sandmanfvr;165018
No so cut and dry. First, film grain is not “always there” as masters kept at film studios and some in underground salt mines (yes salt to keep moisture out) are in pristine condition and don't have much if any grain. Film grain and the “hairs” we see on films in theaters is the lower quality copies they have and if the theaters didn't take care of the reels, well you saw it on screen. Second film grain in this case (GB Blu Ray)is caused by over SHARPENING the film. See my attached photos. I took that from the DVD with VLC (Had to re size for uploads. Can the forums be changed to allow bigger images at least?). The egon1 is a sized down rip from the DVD, then egon2 has been ran through a sharpening procedure to over sharpen it. Video does the same thing, I know I have done it. I am not saying grain isn't on the film, but some film is almost grain free if not grain free, it is way it is digitized and restored. Lazy or cheap software/software methods can add TONS of film artifacts and make video look like shit. Seeing how Indiana Jones was cleaned up for DVD, I know GB was done poorly. Sony didn't give a shit, got it in a PC/MAC and sharpened the hell out of it. I have Terminator on Blu Ray, the detail is fantastic and no grain. It can be done, Sony didn't try enough.

Sigh……. Your second pic looks photoshopped. Lets look at Spook Centrals Comparing page…
http://www.ecto-web.org/~spookcentral/gb1_homevid_compare.htm

The grain is shown to be at worst in darker scenes, and like the 2005 dvd they overblown the brightness. Basically the blu-ray is a high res version of the 2005 dvd, which by most accounts was inferior to the 1999 dvd. The worst thing about the new version is thanks to the overblown brightness, now the special effects are exposed. Best money is on the 1999. The blu-ray would have been fine if instead the adjust the contrast instead of the brightness. The darks were too dark in the 1999, but overblowing the brightness makes everything bleed.

The grain most likely was always there, but the overblown brightness made it more visible. Seemed that the 2005 version actually blurred a bit in places. My thoughts are, that is why the graininess didn't show there, and with the 1999 it didn't show cause it was plain dark.

Doctor Venkman;165021
Over sharpening is not grain. You know that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that a regular amount of grain makes a film look gritty, and real to me. And Ghostbusters doesn't look remotely like what you posted. I'm sure you posted it that way to try to make a point, but it didn't work very well.

You are talking about grain, and over sharpening can cause grain on top of grain already in the film. Do it yourself with a photo and see for yourself. I know there is some grain there, but the process Sony used added to the grain.

devilmanozzy sigh all you want, do it yourself! I put the files on my dropbox, uncompressed. The first one is a STRAIGHT rip from the DVD via VLC player. Download Irfanview program (Google it) and then hold SHIFT and hit S FOUR times. You will get the second photo, over sharpened.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7736853/egon1.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7736853/egon2.jpg

Frankly I don't care if anybody doesn't believe me, as I know over sharpening causes grain as I have done it before and I provide proof and still hear “fake”. Film grain is in the film, I see that, but digital restorations can ADD film grain and Sony did this. I am giving the original DVD rip photo for others to try, how about TRYING it before calling fake? Sheesh so much anger on this forum….

*awakes from slumber*


While I honestly feel SONY could of done a better release, for the 10 bucks I paid, it was worth it.

Oddly enough on my HD Projector, it seems to “eliminate” the grain. (and no there's no DNR setting enabled).

deadderek;165079
*awakes from slumber*



Oddly enough on my HD Projector, it seems to “eliminate” the grain. (and no there's no DNR setting enabled).

Same here.

devilmanozzy;165039
Sigh……. Your second pic looks photoshopped. Lets look at Spook Centrals Comparing page…
http://www.ecto-web.org/~spookcentral/gb1_homevid_compare.htm

The grain is shown to be at worst in darker scenes, and like the 2005 dvd they overblown the brightness. Basically the blu-ray is a high res version of the 2005 dvd, which by most accounts was inferior to the 1999 dvd. The worst thing about the new version is thanks to the overblown brightness, now the special effects are exposed. Best money is on the 1999. The blu-ray would have been fine if instead the adjust the contrast instead of the brightness. The darks were too dark in the 1999, but overblowing the brightness makes everything bleed.

The grain most likely was always there, but the overblown brightness made it more visible. Seemed that the 2005 version actually blurred a bit in places. My thoughts are, that is why the graininess didn't show there, and with the 1999 it didn't show cause it was plain dark.

I totally agree with you.

It's frustrating because, the 1999 has the right contrast/brightness but the colours are a bit off. The 2005 DVD, is quite ‘green’ in places due to the alteration of the colour timing but a bit washed out in places too. The Blu-ray again like the 2005, is a bit ‘green’ but has much better definition and slightly better colours, however suffers badly in places because the ‘noise’ is now noticeable from the brightness change.

I guess VHS/Laserdisc is probably the only way to see it without some of these problems but then you have the problem with watching a low res video which itself may have problems due to the age of it.

Im not going to buy that crap…even if its only 10 dollars…SONY needs to learn from george Lucas…the master of film. The film needs to be put into a computer, digitally, frame by frame cleaned out…even if it means filling in those celluloid areas with grain with pixelated colors….someone needs to go in there and fill out the wholes hand by hand on the computer..then i'll buy it

jedimiller;165095
SONY needs to learn from george Lucas…the master of film.

Lucas lost that title when he decided to meddle with the original Star Wars trilogy.

I suppose it depends on whether you already own the film of dvd and how much you're willing to pay for it on blue ray. I have it. Some parts look sharp and detailed where as other parts look poor.

jedimiller;165095
Im not going to buy that crap…even if its only 10 dollars…SONY needs to learn from george Lucas…the master of film. The film needs to be put into a computer, digitally, frame by frame cleaned out…even if it means filling in those celluloid areas with grain with pixelated colors….someone needs to go in there and fill out the wholes hand by hand on the computer..then i'll buy it

Bingo! I agree 100%, do it right the whole way through.

Kingpin;165104
Lucas lost that title when he decided to meddle with the original Star Wars trilogy.

These silly comments always make me laugh. He “meddled” with Star Wars? Really? He fucking created Star Wars when some of us weren't even born or just little. He owns it and it is HIS creation, he can do as he pleases. I actually like the Prequel trilogy just as good as the original, some parts better then the original, and I like the new Indy because I didn't sit for years thinking my head what Lucas SHOULD do and then being disappointed. I let him tell HIS story and was entertained. Meddled, HA!

Kingpin;165104
Lucas lost that title when he decided to meddle with the original Star Wars trilogy.

OH please! he made it new…he fixed the special effect..he came out with the special edition..wouldn't you want that to happen with ghostbusters? A special Edition? A real special edition? I know ur lying.