Is it worth it? Are you ready to forgive and forget? Still holding on to your beliefs that the original release is good enough? Do we finally have something we can use to demo our High Definition capable home theater and finally retire the good old Superbit DVD?

I decided to put most of the Fifth Element caps in this thread instead of the other one (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827529&page=1&pp=30) because of its notoriety. Other movies will go there as usual of course.

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90244/0/IMG_0083.jpg

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90243/0/IMG_0080.jpg

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90245/0/IMG_0084.jpg

English PCM 5.1

Dolby TrueHD 5.1

21.60 GB Mpeg-2........................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ 35.10 GB AVC
http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90246/0/5thelementbdcrap1.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90247/0/5thelementbdremastered1.png

OHLY CRAP

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS????????????????????????????????

and The MPEG2 is crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have a face closeup.. or the scene when they reanimate her.. i think you already have a MPEG2 shot of that...

Whoah how did you get a copy so early, Xylon?? It's not due for release until the 17th!

P.S. Even in that one shot above the difference is striking. Much better mastering! Take a look at the lower right corner of the MPEG2 image and all you see is a brownish smudge. The same area on the AVC encode is more detailed. Also, the "scratch" near the center of the image is a lot crisper on the AVC.

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90248/0/5thelementbdcrap2.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Bluray/3b5bd34b.png

Holy crap :eek: :D

can't wait to get my replacement!

wow! can you please post some more?

It looks to be much improved over the original release. I'll be picking this up soon.

What about all the other terrible MPEG2 releases from Sony?

What about all the other terrible MPEG2 releases from Sony?

I hope they are being replaced one by one. But thus far this is the absolute worst so I'm glad Sony's replacing it. For free, nonetheless!

What about all the other terrible MPEG2 releases from Sony?

5th element is special.. The master used in the MPEG2 version isn't even the same as the Superbit on DVD. I think the Superbit was a Japanese master, they've used the same one for this release..

35.10 GB AVC!

Is that the size of the entire disk contents or just the feature?

thanx for posting those pictures :)
very nice improvement ! can't wait to see it with DolbyTrueHD ;)

Marek

Thanks for the post!
Just ordered it from Amazon. $17.99. (Much less than I paid for the Superbit title :) )

Thank you for posting. Can we have some non-SFX shots, like faces perhaps ??

Thx again!!

Whoa, Xylon. Way to surprise us all. ;)

There's definitely an improvement over the old release. The compression blocks are gone and the wall looks a lot more textured and saturated. Way to go, Sony. And 35gb?! :D

If it's possible I'd really like to see the remastered versions of these 2 shots you posted before as the differences should be pretty obvious:

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/81400/0/5thelementbd7.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Bluray/f75693b7.png

No compression artifacts, more fine detail and it makes the old version look under-exposed! I think we are onto a winner here.

I can't wait to get this one... :)

Holy ****, especially the 2nd shot of the ship. Look at the color reproduction. It's like comparing DVD and HD.

Also, when did Sony start putting artwork on the disc? Usually they have that lame swoosh and the title.

Looking forward to receiving my replacement!

Disc art! Holy **** yes!!! :D

Nice...

Wow!!! And Sony finally got around to getting rid of their generic disc art with something more individualized. One of my pet peeve has been answered, yeah!

5th element is special.. The master used in the MPEG2 version isn't even the same as the Superbit on DVD. I think the Superbit was a Japanese master, they've used the same one for this release..
No. They made a new one.

Can someone tell me what distinguishes this new disc from the old one as far as the box art goes? I dont want to go buy the old 5th element by accident when this comes out.

Can someone tell me what distinguishes this new disc from the old one as far as the box art goes? I dont want to go buy the old 5th element by accident when this comes out.

True HD 5.1 in the back. Also, the "Experience High Definition" is in silver foil, not the grey one.

Wow...the better master really shows itself in those shots.

Thanks to the OP.

I hope they are being replaced one by one. But thus far this is the absolute worst so I'm glad Sony's replacing it. For free, nonetheless!

This is very exciting. I look forward to getting my replacement as well and really appreciate that Sony is doing this.

