Ghostbusters is embarassing. Heck, the original DVD up-converted looks better than the Blu-Ray. What the fuck, Sony?
I seem to recall awhile back Cth or someone was talking about how 28 Days Later on blu ray was a terrible transfer. I was wondering what, if any, other discs out there had shitty-to-average, ported-over-from-the-dvd transfers?
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ghostb...y-Review/3661/Ghostbusters slimes Blu-ray with a faithful-to-the-source 1080p, 2.40:1-framed transfer. Grain haters, beware. Ghostbusters features plenty of the swirly stuff in most every scene. There is certainly no evidence of noise reduction performed on this one as the film features some of the heaviest grain seen on any Blu-ray release. Nevertheless, the transfer captures the intended look of the film admirably, and while it's certainly not a smooth and slick production, it retains a pleasing film-like appearance while also encapsulating the essence of what Blu-ray can do for a transfer. Still, the film occasionally wavers between sharp and soft scenery. Fine details in faces and objects are not hard to come by; whether the cobweb-infested firehouse that becomes Ghostbusters headquarters or the clean lines that define the interior of Dana's kitchen, the visuals appear adequately rendered in most every shot. There is also a nice amount of depth to be seen in some of the long-distance outdoor New York City shots. Black levels don't stray too far from black, but some of the heaviest grain in the film is noted across darker backdrops. Flesh tones generally look natural, perhaps with just a slight red push. Although not a terribly vibrant, crystal-clear image, this transfer reflects how Ghostbusters should look, and makes for another winning catalogue release from Sony.
Since you mentioned Wizard of Oz, here's what they say about it:
So I think it's definitely not just a grain problem in the Ghostbusters blu-ray, just a mediocre transfer in general.But that's not all. A moderate veneer of grain permeates every frame, granting the picture a filmic appearance purists will be overjoyed to see in tact. I'm pleased to report that I didn't detect a hint -- not a sliver, shred, or slather -- of noise reduction. As it stands, any instance of softness should be attributed to the original source, not the Blu-ray transfer or the restoration team's efforts, digital scanning, or touch-ups. In fact, dear readers, I didn't encounter ringing, banding, aliasing, smearing, or any other debilitating digital nonsense. And edge enhancement? It either hasn't been applied or has been used so judiciously that its presence is nearly untraceable. The entire transfer showcases the quality of Warner's restoration, as well as the immense work that went into creating the go-to presentation of the film. Granted, as technology advances over the coming decades, the studio's 20+ terabyte scans will yield even greater transfers with more detail than a 1080p presentation could ever possibly reproduce, but I doubt anyone will complain about the limits of our current high definition format when they could spend their time soaking in the beauty of Oz.
28 Days Later does indeed suck. I got it very soon after I got my Blu-Ray player, and didn't do any research. But I got it for $9.99 so I can't complain too hard.
Firefly also has a very bad transfer, but I got it because of the round table discussion extra that is not on the DVDs. I also got it as an Amazon Gold Box special so the pricing was very good.
I actually like the Ghostbusters transfer.
Facebook ID: Doug Hahner
Film has grain. That's how you capture the image. On film grain.
Originally Posted by Jade