Ghost Busters (1984)

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:47 am **Post subject:** Ghost Busters (1984)

Directed by Ivan Reitman

Genre: Action / Comedy / Fantasy / Sci-Fi

Tagline: They're Here To Save The World.

Plot Outline:Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service.

IMDB Rating 7.5/10

Cast overview:
Bill Murray .... Dr. Peter Venkman
Dan Aykroyd .... Dr. Raymond Stantz
Sigourney Weaver .... Dana Barrett
Harold Ramis .... Dr. Egon Spengler
Rick Moranis .... Louis Tully
Annie Potts .... Janine Melnitz
William Atherton .... Walter Peck
Ernie Hudson .... Winston Zeddmore
David Margulies .... Mayor
Steven Tash .... Male Student
Jennifer Runyon .... Female Student
Slavitza Jovan .... Gozer
Michael Ensign .... Hotel Manager
Alice Drummond .... Librarian
Jordan Charney .... Dean Yeager

????                                       ?    
   ????????????               ???MMMM??                      ????????   ???NMN?? 
  ??MMMMM?NMMMN?             ??MM???DM?                     ~????MMM?  ??MMM?MM?
   ??8MM???MMMNM??????????    ?MMODM?M??                        ??MMM?? ?M??????  
  ??MM??~?MMM?M??MMMN?MMM??  ?MMM7????    ???DZ??   ???DZ??    ??M?MM???M?       
  ?MM??   ????M???MMMN???MM?  ??MMMM??  ??MM???MM???MM???MM?   ??M?MM??NM?       
 ??MM?      ??M???MM??  ?MM????????MMM???MMMM??MM??MMMM??MM?   ?D???MM?M??       
 ??MM?      ?M8???MD?   ?MM???MM?MM??M??MMMMMMMM??MMMMMMMN??????M????M?M?        
 ?7M7?     ??M????M??????MM??MMMMMM??M??MM???D????MM???D???MZMM?M? ~?MMM?        
 ??MM??  ??IM??~?OM??MMMMM???MD?????M???MM??MMM7??MM??MMM?MM???MI?  ??MM?        
  ??MM???DM$????MMMOIM?M8?  ?IMMOMM??? ??MM7?MM????MM??MM?IMMMM7?    ?MD?        
    ????????  ???????????    ???????     ??????    ?????? ??????     ????

== Proudly presents: Ghost Busters (1984) ========================================

Release Date: 14/04/2006

Release Info:

          Ripper: SB
          Runtime: 105 min

          Video Codec:    XviD
          Video Bitrate:  ~1411 kbps
          Aspect Ratio:   2.368:1
          Resolution:     720x304
          Frame Rate:     23.976 fps

          Audio Codec:    AC3
          Audio Bitrate:  448 kbps 5.1 ch
          Audio Language:   English

          Audio Codec:    MP3 (VBR)
          Audio Bitrate:  ~ 105 kbps 2 ch
          Audio Language:   English, director's commentary

          Subs: English,Francais,Espanol,Portugues,Chinese,Korean,Thai

          SA:   B-VOP, No Qpel, No GMC
          Size: 1/3 DVDr

IMDB:        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/
================================================================================

ed2k: Ghostbusters.1984.SE.DVDRip.XviD-UnSeeN.avi [1.45 Gb] [Stats]
ed2k: Ghostbusters.1984.SE.DVDRip.XviD-UnSeeN.subs.rar [5.61 Mb] [Stats]

........

.........

........

.........

[ Add all 2 links to your ed2k client ]

heraldo · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:37 am **Post subject:**

*sigh
whats with those filesizes?
am i the only one using 700mb cd-r's anymore? :roll:

Lux Delux · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:45 am **Post subject:**

probably

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:48 am **Post subject:**

in short, yes pretty much.

I don't know if i own any blank cdrs, 6cdrs cost more than 1dvdr and have less space here in the uk so there's really no point to cdrs for movie archiving.

Massive thread (15 pages long) on it by some decent rippers:
http://fileheaven.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... d+filesize
USB / Unseen / fh members

If your not a fileheaven member, the site is very large movie ed2k site with a motto of quality movies in great quality. Can't count the number of times I've got a proper of scene releases by a member of filheaven.

Conclusion: no point doing cdr anymore; cost of 6x cdr is > 1 DVDr, no switching files, no audio sync problems when merging

Local thread:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=10429

The reasons are quite numerous, but the main factors are:

Merging 2cds into 1 file causes sync and audio problems, whereas splitting does not.
Utilisation of the extra space on dvdr
The only reason we were using cdr is due to tdx scene guidelines which aren't very modern.

Don't expect USB, unseen, etc. rips to be cdr sizes again.

Lux Delux · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:55 am **Post subject:**

Now all I need to do is fix my computer to put out groovy Friday 13th non-cd-r rips :lol:

heraldo · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:00 am **Post subject:**

hey spud,

my problem is that i don't have a dvd burner in my internet machine and a network with my other machine, wich i use mainly for music production, games and of course watching my movies, is not an option.

meaning i have to split a big release into 2 files, burn it on a cd-rw and have to burn it on my other machine.

dvd-r's are still pretty expensive in germany, and i buy cd-r's in large quantities for various reasons.

but since i'm the only looser who's complaining, i guess nobody's gonna give a rats ass about it :mrgreen:

only makes me sad that i won't be able to enjoy as much fine stuff as i used to, because i would spend more time burning and splitting .rar files :matrix:

Lux Delux · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:14 am **Post subject:**

WTF? DVD-R expensive in Germany?? Dont tell me they're more expensive than in shitland Croatia cause they cost a torn sock here :wacky:

Some Random Dude · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:59 am **Post subject:**

I always buy my DVD's at this place called Nierle http://www.nierle.com/ which is located in Germany. Why do I do that, because it's cheap :wacky:

Anyway I don't care. I hardly ever archive rips anymore, only when it's something rare which is really, really hard to come by or else I'll buy the special edition dvd...

