Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Indiana Jones

Isn’t that to be expected? after all the higher the resolution the more detail and thus more visible grain.

Or consecuences of an agressive HDR implementation maybe.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Seems the 4k has more grain than the remastered blu. At least it seemed as if it had more.

Not more, just better defined. It was always shot on fairly high speed film stock and was grainier than some.

[Noremac Mij]

Sony makes the most over processed UHDs out of any label. Heavy grain is due to severe sharpening and HDR.

[gooseygander2001]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Sony makes the most over processed UHDs out of any label. Heavy grain is due to severe sharpening and HDR.

Not true, show me this sharpening on anything other than the fifth element...

Sony are generally the best in the business and aside from mastering at 4000 nits requiring good tone mapping to get the best from their 4k discs, they're hard to fault.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by gooseygander2001

Not true, show me this sharpening on anything other than the fifth element...

Sony are generally the best in the business and aside from mastering at 4000 nits requiring good tone mapping to get the best from their 4k discs, they're hard to fault.

Think about it, Sony is scanning the negative and yet getting ten times more grain than an actual print. Not only are they seriously sharpening their masters, but also virtually all of their video hardware has undefeatable sharpening. This goes back to the laserdisc days, where Sony players looked significantly more grainy than Pioneer or anything else on the market at the time. That’s just one example. But it holds true for everything, VCRs, UHD players, camcorders to cameras, and TVs. Both Sony and LG use the same LG screens, but in a side by side comparison, Sony OLEDs have an unnatural etched look, while LG looks beautifully natural.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Think about it, Sony is scanning the negative and yet getting ten times more grain than an actual print. Not only are they seriously sharpening their masters, but also virtually all of their video hardware has undefeatable sharpening. This goes back to the laserdisc days, where Sony players looked significantly more grainy than Pioneer or anything else on the market at the time. That’s just one example. But it holds true for everything, VCRs, UHD players, camcorders to cameras, and TVs. Both Sony and LG use the same LG screens, but in a side by side comparison, Sony OLEDs have an unnatural etched look, while LG looks beautifully natural.

Seeing as it's common knowledge that release prints were several generations of image quality removed from the negative, why would you expect a scan from the negative to look just like a print? Do you honestly think studios should degrade their scans to more closely resemble release prints (which were wildly divergent from one to another in most cases in the first place)?

I'll stick with my scan looking closer to the source element, i.e. the negative, any day. You have claimed that "nobody cares about the negative" several times before, but that is simply not true. Many of us are interested in getting as close as possible to the source.

[Noremac Mij]

With each generation, it gets grainier. Scanning a negative and having it end up looking grainier than a print is a problem. At this point, solely a Sony problem.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

With each generation, it gets grainier. Scanning a negative and having it end up looking grainier than a print is a problem. At this point, solely a Sony problem.

Nope. With each new generation, the image gets softer and duller, thus diluting the grain. The detail is in the grain.

[gooseygander2001]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

With each generation, it gets grainier. Scanning a negative and having it end up looking grainier than a print is a problem. At this point, solely a Sony problem.

I'm sure the grain is heightened mainly due to the 4000 nit mastering and not through jiggery pokery

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by gooseygander2001

I'm sure the grain is heightened mainly due to the 4000 not mastering and not through jiggery pokery

Sony’s torch like HDR/contrast exaggerates the grain further, no doubt, but they’ve been beating the sharpened grain horse to death for decades.

[gooseygander2001]

Again, some evidence would be great...

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by gooseygander2001

Again, some evidence would be great...

The evidence you seek you’ll have to find yourself. Mine is just an opinion from decades worth of professional and hobbyist experience in working with film and video and owning or having access to various equipment over the years.

Please feel free to compare Sony 4000 nit titles to similar work from other studios. It’s also a good idea to familiarize in film, especially from that era. What 35mm prints look like, etc. I also recommend purchasing high end TVs from several manufacturers (including Sony) to do some comparison work.

[gooseygander2001]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The evidence you seek you’ll have to find yourself. Mine is just an opinion from decades worth of professional and hobbyist experience in working with film and video and owning or having access to various equipment over the years.

Please feel free to compare Sony 4000 nit titles to similar work from other studios. It’s also a good idea to familiarize in film, especially from that era. What 35mm prints look like, etc. I also recommend purchasing high end TVs from several manufacturers (including Sony) to do some comparison work.

So basically you have no evidence to base your theory on....

I have a panasonic oled used as a mastering monitor by some in the industry...I have owned LG and Sony Oleds and there is very little between them. Warners blade runner looks very similar to a sony disc so I'd wager there is no sharpening going on at all. I've seen plenty of sony titles and NONE have any sharpening applied....

"This discussion can serve no purpose Dave..."

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The evidence you seek you’ll have to find yourself. Mine is just an opinion from decades worth of professional and hobbyist experience in working with film and video and owning or having access to various equipment over the years.

Please feel free to compare Sony 4000 nit titles to similar work from other studios. It’s also a good idea to familiarize in film, especially from that era. What 35mm prints look like, etc. I also recommend purchasing high end TVs from several manufacturers (including Sony) to do some comparison work.

And by "comparison work" you mean watch laserdiscs on them.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The evidence you seek you’ll have to find yourself. Mine is just an opinion from decades worth of professional and hobbyist experience in working with film and video and owning or having access to various equipment over the years.

Please feel free to compare Sony 4000 nit titles to similar work from other studios. It’s also a good idea to familiarize in film, especially from that era. What 35mm prints look like, etc. I also recommend purchasing high end TVs from several manufacturers (including Sony) to do some comparison work.

Your experience...as a train engineer?

[Bostonyte]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Your experience...as a train engineer?

I'm guessing Bridge Structural Engineer...considering he lives under one?

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Indiana Jones

Isn’t that to be expected? after all the higher the resolution the more detail and thus more visible grain.

Never really noticed that much on 4ks, I was surprised that's all. Even Gremlins wasn't as grainy imo. Some close ups or closer shot scenes looked really nice with some grain.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Never really noticed that much on 4ks, I was surprised that's all. Even Gremlins wasn't as grainy imo. Some close ups or closer shot scenes looked really nice with some grain.

Really depends on the movie, i.e. what film stock was used and how much grain management was applied. Sometimes it looks more refined, sometimes it looks more obvious.

[Psycho666]

Just to check, if I’m not that bothered about extras and don’t already own Ghostbusters, is the UK 4K UHD okay to get at a good price and is the SD Blu-ray included the Mastered in 4K version?

I saw some comments about the picture quality not being a massive step up from the Mi4K version but the 4K UHD has more noticeable grain, so I could choose to watch the Mi4K Blu-ray if I find the grain on the 4K UHD not to my liking.

Thanks.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Psycho666

Just to check, if I’m not that bothered about extras and don’t already own Ghostbusters, is the UK 4K UHD okay to get at a good price and is the SD Blu-ray included the Mastered in 4K version?

I saw some comments about the picture quality not being a massive step up from the Mi4K version but the 4K UHD has more noticeable grain, so I could choose to watch the Mi4K Blu-ray if I find the grain on the 4K UHD not to my liking.

Thanks.

The BD and UHD do use the 4K master that was used for the 2014 theatrical release. However, the barebones BD that was part of the Mastered in 4K BD line a few years ago does have marginally better compression than the BD included with the UHD because of its higher bitrate.