in any way. That wasn't my intent. I was just wondering because heavy grain looks crappy on my OLED. It looks like moving particles/ants/sparkles. Just like to hear if others are experiencing the same thing.

No, I was not offended but I was wondering why the question. Excessive grain can look bad on anything but -I insist, I love "film" grain-I find many people here use only 65" TV and less, the pixels are so small on those TV's that appreciating some problems is very difficult. I have a 65" and I find it just the minimun acceptable to make the change to 4k worth it. I haven't yet found a UHD disc with more grain than this one. I've got the feeling this is not just film grain or this comes from a printed copy that is not one of the best ones of this film. It could also be that mistakes where made when it was scanned. I am likely to buy #2 it'll be interesting to see what is like.

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

No, you didn’t read it correctly.

I have 60+ discs and it was the 3rd disc I have watched. Yes it is a reference disc from that era. Of course it’s a subjective statement but if someone is a fan of the movie, likes the look of film than most certainly they will love this disc.

Again subjective, 99% of statements made in these threads are.

As you've said it is subjective but if you have that many films you know this is not the only one from that era there are others even older too. There is one that comes to mind immediately, do you have Labyrinth? What do you think when you compare the grain levels and the quality of the image? Because if Ghostbusters is reference then there are no words left to describe Labyrinth? Or are there any?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by cochon

No, I was not offended but I was wondering why the question. Excessive grain can look bad on anything but -I insist, I love "film" grain-I find many people here use only 65" TV and less, the pixels are so small on those TV's that appreciating some problems is very difficult. I have a 65" and I find it just the minimun acceptable to make the change to 4k worth it. I haven't yet found a UHD disc with more grain than this one. I've got the feeling this is not just film grain or this comes from a printed copy that is not one of the best ones of this film. It could also be that mistakes where made when it was scanned. I am likely to buy #2 it'll be interesting to see what is like.




As you've said it is subjective but if you have that many films you know this is not the only one from that era there are others even older too. There is one that comes to mind immediately, do you have Labyrinth? What do you think when you compare the grain levels and the quality of the image? Because if Ghostbusters is reference then there are no words left to describe Labyrinth? Or are there any?

Yup. I do have Labrynth but I haven’t watched it yet. Pretty much all of the Sony titles have knocked my socks off, Starship Troopers and a Few Good Men come to mind. I am a very big grain lover though. To my eyes Ghostbusters isn’t noisy, it feels like I’m watching film. I’ve seen Ghostbusters countless times on every format and IMO it’s never looked better.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Actually, art isn't an opinion. Someone may want a cleaner image, but they should respect the film the way it was made regardless of what the "like" or not. Without degrading tools like DNR, there would be no debate, because there would only be the option of how the film was originally shot and made, which is always 100% the correct way. Movies like Ghostbusters didn't just suddenly become grainy on blu-ray, they were always grainy, and yes, it was clearly visible in theaters. If someone wants to alter the image to fit what they "want," then they simply don't respect the art or any of the artists who created the movie in the first place. I'm assuming these same people don't go to museums complaining that they want the visible brush strokes removed from all the paintings, which is exactly the same thing... but maybe they are delusional and do.

HDR exaggerates grain in an unintentional way. This is confirmed by multiple Hollywood colorists. It is unfortunately a double edged sword at times.

I actually rewatched a little bit of this the other night. Great color and saturation but some scenes are downright ugly. GB2 had a better picture though because of the newer cameras and a better quality negative used for the 4K back in the day.

[cochon]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yup. I do have Labrynth but I haven’t watched it yet. Pretty much all of the Sony titles have knocked my socks off, Starship Troopers and a Few Good Men come to mind. I am a very big grain lover though. To my eyes Ghostbusters isn’t noisy, it feels like I’m watching film. I’ve seen Ghostbusters countless times on every format and IMO it’s never looked better.

When you have the chance try to put labyrinth at the front of the queue and then pop the ghostbuster disc to see if you feel the same way. I think there is a good chance you'll change your mind. On some scenes Labyrinth would be very grainy for some people here that like the clean look but that grain is fine for me I just see it as natural film grain, the grain in Ghostbuster has something that I can't quite put my finger on but for me just doesn't look right.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by cochon

When you have the chance try to put labyrinth at the front of the queue and then pop the ghostbuster disc to see if you feel the same way. I think there is a good chance you'll change your mind. On some scenes Labyrinth would be very grainy for some people here that like the clean look but that grain is fine for me I just see it as natural film grain, the grain in Ghostbuster has something that I can't quite put my finger on but for me just doesn't look right.

Well I watched Ghostbusters twice so far and I enjoyed it more the 2nd time so that’s unlikely. I love the disc, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[brainofj72]

Ghostbusters and Labyrinth are both in my top 10 UHD discs, and I’ve watched roughly 100 so far. Definitely reference material as far as I’m concerned.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ray0414

HDR exaggerates grain in an unintentional way. This is confirmed by multiple Hollywood colorists. It is unfortunately a double edged sword at times.

I actually rewatched a little bit of this the other night. Great color and saturation but some scenes are downright ugly. GB2 had a better picture though because of the newer cameras and a better quality negative used for the 4K back in the day.

