[ted+annette]

Just watched the blu ray and I have to say that the print looks amazing. I never thought a high-def version of a 25 year old movie could be so impressive and it only makes the last DVD release look quite lousy in comparison. Does the stunning quality make up for the lack of substantial extras? Not really but it does look amazing..

[GHOSTBUSTERS # 1FAN]

Well you have to look at the pros and cons of the 2005 DVD release and the Blue Ray Relelase. First of all blue ray is recently new; also the GBI Blue Ray release is new, it has more extras, and it's in HD. But you got to remember that the 2005 DVD release had both movies and it was made just one or two years before blue ray was released and it was the made for the 20th anniversary of Ghostbusters. Technonlogy has gotten better since then and you've got to understand that both the DVD release and the Blue Ray Relelase are just better and improved versions of this Critetion Disc. So either way, both are made for good reasons. One has a two disc collection of the First Movie and the Second, but the other is for a 25th anniversary and has some new extras and is made for the new HD/Digital crowd. I have the 2005 release and I'm going to get the Blue Ray this month so either way, I'm having fun with the movies that is based on a great franchise: GHOSTBUSTERS

[trialsmike]

I was pretty dissapointed, it doesnt look anywhere near as good as my other HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray's. I know the disk is fine as the Sony pictures start up is in HD and then the film it self is just more grainy as its trying to show the detail that just isnt their, the pictures on the back of the box look HD though lol.

[DocLathropBrown]

I was pretty dissapointed, it doesnt look anywhere near as good as my other HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray's. I know the disk is fine as the Sony pictures start up is in HD and then the film it self is just more grainy as its trying to show the detail that just isnt their, the pictures on the back of the box look HD though lol.

You're kidding, right?

See, this is the mystery that is Hi-def to people. Anything shot on film is naturally HD. Blu-ray is still only able to show 1/8th of the full resolution of film. The detail is "there." But special effects films of GB's age were naturally very grainy, and the old fashioned way of compositing SFX shots produced extra grain on top of that.

Newer films have digital compositing, digital capturing, and all of this other stuff, that's why newer films don't look as aged as GB does. The Blu-ray accurately represents how the film has looked ever since 1984. Much better than any previous home video release has been able to. If you don't have an eye for the rich detail that's in GB on the format, than you obviously won't find it. But to think that because it doesn't look like Spider-Man 2 that means that the GB Blu-ray isn't HD is flat wrong.

As I said, it baffles me how HD is still a mystery to some people. A lot of people think it's some kind of magic that "pretends" to upscale older films, and that's why they don't look like something that came out yesterday that was shot digitally. Blu-ray unleashes MORE of the overall power of the film that originally captured the action years ago. Different filmstock presents different effects, true, like something shot in 3-strip Technicolor like The Wizard of Oz will look more amazing even though it's older, because Technicolor had less grain to it and was more durable. GB was shot on regular 35mm film (to my knowledge), which is grainy to begin with, and SFX adds more grain (as I said before).

But yeah. Look for the detail. You'll see it, plain as day. The rich details in the grain structure (you read right, THAT's technically part of the detail, too), textures, sharpness, clarity of smaller details, among other things.

[trialsmike]

I was pretty dissapointed, it doesnt look anywhere near as good as my other HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray's. I know the disk is fine as the Sony pictures start up is in HD and then the film it self is just more grainy as its trying to show the detail that just isnt their, the pictures on the back of the box look HD though lol.

You're kidding, right?

See, this is the mystery that is Hi-def to people. Anything shot on film is naturally HD. Blu-ray is still only able to show 1/8th of the full resolution of film. The detail is "there." But special effects films of GB's age were naturally very grainy, and the old fashioned way of compositing SFX shots produced extra grain on top of that.

Newer films have digital compositing, digital capturing, and all of this other stuff, that's why newer films don't look as aged as GB does. The Blu-ray accurately represents how the film has looked ever since 1984. Much better than any previous home video release has been able to. If you don't have an eye for the rich detail that's in GB on the format, than you obviously won't find it. But to think that because it doesn't look like Spider-Man 2 that means that the GB Blu-ray isn't HD is flat wrong.

As I said, it baffles me how HD is still a mystery to some people. A lot of people think it's some kind of magic that "pretends" to upscale older films, and that's why they don't look like something that came out yesterday that was shot digitally. Blu-ray unleashes MORE of the overall power of the film that originally captured the action years ago. Different filmstock presents different effects, true, like something shot in 3-strip Technicolor like The Wizard of Oz will look more amazing even though it's older, because Technicolor had less grain to it and was more durable. GB was shot on regular 35mm film (to my knowledge), which is grainy to begin with, and SFX adds more grain (as I said before).

But yeah. Look for the detail. You'll see it, plain as day. The rich details in the grain structure (you read right, THAT's technically part of the detail, too), textures, sharpness, clarity of smaller details, among other things.

Nice reply and I agree with your points, maybe I was expecting a little to much from the film but I also understood that due to the age it wasnt going to show spider-man or 007 detail.

I guess watching the DVD copy on a upscaler didnt help before hand. :p

I didnt watch all the film so maybe I jumped to soon and made a wrong judgement but I'll rewatch at night time as well so my telly shows the true colours.

[spookcentral]

The 2005 DVD of Ghostbusters really is a piece of crap. The Ghostbusters 1999 DVD is far superior, and with it containing bonus content not on the Blu-Ray (from what I've read), is worth keeping or finding to keep along with the Blu-Ray. The 2005 DVD should be avoided like the plague.

I won't go into details, because I plan to do it on my site in the coming weeks, but I've extensively compared the 1999 & 2005 DVDs, and the 2005 DVD fails in every way imaginable. It leaves out bonus content that's present on the 1999 DVD, the still image galleries are ruined due to a Photoshop "Oil Painting" filter having been applied to them, the movie is ruined due to the colors being altered and the brightness turned up way too high. The only content the 2005 DVD has that the 1999 DVD doesn't are 3 Terror Dog still images - which, again, are ruined due to the Oil Painting filter.

I'm currently working on documenting the still images, but you can see the film comparison now

[vipertv]

I was pretty dissapointed, it doesnt look anywhere near as good as my other HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray's. I know the disk is fine as the Sony pictures start up is in HD and then the film it self is just more grainy as its trying to show the detail that just isnt their, the pictures on the back of the box look HD though lol.

I second this motion. Not to bash our beloved movie, but I was also disappointed with the picture quality as well. I've seen plenty of movies theatrically released prior to Ghostbusters, now available on Blu-Ray, that look AMAZING!! Ghostbusters Blu-Ray fails in comparison. I think Sony didn't take their time on the transfer, or applied an abundance of filters to help the film quality, which in turn actually hurt it. I even tried messing with my HD TV's picture settings, and this only hurt the look. Maybe I'm just too picky when it comes to Blu-Ray's, I guess! It is so grainy, I feel it may be one of those Blu-Ray's that you'll find on the $10 rack at Wal-Mart in the not-too-distant-future. I am, however, LOVING the video game!

Just my .02 cents...
Steven

[Boomerjinks]

Well you have to look at the pros and cons of the 2005 DVD release and the Blue Ray Relelase. ]

You certainly know a lot about Blue Rays.