Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[BijouMan]

Approximate layer change timestamps:

L0 to L1: 0:51:57

[The Great Owl]

I first saw the supernatural comedy, Ghostbusters, upon its release during the summer of 1984, when I was 12 years old, just before my middle school years. My church youth group organized a bus trip for all of us to see it at a theater in a nearby city, a scenario that is quite amusing in retrospect, since, for its time, the film was quite crude for a PG-rated endeavor.

My youth group friends and I had a good laugh at the adventures and misadventures of Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz, and Egon Spengler, the three parapsychologists who go into business for themselves after being kicked off of a university campus, soon to be joined by Janine Melnitz, a secretary played by Annie Potts, and Winston Zeddemore, a newly hired Ghostbuster played by Ernie Hudson. None of us were particularly blown away by the movie, though, during that first viewing. Back then, this was just one of many high budget motion pictures during an era where, to our young perspectives, everything was awesome. We were all fresh off of seeing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom a couple of weeks earlier, after all, and we were gearing up to see Gremlins and The Karate Kid that same month. I remember, after that screening, thinking that Ghostbusters was hilarious, with some cool effects and a killer soundtrack, but that it was also a screwball affair that would soon be forgotten in comparison to the “important” releases from Steven Spielberg and the like.

A year and a half later, during the Christmas of 1985, my family bought our first VCR. As a gift, one of my uncles gave me a videocassette with HBO recordings of Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, and Rocky III. My repeat viewings of all three of those films in subsequent months marked the transition of Ghostbusters from merely a “really good” movie to a genuinely great movie in my eyes. The endlessly quotable lines elicited bigger belly laughs with each subsequent viewing, I was also learning more about cinema, and was increasingly appreciating the concept that seemingly effortless throwaway movies actually take quite a lot of effort. Finally, it did not hurt that my adolescent self could not get enough of the possessed Sigourney Weaver.

I would eventually come to realize that Ghostbusters was lightning in a bottle, since, up to that point, good comedies with great special effects were few and far between. The spontaneity of humorous outings and the meticulousness of elaborate big budget extravaganzas were generally not good bedfellows. In present day, I note that the effective blend of funny one-liners and massive spectacle in the Marvel Cinematic Universe installments, for example, can all be traced back to the success of this movie.

I never would have guessed back in 1984 that director Ivan Reitman, co-writer Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray, the team behind Meatballs (1979) and Stripes (1981), would have collaborated on a classic with such staying power. Over the decades, this film has become one of my all-time favorites, certainly one of my top five comedies, but it is also one of those ubiquitously heralded movies that is tough to review, since I cannot think of anything to say that has not already been said a million times in retrospective pieces and such. It is a brilliant underdog story and a quintessential working man-versus-stuffy bureaucracy tale that happens to feature enough visual wizardry to put a smile on the face of any nerd. It is one of those motion pictures that probably came so close to not working, but somehow managed to work wonderfully well to become a triumph of Biblical proportions. The crossing of the streams is not always a bad thing.

This 4K disc (in my steelbook with the second film) is a thing of beauty.

[Amiibro121]

At first I thought this movie was indeed very grainy like the forums said, but I definitely got used to it shortly after. I set my expections low before watching but there sure is rarely any detail or parts not covered in softness. This wasn't much of an upgrade from my 2009 blu ray. It's an overall ok looking disc but one of my weakest looking 4ks.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Amiibro121

At first I thought this movie was indeed very grainy like the forums said, but I definitely got used to it shortly after.

I find this is the case with most "grainy" films.

[cinemaphile]

So I just entered the 4k world, and one of my first pickups was my favorite comedy of all time, Ghostbusters.

Popped it in last night and it looked pretty bad. I honestly took the disc back out to make sure I had put in the right one. I then compared it to my regular HD digital copy on Vudu, and that looked way better than this 4k disc. WTF?

I'm hoping this was just one title that got a bad transfer. Because if is what I can look forward to, then I may just bow out of "upgrading" any more old movies.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

So I just entered the 4k world, and one of my first pickups was my favorite comedy of all time, Ghostbusters.

Popped it in last night and it looked pretty bad. I honestly took the disc back out to make sure I had put in the right one. I then compared it to my regular HD digital copy on Vudu, and that looked way better than this 4k disc. WTF?

I'm hoping this was just one title that got a bad transfer. Because if is what I can look forward to, then I may just bow out of "upgrading" any more old movies.

Give Terminator 2 a shot.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Give Terminator 2 a shot.

sadly that's one of the others I bought and I've heard that was a bad one, too. I haven't opened that one up yet, so maybe I will return it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

sadly that's one of the others I bought and I've heard that was a bad one, too. I haven't opened that one up yet, so maybe I will return it.

Terminator 2 4k is on the other side of the spectrum. They slathered it in heavy noise reduction and now everything looks like a wax work museum.



Ghostbusters was shot with high speed film stock and so you will get a heavy grain pattern. It's the way it was shot and how it's supposed to look. The heavy compression on streaming doesn't resolve grain very well, so it looks smoother. Once you get used to the texture of the film, it looks weird without the grain.



Grain is actually part of the image on a film negative. Some of it is finer and less pronounced, some of it is heavier for low light or natural light situations. However, if you scrub the grain away, the image looks odd. Just learn to love the grain inherent in film. After awhile you actually may not like the overly smooth look of digital productions. It lacks a certain organic quality to the image. That's why many DP's shooting with digital cameras will add a fake film grain layer over the top.

