Ghostbusters

bat00 · 19-11-2009, 10:30 PM

What are the problems with the ghostbusters blu-ray?
I was going to buy it, but heard its not as good as it should be?

rebel_scum · 20-11-2009, 1:13 AM

There's nothing wrong with Ghostbusters on BD, anti-grain whingers talking pants.
The contrast is reportably a bit hot in some areas, but come on..

jay mc · 20-11-2009, 1:19 AM

Its got a lot of grain but thats how it was filmed, to me it looks very good on bd.

sonysean · 20-11-2009, 1:50 AM

Was asking the same question on here a while back as like you i'd read alot of bad reviews about it.

Dont take any notice, it looks great on BD i got it a few days ago, much better than the DVD

If you're gonna get it now would be a great time as you can it in Play's Buy 1 Get 1 Free offer.

Play.com (UK) - Free Delivery - Blu-ray - Buy One Get One Free!

Cerberus30000 · 20-11-2009, 5:44 AM

same people who don't want any grain in their blu-rays probably like air brushed models lol :P

cassius76 · 20-11-2009, 10:45 AM

There is nothing wrong with Ghostbusters and it has even one plaudits for the image quality. It's amazing comparing it to the original US and UK DVD. Knocks them out of the water!

*005* · 20-11-2009, 12:48 PM

I've yet to watch it but accept that grain is just the way it was filmed & is impossible to remove the only way to remove it is to film the film again!

People should know it's not even grain it's filming quality at the time of 16mm or 35mm & usually occurs in mainly dark scenes.

irascian · 20-11-2009, 1:07 PM

Believe it or not I hadn't seen this film until I got the Blu-Ray.

I was really disappointed with it. Found the movie itself slow, plodding and extremely dated. Can't imagine ever wanting to sit through it again.

I didn't think it was a good advert for Blu-Ray either. Wished I'd just rented the DVD instead of buying it on Blu.

I find it hard to envisage what the Blu-Ray offers over a super-scaled DVD (and the DVD is available for a much cheaper price)

rebel_scum · 20-11-2009, 1:22 PM

Oh behave.

Geoff_D · 20-11-2009, 2:31 PM

LCD displays don't do this disc any favours though. I last watched the Ghostbusters BD on a plasma, and it had a pleasingly analogue quality, yet on an LCD (even one as lovely as my 46" Sony) the overdone contrast is all too apparent and the grain is nearly overwhelming.

I loves teh grain, but what we see on the Ghostbusters disc is a bit too close to digital noise for me. It's almost as if the grain on this movie is still too coarse for BD to properly replicate. I don't dig the colour saturation either.

Don't get me wrong, this disc is a revelation compared to previous editions, plus the underlying master has the approval of the cinematographer so it's intended to look like that. I just don't like it a heck of a lot. Perhaps I watched this movie one too many times on a grotty pan-and-scan VHS as a kid, so my mind can't accept anything else.

mentasm · 20-11-2009, 2:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irascian

I find it hard to envisage what the Blu-Ray offers over a super-scaled DVD (and the DVD is available for a much cheaper price)

If you look at this you won't have to imagine. It's much better than the DVD. Up-scaling wouldn't even come close.

Prawnee · 20-11-2009, 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irascian

I was really disappointed with it. Found the movie itself slow, plodding and extremely dated. Can't imagine ever wanting to sit through it again.

Each to their own i guess.

nwgarratt · 20-11-2009, 4:26 PM

Some decent screenshots here. It looks the best it has ever done. No brainer especially at £7 in the offers.

Blu-ray Movie Screenshots - Ghostbusters (1984) [Blu-ray]

Keane · 20-11-2009, 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irascian

Believe it or not I hadn't seen this film until I got the Blu-Ray.

I was really disappointed with it. Found the movie itself slow, plodding and extremely dated. Can't imagine ever wanting to sit through it again.

tele1962 · 20-11-2009, 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keane

+1

Jeff · 21-11-2009, 11:38 AM

Terrible transfer, the contrast boosting has completely riuned the look of the movie, it not only killed the fine detail but also erased parts of the picture such as sky. The grain itself would have been fine but the digital tinkering makes it look unnatural.

mentasm · 21-11-2009, 12:13 PM

But, as others have stated, the master was approved by the director and the cinematographer (before he died).

vader100 · 21-11-2009, 12:37 PM

So was the French Connection (well by the director) and that turned out terrible.

Ghostbusters, to my eye, was OK, not outstanding or terrible, just OK. Some shots were poor, mainly exterior shots, but some of the others were excellent.

mentasm · 21-11-2009, 12:50 PM

My point was that we as movie fans are always banging on about respecting the director's vision, but we're very quick to dismiss it when it doesn't suit us. There are certainly elements of the transfer that I find unappealing, but 'terrible' is not an adjective I would use to describe it when there are some truly awful discs out there.

Jeff · 21-11-2009, 3:56 PM

You can't read anything into a director or cinematographer approving a "for home" transfer. In many cases it's just a very simple sign-off process with very little involvement. Any transfer where they digitally erase significant portions of the image is a terrible transfer IMO, it simply should never happen.

mentasm · 21-11-2009, 7:41 PM

I'm going by the comments made by the director after he watched a screening of the new BD. He said it's the best it's ever looked and fixed a few of the contrast issues that the older versions used to have, or words to that effect. For my money the massive improvements in most areas outweigh the negative impact of the contrast boosting, but different strokes and all that.

Geoff_D · 22-11-2009, 12:15 AM

There is some truth to what mentasm says. IIRC Reitman actually darkened previous home video versions to hide the joins, so to speak. Although why he'd then brighten it a ridiculous amount on the one format that will show the effects up even more is anyone's guess. You can see the background plates wobble like mad in some of the Stay Puft shots.

BamBamMickey · 24-11-2009, 3:23 PM

Nothing at all wrong with Ghostbusters BD.
The sound was orgasmic and the PQ was exactly as good as i hoped.

*005* · 24-11-2009, 8:37 PM

The biggest misconception with Blu Ray is that everyone wants or thinks the films were made yesterday & that they should look as good as digitally made films today but its not that simple.

Some Consideration Factors:

Investment into the Transfer
Condition of the Original 16mm or 35mm
Period of the film of when it was made

People can always rent or find numerous reviews/user reviews on BR before buying.

Wanna see something bad on DVD, try The Cassandra Crossing, that's got more dirt on it than the streets of London!

Jeff · 24-11-2009, 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 005

The biggest misconception with Blu Ray is that everyone wants or thinks the films were made yesterday & that they should look as good as digitally made films today but its not that simple.

Some Consideration Factors:

Investment into the Transfer
Condition of the Original 16mm or 35mm
Period of the film of when it was made

All of the problems with Ghostbusters have nothing to do with film, they are all in the creation of the digital master. I'm normally not picky with transfers, all I expect is that they don't F things up. To put things into perspective, if they hadn't contrast boosted it, you would need to have a display massively out of calibration to get similar results. Now I don't know about anone else but I have invested considerable time and effort into getting my display correct and I don't like it when "professionals" get something so basic such as contrast wrong in the master.