Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ghostbusters

This is topic Ghostbusters - 30 years later in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002066

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-28-2014, 09:04 PM:

Doing the Thursday's advanced showing this evening and it's fun seeing this classic "buddy" comedy to return to the big screen where 30 years ago, I projected the original 35mm release that banner summer where "Ghostbusters" was competing against "Temple of Doom".

Later on that summer, Columbia hits another home run feature: "the Karate Kid"

First thing to hit the screen with this reissue, is the newer "Columbia" trademark when that brought back "the Statue of Columbia" back to the screen from using the "sunburst" trademark in the prior years, but before the takeover by Coca Cola..and then Sony Entertainment.
Sad is with this digital release is the image is still grainy as it was when I projected this film on the screen.

Sound, being Dolby "A" with the practice of reducing the output dB to reduce noise, where the operator had to turn up the fader to get a decent sound level in their respective houses still remains along with one can tell that this digital release used that original, four channel mix.

Outside of these noticeable issues that I became familiar with when I was projecting this film (we had the first SMART, four channel optical stereo system ever released) back in that summer of 1984, the feature is still fun to watch, and watch, and watch over again as I did - making it one of the rare features that I totally enjoyed watching.

After this film, the 1989 "Ghostbusters II" is one that can be forgotten and left in the can.

Yes, this was fun to watch again on the big screen and I've been telling the younger generation that they need to come see this film.

Yet, this film doesn't meet the demands for this new generation and will fade back into the cans, this time forever.

4 out of 5 for me.

-Monte

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-29-2014, 07:48 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sound, being Dolby "A" with the practice of reducing the output dB to reduce noise, where the operator had to turn up the fader to get a decent sound level in their respective houses still remains along with one can tell that this digital release used that original, four channel mix.

Reducing the "output dB" to reduce noise doesn't sound like it makes a whole lot of sense. Actually, quite the opposite of the basic inner workings of most analog noise reduction schemes.

Was the DCP in 2K or in 4K?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-29-2014, 08:59 PM:

GHOTSBUSTERS was also released in 70mm and I saw in in that format at Consolidated's Waikiki Twins in Honolulu in house #1 during it's premiere engagement. It was a smash hit but for some reason I never cared for the movie very much. While everyone was laughing their head off, I set there trying to figure what was so funny. Both Consolidated's Ward Centre 16 and Regal's Dole Cannery are playing it in digital starting today and wonder how it will do with today's audience. The Blu Ray and DVD are scheduled to be released in a few weeks along with it 's sequel.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-29-2014, 09:31 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
It was a smash hit but for some reason I never cared for the movie very much.

Me either. I liked the first 3/4 of the movie pretty well, but the end part was too over the top and goofy for my taste. I can see why it was popular but why it became the gargantuan hit and acclaimed classic that it is, is lost on me. (I never liked the song either.)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-29-2014, 11:18 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Was the DCP in 2K or in 4K

It's in 4K, but we presented it in 2K (Prob would see more grain if it was projected in 4K .. in which I'm glad we didn't have to present it in 4K the way the original graininess still existed.) due to we only have two houses that can do 4K, but they're occupying our two large houses.

I did talk to some of our employees who came today and see this film and they really like it - being it was the first time for them to see it, either on the big screen, or first time at all.

True, the latter part of the movie did go over the top and became a bit on the silly and boring side to where I was glad that it was over with, but all the rest is what I can still laugh at after all of these years.

I think that was the big draw on this film was the fact of three characters (sorry, Bernie was a distant fourth), with each having a distinct personality, and putting these personalities together, where it all blended perfectly, made this film and made the people laugh. Interesting is, that these three personalities were already in the story, thus no character development was never needed like you were already there.

It was like seeing "the Three Stooges" reborn.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Actually, quite the opposite of the basic inner workings of most analog noise reduction schemes.

If I do remember, the early Dolby A processing had to have a lower output on the track for optical stereo processing (and that time, this Dolby stuff was all new and the technician explaining this to me on the SMART install wasn't the best in explaining on how this stuff works), but it was definitely the pits for us mono houses having to crank up the fader to get the sound out, but here comes the noise along with it.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-30-2014, 03:09 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sound, being Dolby "A" with the practice of reducing the output dB to reduce noise, where the operator had to turn up the fader to get a decent sound level

Pure nonsense. A properly installed Dolby theatre would've had a common reference fader setting for all formats.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
If I do remember, the early Dolby A processing had to have a lower output on the track for optical stereo processing (and that time, this Dolby stuff was all new and the technician explaining this to me on the SMART install wasn't the best in explaining on how this stuff works), but it was definitely the pits for us mono houses having to crank up the fader to get the sound out, but here comes the noise along with it.