[JG7]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

So I just entered the 4k world, and one of my first pickups was my favorite comedy of all time, Ghostbusters.

Popped it in last night and it looked pretty bad. I honestly took the disc back out to make sure I had put in the right one. I then compared it to my regular HD digital copy on Vudu, and that looked way better than this 4k disc. WTF?

I'm hoping this was just one title that got a bad transfer. Because if is what I can look forward to, then I may just bow out of "upgrading" any more old movies.

Sounds like a tone mapping issue. Also, the grain is more pronounced on the 4k.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Ghostbusters was shot with high speed film stock and so you will get a heavy grain pattern. It's the way it was shot and how it's supposed to look. The heavy compression on streaming doesn't resolve grain very well, so it looks smoother. Once you get used to the texture of the film, it looks weird without the grain.

Grain is actually part of the image on a film negative. Some of it is finer and less pronounced, some of it is heavier for low light or natural light situations. However, if you scrub the grain away, the image looks odd. Just learn to love the grain inherent in film. After awhile you actually may not like the overly smooth look of digital productions. It lacks a certain organic quality to the image. That's why many DP's shooting with digital cameras will add a fake film grain layer over the top.

The 4k disc definitely had more grain, which I don't mind, but the color and everything was off, too. It just looked like a big step backward compared to the HD.

[Sky_Captain]

That's reminded me, I'm really looking forward to the annual post Christmas 'I've just gone 4K, why does [Insert title here] look like shit?' posts...

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

The 4k disc definitely had more grain, which I don't mind, but the color and everything was off, too. It just looked like a big step backward compared to the HD.

I think your 4k display may need a bit of calibration. Also, turn the sharpness down all the way until you know which setting is optimal for the TV model. Many have neutral sharpness at 0.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Amiibro121

At first I thought this movie was indeed very grainy like the forums said, but I definitely got used to it shortly after. I set my expections low before watching but there sure is rarely any detail or parts not covered in softness. This wasn't much of an upgrade from my 2009 blu ray. It's an overall ok looking disc but one of my weakest looking 4ks.

Originally Posted by Martoto

I find this is the case with most "grainy" films.

What you guys may not understand is that film is suppose to have grain, and 4K UHD makes the grain even more apparent because of the higher resolution. If film doesn't have grain, then it will look like it was made with a camcorder, or DNR was applied and all the detail of the images was technically removed, and the faces are waxy. So If the movie had DNR, then there would be complaints about the grain and detail being stripped from the movie.

[Jay H.]

Everything About Grain Bins (Farmers are Geniuses) - Smarter Every Day 218 - YouTube

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by slimdude

What you guys may not understand is that film is suppose to have grain, and 4K UHD makes the grain even more apparent because of the higher resolution. If film doesn't have grain, then it will look like it was made with a camcorder, or DNR was applied and all the detail of the images was technically removed, and the faces are waxy. So If the movie had DNR, then there would be complaints about the grain and detail being stripped from the movie.

Yeah I know.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

So I just entered the 4k world, and one of my first pickups was my favorite comedy of all time, Ghostbusters.

Popped it in last night and it looked pretty bad. I honestly took the disc back out to make sure I had put in the right one. I then compared it to my regular HD digital copy on Vudu, and that looked way better than this 4k disc. WTF?

I'm hoping this was just one title that got a bad transfer. Because if is what I can look forward to, then I may just bow out of "upgrading" any more old movies.

I'll cut you some slack because you have a Last Boy Scout avatar, but otherwise, no.

[the sordid sentinel]

Have owned this for several months and gave it 1st look around Halloween. I thought it looked flipping fantastic..by far and away the best I've ever seen it look. Yeah, there's a good bit of grain but I've just never been sensitive to it. Give me that over DNR ANY day of the week. Like someone mentioned previously, once you get settled into a movie the grain fades away.

Props to Owl for the trip down memory lane posted above. The Summer of '84 was pure multiplex magic.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

The 4k disc definitely had more grain, which I don't mind, but the color and everything was off, too. It just looked like a big step backward compared to the HD.

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Have owned this for several months and gave it 1st look around Halloween. I thought it looked flipping fantastic..by far and away the best I've ever seen it look. Yeah, there's a good bit of grain but I've just never been sensitive to it. Give me that over DNR ANY day of the week. Like someone mentioned previously, once you get settled into a movie the grain fades away.

Props to Owl for the trip down memory lane posted above. The Summer of '84 was pure multiplex magic.

Indeed. It looks fantastic.

[Amiibro121]

Originally Posted by slimdude

What you guys may not understand is that film is suppose to have grain, and 4K UHD makes the grain even more apparent because of the higher resolution. If film doesn't have grain, then it will look like it was made with a camcorder, or DNR was applied and all the detail of the images was technically removed, and the faces are waxy. So If the movie had DNR, then there would be complaints about the grain and detail being stripped from the movie.

I enjoy grain in movies, jumanji (1995) despite having a good to large amounts of grain, is my favorite looking disc, I love the texture and details movies left untouched with grain intact look. Jumanji is how I want movies to look in 4k but I thought Ghostbusters had too much very noticeable grain where it could get annoying an/or kinda consistently very blurry at points while watching. Although I already know that's because of how the source material was shot.

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I'll cut you some slack because you have a Last Boy Scout avatar, but otherwise, no.

When THE LAST BOY SCOUT on UHD 4k Ultra Blu-ray DVD