That's because HDR is an unnatural process and shouldn't be used on any discs, just like DNR or sharpening. It's fake, unnatural color boosting. But people complained about the grain on the regular blu-ray, which had no HDR, but that's just how the film is, period.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

That's because HDR is an unnatural process and shouldn't be used on any discs, just like DNR or sharpening. It's fake, unnatural color boosting. But people complained about the grain on the regular blu-ray, which had no HDR, but that's just how the film is, period.

[cochon]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

But people complained about the grain on the regular blu-ray, which had no HDR, but that's just how the film is, period.

That would be because you have in front of you a 35mm first generation print of this film together with the ancillary equipment that enables you to make that comment, right? Or do you actually have the original negative with you?

Lucky you!

Most people here instead have to watch a digital disc on regular consumer quality products without having any idea of how the image was transferred to the disc and neither knowing where it was taken from. Some people are truly lucky.

[gkolb]

Good Grief !

What have I stumbled into here ? just on this one page ...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

That's because HDR is an unnatural process and shouldn't be used on any discs, just like DNR or sharpening. It's fake, unnatural color boosting. But people complained about the grain on the regular blu-ray, which had no HDR, but that's just how the film is, period.

So, can you explain to us now how SDR 709 encompasses the entire light-dark and color range of film?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

So, can you explain to us now how SDR 709 encompasses the entire light-dark and color range of film?

IMO it's more a question of both gamma and PQ being EOTFs that film's logarithmic response was never designed to be displayed in, so they both need care and sensitivity to ensure the best possible translation of the intent from film to video. While HDR can undoubtedly display more of the range of an image, the question is always how much of that image was meant to be displayed?

That question still keeps some folks awake at night but for me it circles back around to my first point: by definition a video transfer is a revision and it's safe to say that plenty of Blu-rays that people have ogled over the years had very little to do with the original creative intent. Not that two wrongs make a right when it comes to HDR's inherently wider scope for revisionism, but unless something is such a radical departure that it no longer resembles the movie that I know then I can usually live with it, and that applies to SDR just as much as HDR. I've still yet to see anything on HDR that was as batshit insane as the first Blu-ray of The French Connection, say.

And yes, HDR as an EOTF can exaggerate grain but let's not forget that most of these proper 4K transfers like GB are going back to the camera negatives, thereby unveiling the grain in a way that was arguably never meant to be seen in the first place. They knew full well that - negative or "show" prints and 70mm blowups aside - their images would be refracted through a copy of a copy of a copy which wasn't a lossless process in the analogue domain, losing high frequency detail with every step and ultimately affecting the grain along with it, turning it into something softer yet more coarsely defined at the same time. With these o-neg transfers we're getting the grain resolved in a much finer but more densely concentrated form, hence the swarm-o-vision that people are experiencing, including myself to some degree before I finally nailed down my settings.

Anyhoo, after seeing this thread get resurrected I popped GB in last night to flick through a few scenes. My God, it's beautiful. Grainy as balls to be sure, it will not be to everyone's taste and can be pushed into unwatchable hideousness depending on settings and displays and whatnot, but there's so much detail and filmic texture there it's like watching a pristine negative print only with the added kick of HDR. Wow wow wow.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Actually, art isn't an opinion. Someone may want a cleaner image, but they should respect the film the way it was made regardless of what the "like" or not. Without degrading tools like DNR, there would be no debate, because there would only be the option of how the film was originally shot and made, which is always 100% the correct way. Movies like Ghostbusters didn't just suddenly become grainy on blu-ray, they were always grainy, and yes, it was clearly visible in theaters. If someone wants to alter the image to fit what they "want," then they simply don't respect the art or any of the artists who created the movie in the first place. I'm assuming these same people don't go to museums complaining that they want the visible brush strokes removed from all the paintings, which is exactly the same thing... but maybe they are delusional and do.

I can appreciate some of what you're saying here but claiming art and someones decisions to like it or not is 100% opinion. The whole thing is purely subjective at the end of the day. Can you state that a film has competent special effects and production values? Yes. Can you state that a film has some other qualities that can be measured or proven? Sure. But art and the appreciation of it is subjective. No measureable data to collect.

As for film grain - Im fine with it as long as its not ridiculous. I can see though how HDR *could* artifically enhance it and IMO thats NOT good.

[KcMsterpce]

If you make a movie intended to be viewed by the technology of that time, then as technology (brightness, sharpness, color depth, etc...) improves, the flaws inherent in the INTENDED presentation can be enhanced during the conversion process.
For example, LEON looks great most of the time, but I still can't get over the terribly blown out whites in the Italian restaurant, especially the scenes with Matilda in the restaurant. I think it's for a couple reasons: First, the lighting most likely caused that scene to be a little overexposed DURING filming. It's possible that it was filmed with such an intent to compensate for darker projection screens, and/or for CRT televisions at the time (just conjecture; not truth). Finally, when the HDR process was put into place, it enhanced that extremely white apron/walls/background, making it even look - to me - as if it the aprons were transparent lol

Then, of course, how are systems calibrated for each TV that everyone has, etc... there could be countless reasons for something not being quite right: From the intended filming process being calibrated for technology from that time, the choices made during the restoration process/upgrades, all the way to the current viewers' settings.