Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984)

[prkprkprk]

Originally Posted by nusilver

Thanks to all you lovely people, I decided to turn off my TV and take a train ride to a nearby Best Buy that had a bunch of these in stock. Took a couple minutes of convincing but they gave me the $8.99 deal. Wasn't planning on buying this, but couldn't pass on the price!

Same case here. Went immediately to Best Buy to price match, so happy to have gotten Ghostbusters 2 4K for 8.99. Thanks everyone for saving me $16!

[X-rayvision]

Just a heads up Walmart has GB1 for 22 bucks so have best buy price match & save yourself the 3 bucks. I forgot to check when I bought mine, oh well I got gb2 for 9 bucks (target price match) so I can't really complain

[zmarty]

Thanks for the tip. Best Buy priced matched Target's $8.99 for GB2. They did not however reduce the price for GB1 because it's not listed on the Target website. I showed them a "Mastered in 4K" version for $8.99 but they did not buy it.

[blurayjunkie]

I am looking forward to the reviews of the original Ghostbusters Movies in 4K

[nusilver]

Originally Posted by blurayjunkie

I am looking forward to the reviews of the original Ghostbusters Movies in 4K

Bill Hunt posted one weeks ago, for the first film.

[Adam_ME]

I watched some of this last night and it looked very impressive. I liked how the HDR was subtle and enhanced the picture without changing its look from what we've all become familiar with over the last 32 years. If this is what we can expect from future catalog titles, bring em on.

[singhcr]

I went to Best Buy yesterday and I had no difficulty getting them to price match Target's ad. I now have my first UHDBD title!

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Dustin Putman

Went into Best Buy to price match Ghostbusters II for $8.99 at Target. Cashier somehow confused that price for the first film, too!

Total for both: $19.06
Total savings: $42.00

SO glad I decided to stop there!

my neighborhood Best Buy have dumb folk, but they know when someone's trying to be cheap, they'd NEVER let that fly ...

good bargain for you.

[c3rolla]

I was fairly impressed with the 4k. I thought they did a great job the the transfer. I think that this is the best the movie has looked. I have a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup and i would give the audio 3 out of 5 stars. I guess for what the source was they did a really good job with the upgrade, but if you want to compare it with what I have come to expect from Dolby Atmos tracks, like Mad Max and Deadpool, it was a little disappointing. I was expecting a more enveloping experience. I was expecting more gut punching LFE and better use of surrounds. There were parts that they seemed to have punched up the LFE and surrounds, including height channels, and there are parts of the movie that I thought they almost left out. Overall I definitely think it was a good buy and upgrade from the blu-ray.

[Opips3]

I passed. Thanks c3rolla.


Gods of Egypt UHD was greatly increased audio!

[ray0414]

Part 1 has a Commentary option on the 4k disc. Don't remember seeing that option when I watched part 2 last night.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by c3rolla

I was fairly impressed with the 4k. I thought they did a great job the the transfer. I think that this is the best the movie has looked. I have a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup and i would give the audio 3 out of 5 stars. I guess for what the source was they did a really good job with the upgrade, but if you want to compare it with what I have come to expect from Dolby Atmos tracks, like Mad Max and Deadpool, it was a little disappointing. I was expecting a more enveloping experience. I was expecting more gut punching LFE and better use of surrounds. There were parts that they seemed to have punched up the LFE and surrounds, including height channels, and there are parts of the movie that I thought they almost left out. Overall I definitely think it was a good buy and upgrade from the blu-ray.

I agree and disagree. Just finished watching both parts and where I agree, is that the video is top notch. Where I disagree, is on the ATMOS track. Fine it wasn't Mad Max, but the tops kicked in where they needed to and did a fantastic job (more so in part 1). The tops are supposed to be mainly engaged when something is actually happening up above you and stuff like that. In part 1 especially, when the ghosts are flying around or the sky is turning pink, or whatever, the effects were great. Part 2 didn't wow me with the top effects as much, but they were used when needed. The tops aren't supposed to be active for the sake of being active. I actually despised that in San Andreas where it was just a wall of sound and an assault from everywhere at once.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Part 1 has a Commentary option on the 4k disc. Don't remember seeing that option when I watched part 2 last night.

I don't think II has an audio commentary.

[ray0414]

It's pretty obvious that for part 1, they used some crap cameras. Part 2 for the most part has better looking scenes, sharper with less grain, more of a 4k look imo. Colors though look good without being over the top. And I don't buy the excuse of 1984 at all. There's plenty of other movies that I think look better, including back to the future which is also a 1984 movie.
.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by ray0414

There's plenty of other movies that I think look better, including back to the future which is also a 1984 movie.
.

1984?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by ray0414

It's pretty obvious that for part 1, they used some crap cameras.

It wasn't the cameras, they were high end Panavision, it was the fast film stock.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

1984?

Well I was close lol I wonder if it was shot in late 84 but released/finished in 85, which gives it the 85 tag.


Edit: filming started the 1st week of January and ran until April. Film released in July 1985.

[Danny80916]

Originally Posted by ray0414

It's pretty obvious that for part 1, they used some crap cameras. Part 2 for the most part has better looking scenes, sharper with less grain, more of a 4k look imo. Colors though look good without being over the top. And I don't buy the excuse of 1984 at all. There's plenty of other movies that I think look better, including back to the future which is also a 1984 movie.
.

I am watching part one I was kinda surprised by all the grain I was hoping for no grain like what they did for Patton when it was remastered

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Danny80916

I am watching part one I was kinda surprised by all the grain I was hoping for no grain like what they did for Patton when it was remastered

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Danny80916

I am watching part one I was kinda surprised by all the grain I was hoping for no grain like what they did for Patton when it was remastered

Two totally different film stocks, film gauges, and photographic styles. If you had de-grained GB, you would have had a wax fest because the heavy grain made up a lot of the image texture.

Patton had little inherent grain to begin with because it was shot using premium 65mm negatives throughout. The only large format cinematography took place in GB for the clean SFX background plates because of generation loss using optical effects composited with optical printers.