* 4K Player Thread *

Vertigo · 3 Apr 2017 at 21:42

Secret_Window said:
Do you mean the original or the rubbish reboot?

Edit: ah OK saw your edit.

You were too damn quick

Secret_Window · 4 Apr 2017 at 00:32

Vertigo1 said:
You were too damn quick

Sorry

I am a big fan of the original Ghostbusters and own just about every copy in every format including laser disc. I've heard good things in the 4K UHD review but I'm sceptical whether HDR does work well in an older movie. I already own the first blu-ray release and the remastered blu-ray release, and both upscale pretty well, but I'm really curious about the 4K UHD one if anyone knows.

Vertigo · 4 Apr 2017 at 10:12

Secret_Window said:
Sorry

I am a big fan of the original Ghostbusters and own just about every copy in every format including laser disc. I've heard good things in the 4K UHD review but I'm sceptical whether HDR does work well in an older movie. I already own the first blu-ray release and the remastered blu-ray release, and both upscale pretty well, but I'm really curious about the 4K UHD one if anyone knows.

Review here: http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/32338/ghostbusters4k.html

varkanoid · 4 Apr 2017 at 10:58

Just bought 1+2 from HMV on 2 for £30 I will stick it on tonight and see.

Secret_Window · 4 Apr 2017 at 13:48

Vertigo1 said:
Review here: http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/32338/ghostbusters4k.html

Thanks. I've read it but I'm still sceptical slightly.

varkanoid said:
Just bought 1+2 from HMV on 2 for £30 I will stick it on tonight and see.

OK cool. I'm really curious to know how well HDR works/improves things on an older film like this.

varkanoid · 4 Apr 2017 at 14:02

I think if you watch it in mind that even though its 4k its not going to look as glossy or as sheen as say a Marvel film or a 2017 Digital blockbuster. I reckon it will look more like Groundhog Day 4k on Netflix as that still looks grainy how films used to look but with more colour and more detail.

peahead · 4 Apr 2017 at 17:13

I have the original Ghostbusters on 4K and while its looks the best i have ever seen it i was kind of disappointed with the amount of grain present in the image.. Ghostbusters 2 does seem a little better though.

Vertigo · 4 Apr 2017 at 19:13

ID4 was the same - older film stuff will tend to show up grain when re-scanned at 4K, it's a case of how much processing/softening they do on it afterward.

peahead · 4 Apr 2017 at 19:22

Yep ID4 is the same as is labyrinth but its still great to see these films in 4k.

varkanoid · 4 Apr 2017 at 22:19

Just finished watching Ghostbusters. Man the grain is bad. After a while you dont notice it but in a few scenes like outside in the corridor in Dana's apartment and dark scenes it sometimes shows. The first encounter in the library looks very colourful and detailed. The battle with Slimer is good too. Interesting to see the effects too after seeing so much modern CGI for the time they are damn good. To sum it up a lot more detail, a lot more colour but the grain.

The long wide shots look amazing. The battle at the end is pretty good too. What was interesting seeing the skyline/buildings with it being so clear its obviously a matte painting but the buildings are almost cartoony didnt even realise that till watching it in 4k HDR. Will watch Ghostbusters II to see what that is like another time.

jpaul · 5 Apr 2017 at 14:40

Further gb2 comments here
had not realised film camera used for newer version too,

GB- Panavision Cameras and Lenses
GB2- Panavision Panaflex Gold, Panavision C- and E-Series Lenses

does that mean gb2 was converted to HDR ?
the comments about limitations of SDR->HDR for GB1 are interesting - folks needing to back off the backlight

the real of fake 4k site seems unreliable

Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters 2 (1989) – This is the real deal. Everything was digitally shot in 4K or the original 35/70mm film negative was scanned in 4K and all

or ... a real or fake hdr site is needed ?

varkanoid · 5 Apr 2017 at 15:03

Everything was digitally shot in 4K or the original 35/70mm film negative was scanned in 4K and all

I've seen this comment a few times on their site its a bit of a con as they are covering there ass both ways with a double explanation. Ghostbusters was shot on 35mm film then scanned in 4k.

hyperseven · 5 Apr 2017 at 15:25

varkanoid said:
I've seen this comment a few times on their site its a bit of a con as they are covering there ass both ways with a double explanation. Ghostbusters was shot on 35mm film then scanned in 4k.

