Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

While the lack of Ernie in the main publicity stuff is just a by-product of his supporting role in the first film (I never see anyone complain that Rick Moranis isn't on the GB1 cover), it's unfortunate that he's covered up by the no-ghost logo in the photo at the bottom left which is from the deleted Fort Detmerring sequence.

I attempted a joke.

I still think Ernie should have been included on the cover though. While I'm biased in that Winston was my favorite 'buster, the fact remains that he WAS a Ghostbuster (unlike Rick or Annie).

That being said, it's a pretty horrible cover, so the omission of Ernie is just one criticism out of the many.

[Drewbee87]

When I finally get an UHD player, I'll just stick these discs in the double feature Digibook. The artwork for these is atrocious!

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

While the lack of Ernie in the main publicity stuff is just a by-product of his supporting role in the first film (I never see anyone complain that Rick Moranis isn't on the GB1 cover), it's unfortunate that he's covered up by the no-ghost logo in the photo at the bottom left which is from the deleted Fort Detmerring sequence.

Shame though because he is still a Ghostbuster. He still has more screentime than Slimer and Stay Puft which are on the cover. I get it why they are there, but too bad they didn't just have the four standing across the top and the other stuff down below with the logo in the middle.

At least he is on the cover of the second one.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

Shame though because he is still a Ghostbuster. He still has more screentime than Slimer and Stay Puft which are on the cover. I get it why they are there, but too bad they didn't just have the four standing across the top and the other stuff down below with the logo in the middle.

At least he is on the cover of the second one.

I know he becomes a ghostbuster but there's got to be a reason why the dude rarely gets included on the front cover for GB1 (and I don't mean racism but perhaps some of legal finagling re: image rights). Still, even the publicity back in the day revolved around the main trio and that's the tack that Sony have continued to take, for the most part. But IIRC the cover for the original DVD of GBI actually had all four of them while for GBII only the three of them were there!

I'll be buying the UHDs in any case.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Excited by the announcement, but damn the artwork on both releases is disappointing...

[Geoff D]

Glad to hear that the UHDs will include the most recent (and in the case of GBII, the only) Blu-ray releases as the pack-in HD disc. Time to sell the digibook, I think.

Is it confirmed that the digital copies in the other Sony releases are redeeming as UHD? What service would that be through?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

The artwork isn't great, but I'd be okay with it if they swapped the versions of Slimer around to the correct movie. These covers still look better than the "mastered in 4k" editions of GB1 and 2 on Blu-Ray, not that it was exactly a high bar to surpass:

[Show spoiler]

I also wish they would ditch the silver spines on all of the Ultra 4K releases sooner rather than later.

IMO it doesn't look good for Ghostbusters, and it will inevitably be one of those things they change and we look back on the early releases and see their more gimmicky packaging, like the early Beuna Vista Blu-Rays with the Nike-esque "swoosh" on the covers.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

(I never see anyone complain that Rick Moranis isn't on the GB1 cover)

That's because he isn't a Ghostbuster.

[bailey1987]

At last, unless anything else is announced and is released before these two films it look like they could both be my first Ultra HD purchases that's provided that they see a release in the UK.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

That's because he isn't a Ghostbuster.

Neither is Winston until halfway (or whatever) through the film. Perhaps they should just put half of him on there? We see his back at least in the still on the bottom left of the cover.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Neither is Winston until halfway (or whatever) through the film.

Technically, none of them are Ghostbusters at the start...

[Geoff D]

Touché. We should just go back to having the no-ghost logo on the cover, it's much simpler that way...until people start complaining that it's the wrong way around.

[HeavyHitter]

Does anyone know if Sony did 4K workflows from start to finish for the master? Or is it something like Christine (4K to 2K I believe)?

[Geoff D]

oh, I doubt these are 2K remasters from IPs, AFAIK they're the realeffingdeal.com: full 4K work up from the original negatives.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It can reflect more of the dynamics that were originally captured on the film (or video), but it does not reflect the color timing that was originally designed for the movie's exhibition.

Incorrect.


It can be exactly the original color timing. You can make an HDR pass and not tweak anything. It can reflect the exact dynamic range of the original negative. The ZUUL sequence for example. No more washing out. No crushed blacks in other sequences.


Just like remasters of old soundtracks - you can make an aggressive 7.1 remix or just make an exact transfer that honors the original intent. HDR transfers are no different.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Does anyone know if Sony did 4K workflows from start to finish for the master? Or is it something like Christine (4K to 2K I believe)?

These are recent 4k (or maybe 6k oversampled) archival scans from original 35mm film elements with 4k cleanup and 4k HDR grading.

Lawrence of Arabia will be from an 8k scan of the restored 65mm elements with further 4k cleanup/color grading and 4k HDR grading.

New 4k scans from film elements are more apt to be true UHD on the disc rather than upsampled 2k.

[bruceames]

Looks like another $60 spent.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

These are recent 4k (or maybe 6k oversampled) archival scans from original 35mm film elements with 4k cleanup and 4k HDR grading.

Lawrence of Arabia will be from an 8k scan of the restored 65mm elements with further 4k cleanup/color grading and 4k HDR grading.

New 4k scans from film elements are more apt to be true UHD on the disc rather than upsampled 2k.

I think the >4K oversampling for true 4K-mastered titles is a given at this point, Freaky.

[ray0414]

This movie is now available in 4k HDR on Sony's new ULTRA app.

[Oniichan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Glad to hear that the UHDs will include the most recent (and in the case of GBII, the only) Blu-ray releases as the pack-in HD disc. Time to sell the digibook, I think.

Is it confirmed that the digital copies in the other Sony releases are redeeming as UHD? What service would that be through?

right now GB1 and GB2 available on Sony's UHD Streaming service providing you have one of their new 4K HDR TV's. I have the Sony 65 inch 930D. The app just became available today. But the wording HDR is not being advertised, so I don't think they are HDR

[Esox50]

Love it! Will be getting the first one! One of my favorites.