Comments on: Blu-ray Review: Ghostbusters

By: Dave Mckenna

Dave Mckenna — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:42:14 +0000

I agree purhased Ghostbusters the other day. Was very disappointed with all the grain on my Sony Bravia Full HD TV.
Would have demanded a refund if it wasn’t for the extra’s, which incidentally to get to you have to navigate an absolute appalling menu option select system. Hope another non rushed version becomes available. Terminator 2 the first Blu-ray release had similar issues, until the more advanced crystal clear stunning Skynet version became available. Blade Runner is a belter for picture quality considering it’s age.
BBC Planet Earth is eye candy good as is Cars. But Antartica Dreaming Blu-ray is the most stunning picture quality you’ll ever see…….

By: Doug/honeycut1

Doug/honeycut1 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:08:34 +0000

I love the Slimer mode, I really enjoyed the commentary with the fella who played Walter Peck.

By: Aidy

Aidy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:33:10 +0000

I agree, picked this up yesterday and on our new monster home cinema setup it looks great.Grain not that big a deal for me but Pioneer TV thats been fully calibrated probably helps.
Its always worth tweaking your TV settings to get it just right.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:08:22 +0000

Alright here is the problem, it looks like the source print for this Blu-ray edition of Ghostbusters is the same one that was used for the DVD version from a few years back, given a remaster treatment.

One of the posters on the AV forums once commented “Film grain is generally too small to be encoded and seen on SD. HD has enough resolution to show almost all the film grain. This is why you are only now starting to notice it.” Many studio catalogue titles have a LOT of grain on their shovelware Blu-ray releases.
Poltergeist looks great? Yes it does, the source print must be in far greater condition than that of Ghostbusters, or it got the full on restoration treatment for its reissue. That is why I said it looks as good as it possibly could considering the state of the original source of the movie.

If the original print had been completely remastered from scratch (an extremely costly process) then it could have been suitably cleaned up and would look a whole lot nicer. Witness a movie such as Blade Runner which looks incredible, but a fortune was spent on going back to basics on it. Sony have not done this with Ghostbusters.

Maybe one day they will, in time for the 30th anniversary perhaps? But I didn’t find the grain to be an OMG show stopper, yes its evident but on both of my suitably tweaked HD displays I watched it on it didn’t bother me too much.
I will agree that perhaps the super duper back to basics remaster is what we should have gotten, but if we did then how could they sell it to us yet again in the future?

By: Hayley

Hayley — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:11:12 +0000

I’m a big fan of Ghostbusters and was very dissapointed when I watched the Blu-Ray. As the review mentioned it’s full of grain. You can’t say Sony did an excellent job and this picture quality is the best that can be achieved because of how old the film is! Sorry that’s rubbish. Take a look at Poltergeist which is older than Ghostbusters. The picture quality is amazingly crisp and clear. I’ll be watching my DVD version of Ghostbusters in the future. I will be keeping the Blu-Ray however for the extras. There’s an array of goodies on there to keep you entertained for ages!
Overall, the Blu-Ray is top for extras and sound, but a massive thumbs down for picture. Sony should be ashamed that they will have dissapointed many fans like me who have been eagerly awaiting this release.