devilmanozzy;165142
Ok, so you just said its not a actual screen cap from the blu-ray? Ok good, so its a fake/or as you say simulate a blu-ray look. Why didn't you say that freckin' 3 posts ago? God man give straight answers, then explain. No one wants to waste they time making fakes. lol

Well I posted in CAPITAL LETTERS where I got it from and showed a simulation, you didn't read correctly and probably skimmed and posted a bs reply. Don't blame me for not thoroughly reading my post….

sandmanfvr;165143
Well I posted in CAPITAL LETTERS where I got it from and showed a simulation, you didn't read correctly and probably skimmed and posted a bs reply. Don't blame me for not thoroughly reading my post….

Dude, all you needed to do was say it was a fake. That is much easier to understand. You start talking about how to do something, then say Simulation, then go on explaining something no one is going to do. Hell dude I have the dvd and VLC and photoshop cs3. But I ain't going to make a fake. Why do that when the real thing is up elsewhere?

Ok back to English class, the first Sentence of a paragraph usually summarizes the paragraph, then the rest of the paragraph explains it.

devilmanozzy;165146
Dude, all you needed to do was say it was a fake. That is much easier to understand. You start talking about how to do something, then say Simulation, then go on explaining something no one is going to do. Hell dude I have the dvd and VLC and photoshop cs3. But I ain't going to make a fake. Why do that when the real thing is up elsewhere?

Ok back to English class, the first Sentence of a paragraph usually summarizes the paragraph, then the rest of the paragraph explains it.

Really? I make a “fake” as you call it to show how video editing caused grain, which you still don't grasp. I did this to show how the Blu Ray looks like it is over sharpened. WHY? To show how video editing makes things look horrible if you over do it. It works on DVDs and Blu Rays. Hell it works on ALL photos and video. I don't need an English lesson, you didn't understand me and then blamed my post for you not understanding. *shrugs* You should have asked and not called me out, as I was just trying to show a point, which still stands: Over sharpening any digital media (Photos, DVD, Blu Ray etc) can add distortion which in my opinion is what Sony did.

EDIT: That site you showed does NOT show over sharpening examples, just straight rips from two DVDs and one Blu Ray, thus why I made it. Get that or to complicated?

sandman..u fail at every level as sony has…ghostbusters..the film is not a digital media..its a film..celluloid…you dont know what it lools like because you dont have the original print…i know film…and even hd or bluray will never look better than the original 35mm film…transferred original cells takes alot of work…sony cheated ..those bitches

jedimiller;165148
sandman..u fail at every level as sony has…ghostbusters..the film is not a digital media..its a film..celluloid…you dont know what it lools like because you dont have the original print…i know film…and even hd or bluray will never look better than the original 35mm film…transferred original cells takes alot of work…sony cheated ..those bitches

Fail at every level? Yeah they have the celluloid, called the MASTER (already said) and what the hell do you think is on the DVD and Blu Ray? A DIGITIZED VERSION. They took the master, re digitized it at full 1080p resolution and then cleaned and/or sharpened it. You know film but call me a fail and not know the version we watch on non VHS is digital? Ok then….

you fail to realize that digital media and cells cannot coexist…you are being cheated on and dont even realize it…it was stupid to sharpen the dvd shot and compare it to the film…id rather watch films that were shot with film on a projector at the movies…

sandmanfvr;165138
Very clear to me since I capitalized DVD and VLC and told exactly what I did, it comes down to not reading and seeing what I am saying as I stated from that post it was a DVD rip I ran through software to SIMULATE grain, not the Blu Ray. Nobody is listening, so no sense in arguing.

You need to relax guy. People are listening to you. You weren't clear. Had you said simulate before, it would've been clear. But just saying that the second image has been run through something to oversharpen it makes it sound like you're saying that the Blu-Ray was run through something to oversharpen, since that was your complaint.

Clearly, if more than a couple people aren't following your post, your the one that's not being clear. The problem lies with you, so stop coming at everyone with such attitude.

I would rather watch a digital camcorder that goes all digital and no film, so we are different. It was not stupid, but an example. I go from 1080p film to digital in and have to compress and edit video alot so I know the process. What I showed was just an example, but I am stupid for showing an example. Good grief, I am just stupid to some but it is obvious the people don't understand the whole process from film to fully restored media in digital form and arguing will not help it. The Blu Ray was ok quality but not what it should.

Doctor Venkman;165151
You need to relax guy. People are listening to you. You weren't clear. Had you said simulate before, it would've been clear. But just saying that the second image has been run through something to oversharpen it makes it sound like you're saying that the Blu-Ray was run through something to oversharpen, since that was your complaint.

Clearly, if more than a couple people aren't following your post, your the one that's not being clear. The problem lies with you, so stop coming at everyone with such attitude.

I can't help multiple posts/posters not reading thoroughly; the internet age makes people lazy in reading. I do have an attitude, yes but I was clear the whole time that it was an example. It would be nice to be asked “Hey I didn't understand that, what do you mean” without attitude being thrown at me. I don't care, I know what it takes to edit video from film to DVD (and hope to do Blu Ray but I still edit in 1080p till I convert down to DVD standard), so I know what I know. My opinion stands and arguing helps no one I guess.

Here is a fake I did of what the blu-ray would look like using the 1999 dvd image Paul had on his web site.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm42/devilmanozzy/Fakeblu-ray.png

I found to fake the dirty grain look, use the Noise>Add Noise filter in photoshop after copying the image as a second layer. I then on the background image uped the brightness with Exposure and also a bit of uping the Lightness in Hue/Saturation. I then set the none background layer to 11 % opacity and then flattened the image. Saved it as a png file.

sandmanfvr;165112
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.

I'm not denying him his rights to be credited as the creator of the franchise, but it's perfectly possible for the person who originally created said property to go and mess things up in it with tinkering.

It's not of the same degree, but what if Robert Zemeckis wanted to go back and replace all the live-action shots of the Delorean flying in Back to the Future 2 with a CGI model? Or, probably more appropriately, replaced the Delorean with the original idea they had for the time machine, a fridge?

That would mess up, if not ruin those films.

he can do as he pleases.

There's a limit as to what's reasonable in terms of creator involvement after the product has been released… especially when the time between the original release and the “tinkering”, is a number of decades.

jedimiller;165114
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.

I don't have any gripe with the upgraded lightsabre effects, and the removal of the obvious english alphabet seen throughout the film. My critiques were modifying the canteena scene so that Greedo shot first, and other things, such as various shots of imperial officers being shot, being removed.

Those edits didn't make those films better.

jedimiller;165123
I completely liked the idea of putting hayden in there as a young anakin…it was genius linking the two trilogies like that..

Except then, it should've also featured Ewan McGreggor as Obiwan, and a younger-looking Yoda.

Frankly, I'd rather there not be that sort of “attention” be lavished on Ghostbusters, I love the special effects that don't always stand up to the test of time. I fell in love with what I seen on screen whenever I put my copy of the 1999 DVD on, not whatever some CGI wizkid could do as a modern update.

I'm all for extra special features in a special edition, but leave the 1984 special effects alone.