Seems like part of your issues in 1984 involved using non-Dolby gear, an inexperienced tech, and a mono playback system. (Although, SMART processors are/were capable of handling Dolby tracks without requiring special volume offsets.) Even so, you're using a whole different playback system, so you shouldn't have the same issues as you did back then.

If any accommodation would've been necessary, I'd expect you had to turn the fader DOWN because of the HF pre-emphasis in the recording -- although I have not personally played Dolby-A in mono, so I'm just guessing.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-30-2014, 05:21 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
If any accommodation would've been necessary, I'd expect you had to turn the fader DOWN because of the HF pre-emphasis in the recording -- although I have not personally played Dolby-A in mono, so I'm just guessing.

Well, that was about my point. You either had a Dolby A capable decoder that would've correctly de-emphasized the emphasized bands or you didn't, in which you probably needed to turn the fader down.

And if I remember correctly, the Dolby A release was in stereo although there certainly also would have been mono prints around that time.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-30-2014, 06:35 PM:

In the early 80's, Dolby "A" was just coming to the surface more readily, and to notice an "A" track on the film itself was the visually reduced recorded information on the optical track making us projectionists, who were still running mono houses, having to turn up the fader almost three ticks to hear the track being played as loud as a conventional mono track when playing these early Dolby "A" prints with the reduced soundtracks.

No, the tech that set up the SMART system did it right so the two formats (01) and (04) had no change between the two optical tracks during playback at this one theatre I worked at.

During this (1984) time, I was projecting at three different theatres and this one location that had the original "Ghostbusters" release is the location with the installed SMART system..and the only optical stereo house in town and in the area.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on the first go around.

-Monte

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 08-30-2014, 11:41 PM:

Can anyone showing it in digital comment on the PQ. The DCP trailer did not look very good. It looked like they took the same master from Blu-ray.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-31-2014, 11:14 AM:

Sorry Manny...Monte got this one right. Dolby-A prints were recorded 3dB lighter than mono prints. They took advantage of the Dolby-A noise reduction to allow one not not add 3dB of noise while getting that 3dB back in the set up of the cinema processor.

The optical track, being rather limited in dynamic range, one normally had to record to it louder to get above the noise floor. However, with Dolby-A, the noise floor is effectively dropped allowing one to gain more dynamic range by lowering the recording level so it still fits in the available range of the optical track. Remember too, Dolby applies no compression/expansion above Dolby Level so the top is still the same top.

3dB is small enough that most any sound system can be varied enough to accommodate. Dolby processors had a "Mono" trim to effectively knock the mono track down 3dB though mono track levels were a bit more wild in level. Another benefit to the Dolby Stereo tracks was a great degree of uniformity between volume levels (in optical...because again, the level was still very restrictive).

Note, with Dolby-SR they took another 3dB of level shift because they once again, could get that back due to the increased dynamic range Dolby-SR brought about. However, it was incumbent upon the SR decoder system to have a suitable line amplifier to keep the level matched. This was done by the SRA-5 for Dolby...the SRM-10 for USL (though you had to add appropriate 1% resistors). Processors with on-board SR had it built in.

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 08-31-2014, 12:19 PM:

I played Ghostbusters around 9 months back on 2K DCP.
The picture looked about the same as a DVD copy I had tried on my Christie, via an IPM, which looked rather grainy, though I suspect the 35mm copy they mastered it from must have been grainy too.
Then I compared to a Blu-Ray version I had and the DCP and DVD looked better! At least it gave an authentic old film look on screen.

I even dressed up for the event as a ghostbuster for the first half and as the Marshmallow man for the 2nd half. It was quite a busy show. My audience all wanted to take their photos with me!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2014, 12:24 PM:

Even the 70mm prints of this were horrible. The film is just naturally godawful grainy. This is another example of where the studio is touting 4K and it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-31-2014, 12:33 PM:

Brad beat me to it, but I remember running the original release in 70mm at the Uptown in DC and the graininess is quite memorable. Ran it 35mm at many theatres and the 35mm didn't look any better.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-31-2014, 01:42 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Even the 70mm prints of this were horrible. The film is just naturally godawful grainy. This is another example of where the studio is touting 4K and it doesn't mean a damn thing.