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:12 am **Post subject:**

i keep my snizzle on hdd

stormbringer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:52 am **Post subject:**

Here a cakebox containing 50 Verbatim 16x DVD+R costs approx 32$ which means 0.64$ per DVD+R.. On the other hand, 50 CD-R costs 16$, 0.32$ per CD, which means half of dvd+r cost.. You can burn 6x times more data on a single DVD+R than CD-r , so you pay extra 1.28$ per 6 cd if u use CD-R...

After burning approx 250-300 CD, it costs higher than a DVD-RW drive price, so if u are an archiver or burn too much data, no point in using CD recorders..

heraldo · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:02 pm **Post subject:**

Some Random Dude wrote:

I always buy my DVD's at this place called Nierle http://www.nierle.com/ which is located in Germany. Why do I do that, because it's cheap :wacky:

thanks for the link. prices seem quite allright there :beerchug:

karstmobile · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:02 am **Post subject:**

spudthedestroyer wrote:

i keep my snizzle on hdd

Not afraid of a crash?

Lux Delux · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:04 am **Post subject:**

karstmobile wrote:

spudthedestroyer wrote:

i keep my snizzle on hdd

Not afraid of a crash?

Damn that happened once to me... Now I have 4 HD's and still havent backed everything up.. Seems like I dont learn from past mistakes :lol:

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:20 am **Post subject:**

karstmobile wrote:

spudthedestroyer wrote:

i keep my snizzle on hdd

Not afraid of a crash?

I have lots and lots of hdd, these things are in removal caddies that are stored away.

Magnetic devices last for many, many decades, whereas laser burnt surfaces decay. Ideally magnetic tape with a faster access time would be perfect, but the drives cost several thousand pounds.

HDD do not fail unless the disk heads crash or it is demagnetised. If the disk crashed, only total failure will yeild unrecoverable results. With 3 year warranties and the quality of moden hdds, they have to be under considerable stress and daily use to wreck them (ie. using torrent continually writing to disc is pretty stressful)

I have only ever had one disk failure, and that was recoverable not total. Bad blocks are fixable. That was a famed "DeathStar" as that line of hdds were called btw:lol:

Try it out, find a very old machine that hasn't been turned on for well over a decade, or an old hdd, and see if you can read the hard drive

I have an old 256mb and an old 1GB hdd that both boot and can be read fine. Older cdrs are already unreadable in my collection.

With the dramatic drop in hdd space per cost, you can simply transfer the contents of an old drive to a new drive every 2 years very easily if your paranoid, and then transfer that hdd into a machine for general usage.

However, with direct comparison to cdr and dvdr, hdd as a storage solution are vastly superior and more fault resistant. cost per GB is slightly higher, but its higher read speed, more resistant to fault and less degradable.

note: i'm not suggesting, nor myself use the hdd actively with applications and os, etc. on it. With a carrier and caddy, you plug the drive in when you need it and pull it out and put it back in storage when you don't.

I have a TB of storage, across four caddies (with for carriers in 2 different pcs) this way, but my active drives are another tb (downloads/encodes/etc.)

So no, crash is highly unlikely unless i give these hard drives a bloody good kicking.

karstmobile · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:51 am **Post subject:**

I had a drive fail after 2 weeks (total). Just seems like a lot of eggs in one basket, but I really like the idea.

bornagainst · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:24 am **Post subject:**

Thanks for the info Spud. Seems logical to at least attempt the 1400 MB file size. I'll give er a shot.

Born

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:24 pm **Post subject:**

erm 1.45GB

1400mb is standard cdr sizing @ 2cds.

PC_Arcade · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:45 pm **Post subject:**

It's not "Ghost Busters" FFS, it's Ghostbusters :lol:

Sorry, it's been annoying me since it was first posted

bornagainst · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:49 pm **Post subject:**

spudthedestroyer wrote:

erm 1.45GB

1400mb is standard cdr sizing @ 2cds.

Thats what I meant. I've been drinkin.

:beerchug:

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:03 pm **Post subject:**

actually pca, no unfortunately it appears as "Ghost Busters" in the actual movie in the credits and original promotional material, and is concatonated on the posters and DVD covers. However, imdb go by the actual titles referenced in the original movie, which is "Ghost Busters", Ghost on one line, Busters on the second. The question maybe why they did this. I suspect it might have to do with the fact that GHOSTBUSTERS would mean that in pan scan copies, they'd have to letterbox the beginning sequence. Still what's done is done, and it was indeed released under "Ghost Busters" not "Ghostbusters".

If you own the DVD which i'd hope you would, ignore the crap on the cover, pop in your dvd and go to timeframe 00:02:31 (25fps). Plain as day, it says "GHOST BUSTERS"

Its another case of texas "chain saw", as far as copyright goes, it was under "Ghost Busters" first.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/

Quote:

Ghostbusters (USA) (alternative spelling)

They then cleaned it up with the sequels, mechandise, etc. However, it was released as Ghost Busters and the cartoons and early comics reflect this... and yes, it annoys me too

Your right about Ghostbusters II though, that should be concatonated, but since unseen ripped and named it that way, and the first is spealt as two words i didn't change it

Ghost Busters (1984)

Who is online