How many 'pixels' are in an analogue piece of 35mm? Can a true 4K scan can be achieved?

jpaul · 5 Apr 2017 at 16:04

I think it depends on the film stock .. but here was contradictory, maybe more relaible info on GB2

Ghostbusters was filmed digitally using the Arri Alexa XT camera at a resolution of 2.8K and was finished using a 2K Digital Intermediate (DI), which presumably formed the basis for this Ultra HD Blu-ray release. The film was upscaled to 3840 x 2160p and presented in widescreen 2.39:1 aspect ratio (actually it is 1.78:1 as there are plenty of instances of material seen ‘outside the frame’ in the black bars). The disc uses 10-bit video depth, a Wider Colour Gamut (WCG) and High Dynamic Range (HDR), and is encoded using the HEVC (H.265) codec. We reviewed the Region free US Ultra HD Blu-ray release of Ghostbusters on a Panasonic 65DX902B Ultra HD 4K TV with a Samsung UBD-K8500 Ultra HD Blu-ray player. We are reviewing the US release but the UK Ultra HD Blu-ray should be identical.

Detail, despite being an upscale, is excellent and beats the (included) Full HD Blu-ray with finite edges, from close up skin texture, to clothing weaves, to (most impressively) broader establishing shots of New York. Indeed many of the cityscape shots are hugely striking, with edges to windows, street markings, vehicles and people being far shaper and well defined in the Ultra HD presentation. The team's various equipment and thier messy labs look far more intricate as well.

FAF 6/7 was also a 2K DI I thought I read

TALON1973 · 5 Apr 2017 at 17:09

Dredd up for pre-order

http://www.wowhd.co.uk/dredd/031398263937

VincentHanna · 5 Apr 2017 at 17:19

Those drug sequences in 4k HDR will look pretty good I imagine.

It's one of the few 3D movies I thought was good.

theone8181 · 5 Apr 2017 at 20:45

hyperseven said:
How many 'pixels' are in an analogue piece of 35mm? Can a true 4K scan can be achieved?

I looked it up, apparently 20 mp so plenty for 4k and even 8k. I would imagine the quality of film has improved tho so not sure it is directly comparable.

jpaul · 6 Apr 2017 at 07:51

VincentHanna said:
Those drug sequences in 4k HDR will look pretty good I imagine.

I remember the gattling gun scene in the hotel principally

Is there a logic, to only buy 4k discs that are genuine ? and for others stick to blu using inbuilt up-scale -
Samsung had their HDR+ capability for SDR->HDR , does that do a good job and are Panasonic/Sony planning similar ?
For HTPC's is there software that will do SDR->HDRfrom ripped blus

Ironically the new Pan UB400 have HDR->SDR converstors

Panasonic has also recognised that HDR content is generally unsuitable for watching in high ambient lighting, since the source signal is encoded in absolute luminance as code values, and most HDR TVs would max out their [Backlight] and [Contrast] settings in HDR mode, leaving little headroom for manoeuvre unlike SDR (whose video signal operates in relative luminance) where ...

Vertigo · 6 Apr 2017 at 09:19

jpaul said:
I remember the gattling gun scene in the hotel principally

Is there a logic, to only buy 4k discs that are genuine ? and for others stick to blu using inbuilt up-scale -
Samsung had their HDR+ capability for SDR->HDR , does that do a good job and are Panasonic/Sony planning similar ?
For HTPC's is there software that will do SDR->HDRfrom ripped blus

Ironically the new Pan UB400 have HDR->SDR converstors

Whilst you get less benefit from a 4K Bluray which has been upscaled from a 2K DI, the studio will always do a far better job of the upscaling than any domestic player could manage on the fly.

As for HDR, you can't replace missing information. Systems which claim to be able to convert SDR to HDR are just boosting colours and saturation artificially and are akin to the ghastly "football modes" most TVs ship with by default because it looks good to the average moron in a shop.

jpaul · 6 Apr 2017 at 09:45

Vertigo1 said:
As for HDR, you can't replace missing information. Systems which claim to be able to convert SDR to HDR are just boosting colours and saturation artificially and are akin to the ghastly "football modes" most TVs ship with by default because it looks good to the average moron in a shop.

agree completely, but indeed, that is what is on some of the released 4k discs (GB originals ?)
see how our ImageIQ® SDR-to-HDR upconversion
also algorithms for upconvert on an htpc are pretty advanced (but even with blu-4k disc price difference of £10, would have to buy many to offset htpcs cost)

*** 4K Player Thread ***

* 4K Player Thread *