Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Was surprised his comment got so many likes, to be honest.

Aye. It would've been easy enough for me - renowed as being a total cnut to people who I don't agree with - to just pile in with everyone else, but why not try the carrot rather than the stick? I mean some levels of ignorance are so ingrained that you'll never get through to them so I just skip straight to the mocking, but I didn't get that vibe from Enzo.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bytor

I wonder what's more responsible for the grain complaints with this disc though, the film stock or the bright Sony HDR grade. Are there other 4K discs of movies shot with that same film stock but without the Sony HDR grade? Maybe Gremlins?

It's a bit of both, it's stock that's as rough as sandpaper having literally thousands and thousands of nits being pushed through it, and not just peak brightness but average brightness which is what really amps up the grain in all parts of the image.

Gremlins was shot on the immediate predecessor to that stock (GB used 5294, Gremlins was 5293, both high speed and both grainy as all get out) but it also used a slower stock for the exteriors so it won't be anything like as coarse as GB's daylight scenes.

I'm struggling to think of something shot under the same circumstances as GB (5294 in 4-perf anamorphic) that's actually on 4K UHD disc as a means of comparison, nothing that isn't a Light Cannoned™ Sony movie anyway e.g. Labyrinth. Back to the Future was shot 5294 but it wasn't anamorphic and, like with Gremlins, they also used a slower stock for some scenes.

[Scottishguy]

I can imagine most grain complaints are mostly related to the image being blown out. Luminance noise that makes the grain field seem like it's pulsating.

There are really only two scenes that are heavy enough to be considered "swarming" in Ghostbusters. Those being when Venkman is doing his card reading experiment, when Venkman going to Danas apartment and discovers she's possessed.

But they aren't HDR related issues. It's the combination of film stock and poor lighting for dark scenes.

The end fight with Gozer looks dramatically better because it's actually properly staged for, due to i think all the VFX involved.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I can imagine most grain complaints are mostly related to the image being blown out. Luminance noise that makes the grain field seem like it's pulsating.

There are really only two scenes that are heavy enough to be considered "swarming" in Ghostbusters. Those being when Venkman is doing his card reading experiment, when Venkman going to Danas apartment and discovers she's possessed.

But they aren't HDR related issues. It's the combination of film stock and poor lighting for dark scenes.

The end fight with Gozer looks dramatically better because it's actually properly staged for, due to i think all the VFX involved.

The VFX shots for Ghostbusters were shot on 65mm which is why - in direct contravention of accepted wisdom re: optical degradation in old-school VFX - the image quality actually seems to get BETTER during the VFX heavy scenes, not worse!

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The VFX shots for Ghostbusters were shot on 65mm which is why - in direct contravention of accepted wisdom re: optical degradation in old-school VFX - the image quality actually seems to get BETTER during the VFX heavy scenes, not worse!

Cheers Geoff. Really people need to just default to UB820/9000s. And other companies, hopefully when get the next wave of player's. That they start doing their own flavour of HDR optimisation.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Cheers Geoff. Really people need to just default to UB820/9000s. And other companies, hopefully when get the next wave of player's. That they start doing their own flavour of HDR optimisation.

Dude, the first thing I do with any of these catalogue 35mm remasters of Sony's is to turn that Optimiser on. Makes them so much more 'velvety' (© RAH) in the grain when they're not being blasted with light.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, the first thing I do with any of these catalogue 35mm remasters of Sony's is to turn that Optimiser on. Makes them so much more 'velvety' (© RAH) in the grain when they're not being blasted with light.

Warner like the blast as well. Predator I recall had some issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4n2...ature=youtu.be

[bytor]

I love my region-free X800M2 but you guys are really tempting me to pick up a UB820 just for these Sony UHDs.

[rmihai0]

Originally Posted by bytor

I love my region-free X800M2 but you guys are really tempting me to pick up a UB820 just for these Sony UHDs.

What do you mean your "region free" X800M2? As far as I understood from Sony - mine is not !

[Nitroboy]

All 4K UHD discs are region free...

[bleakassassin]

Originally Posted by Nitroboy

All 4K UHD discs are region free...

Not quite true anymore.

[Laservampire]

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

It doesnt

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

Nope, sorry. You might have your sharpness setting in the display turned up too high.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

Because you are doing something very wrong.

[Marv Inc.]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

Maybe at a quick glance but the more you watch the UHD the more you notice how over saturated the colours on the bd are and the grain and fine detail is less refined.

[Gizz]

Originally Posted by Laservampire

Oh man, just getting around to checking this one out. How the hell does the Blu Ray in the set look BETTER than the UHD?

Watched both last week and they looked great to me.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Marv Inc.

Maybe at a quick glance but the more you watch the UHD the more you notice how over saturated the colours on the bd are and the grain and fine detail is less refined.

The fine detail is in your face on the UHD. Every building in the background of so many shots is well defined. Granted this has a lot to do with how it was shot, rather than the resolution itself. But it's there.

[Laservampire]

Originally Posted by Marv Inc.

Maybe at a quick glance but the more you watch the UHD the more you notice how over saturated the colours on the bd are and the grain and fine detail is less refined.

Good point on the over saturation on the Blu Ray, I hadn’t noticed that so much as the super levels of grain.

I like to keep enhancements to a minimum on my oled, so sharpness etc were all standard/off settings.

Playing around with the brightness and peak luminance helped the UHD a lot.

The worst part about doing all these comparisons is getting sucked into watching the film yet again haha!

But thanks to all of you who offered constructive feedback. It was just a bit of a shock after all of my other UHD’s looking great out of the box.