The 4k allows you to see all the grain, "the way it was meant to be seen!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2014, 02:41 PM:

I can honestly state without exaggeration I've got Super 8mm films that are sharper and have less grain than the 70mm Ghostbusters. guess I should transfer those Super 8mm films to 4K. [Razz]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-31-2014, 03:33 PM:

We even had some fans show up for Friday's opening, and have to admit, an excellent job with the home made costumes.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-31-2014, 06:26 PM:

This is playing in some of the premium screens at theaters in Denver. I'm not a huge Ghostbusters fan, but I hope it does well and we see more reissues.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-01-2014, 03:15 AM:

This is being released in the large format screens at a few places. I guess the way Expendables and Sin City sequels bombed made it easier to fit this into the schedule on these large screens?

I too remember the visuals of this movie being muddy, grainy. Just the worst of the 80s look. At least no blue hazy filters. Wasn't this movie made in scope? As far as the movie itself, yeah it ran out of steam a tad towards the end. Kind of like Stripes whose first half is one of my favorite movie experiences. But the movie just loses steam once the scenes switch to Europe.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-01-2014, 01:51 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
This is being released in the large format screens at a few places. I guess the way Expendables and Sin City sequels bombed made it easier to fit this into the schedule on these large screens?

Around here, Cineplex pumps everything in large format. Swearnet, November Man, Turtles, and Guardians. This just after they released Expendables and Sin City which both bombed in large format.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 09-11-2014, 09:16 PM:

I just saw the new DCP over at the Cinemark Fairfax Corner 14, on the 'Xtreme' screen - that was a blast - the image looked great, albeit in what 80's film stock looked at the time, not too much DNR-ing - the special effects of the devil dog leaping around and out Louis' apartment still looks cheap and awful (but there's nothing that can be changed or altered to undo that flaw). And I liked the 5.1 soundmix too, I was really noticing Elmer Bernstein's music soundtrack this time around.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 09-12-2014, 08:56 PM:

I would bet the majority of the Audience back in 84 were SNL Fans and seeing the popularity of AYKROYD and MURRAY in some of the memorable characters they portrayed on SNL was pretty easy to get a large attendance. RAMIS & MORANIS did some funny skits on SCTV but Murray and Aykroyd were the two everyone came to see...

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-14-2014, 07:16 AM:

AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center, Silver Spring, MD
9/13/14, 7:15pm show
Theater #1
Presented in Christie 4K, Linear PCM 5.1, THX

Picture Quality:
I went in expecting a grain-fest. I was going to be okay with that. Truthfully, there wasn't as much grain as I thought. There is a nice grain field, but I was overall stunned with this 4K restoration. No aliasing, banding, or digital artifice noted. It was overall very, very film-like with no "enhancements." It was everything I wanted.

AFI Silver still has a very, very slight keystoning issue with their DCP projectors, but it was less noticeable.

10/10

Audio Quality:
The film, being very dialogue driven, wasn't that impressive, save for the third act. Surround work was only used when necessary. The music seemed to have shined in this mix, from Elmer Bernstein to Ray Parker Jr. I felt the dynamics could've been wider, but this being a 30-year-old film it's kind of understandable.

I had the misfortune of hearing the mix in AFI Silver I. Why Silver I? It has some serious echo-chamber issues with echoey dialogue. There was also a buzzing sound, as if there was a blown speaker, to the right of me on the right surrounds. This only happened briefly, and I don't know if it has to do with the DCP itself or the auditorium. Silver I no longer deserves its THX certification, but Silver II and III can keep theirs.

6/10

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-25-2014, 04:54 PM:

I agree Connor, I find the acoustics of screen 1 to be hit or miss.

there was no audio problems I heard on the Cinemark Fairfax Corner Xtreme screen/auditorium - in fact, I thought the music notably in the beginning in the library scene had this airy 'spectral' mixing into the surrounds that added to the spookiness factor.

what's keystoning?

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-25-2014, 05:37 PM:

quote:
The keystone effect, also known as the tombstone effect, is caused by attempting to project an image onto a surface at an angle, as with a projector not quite centered onto the screen it is projecting on. It is a distortion of the image dimensions, such as making a square look like a trapezoid, the shape of an architectural keystone, hence the name of the feature. In the typical case of a projector sitting on a table, and looking upwards to the screen, the image is larger at the top than on the bottom. Some areas of the screen may not be focused correctly as the projector lens is focused at the average distance only.

Keystone effect

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-27-2014, 03:54 PM:

who ever did the 4K transfer of 'Ghostbusters 2' - the bluray looks even better than the first film. Unfortunately the lack of quotable funny lines like the original is apparent.