OHLY CRAP

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS????????????????????????????????

and The MPEG2 is crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have a face closeup.. or the scene when they reanimate her.. i think you already have a MPEG2 shot of that...
Various Wal-Marts that regularly sell Blu-ray have them already. I picked one up in Waterford, CT.

BTW, thank you Xylon for the comparison pics. Much appreciated. I only wish I had the new version in my hands already. Ah but at least the wait appears to be worth it.

Thread rolled back to where it started going off topic.

Intresting, there's art on the disc, hopefully this is something that Sony will be doing from now on all their movies.

Any more pics of peoples faces?

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Bluray/56032977.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90280/0/5thelementbdremastered3.png

Damn... that one's night and day right there.

I thought it was fairly well established that this was a print/transfer/mastering issue, not an issue of the codec that was used.

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90281/0/5thelementbdcrap4.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90282/0/5thelementbdremastered4.png

We need the classic close up on her face there ;)

Could it have killed them to include the supplements of the Ultimate Edition DVD though...? :confused:

“The Visual Element” featurette (18:24)
“Set Tests”:
- Pyramid Test (0:41)
- Cornelius’ Apartment Test (0:30)
- Zorg’s Office Test (0:29)
- Airport Tests (2:19)
- Fhloston Lobby Test (1:20)
- Fhloston Corridor Test (0:18)
- Fhloston Bedroom Test (0:34)
“The Star Element”:
- Bruce Willis (4:18)
- Milla Jovovich (12:47)
- Extras (Milla Jovovich Screen Tests) (12 mins)
- Chris Tucker (4:17)
“The Alien Element”:
- Mondoshawans:
--- Featurette (8:12)
--- Screen Tests (3): (1:00, 0:35, 0:35)
--- 2 Battle Outtakes (0:21, 0:52)
- Mangalores:
--- Featurette (9:46)
--- Head Test (0:47)
--- Battle Outtake (1:47)
- Picasso:
--- Featurette (4:16)
- Strikers:
--- Featurette (3:04)
--- Striker Tests (4): (0:23, 0:25, 0:25, 0:18)
“The Fashion Element”:
- Featurette (7:46)
- Makeup Test (4:34)
- 2 Studio Outtakes (1:27, 0:26)
- Opera House Outtake (1:35)
Poster Gallery (25)

wow....can't wait to get this!

OMG -- time to turn my unused 3rd floor into a 120" 3e-DLP Leelo exhibit.

I assume there is no "contrast boosting" . All the fine details in the white areas seams to be unaffected! How about speckles and dirt? Did you noticed any of them?

Ok they work now..thanks Xylon!

I thought it was fairly well established that this was a print/transfer/mastering issue, not an issue of the codec that was used.

There was a lot wrong with that first disc. The use of MPEG2 on a space-hobbled disc did cause compression problems.

This just shows how important a good souce print is. I bet many titles could be improved upon like this.

Thanks for the captures.

What a huge difference. The remastered version almost makes the original BD release look like a SD DVD up convert.

Nice work, man! Definite improvement, (though some now will probably complain that the new shots look grainier!)

:)

Nice work, man! Definite improvement, (though some now will probably complain that the new shots look grainier!)

:)

LOL yeah.. but DNR is evil.. old MPEG 2 shot proove that :)

I hear ya, but many won't here....!

;)

So how many have done the survey?

(Inside cover)

Mark

So how many have done the survey?

(Inside cover)

Mark

I've done it quite a few weeks ago.. even if i'am not from the US :)

Nice work Sony... I just wish you guys would have given her a boob job while you were in there fixing things!!! :D

Nice work Sony... I just wish you guys would have given her a boob job while you were in there fixing things!!! :D


Just be greatfull they didnt replace them with walkie talkies.

As mentioned several times before, thank god for Sony putting disc art back on the disc. I really hope this is a permanent change, as I really dislike that generic blue swoosh with white titles over it. It looked like something homemade.

Man, what an improvement. Looks great.

Just be greatfull they didnt replace them with walkie talkies.

You guys crack me, great one necrolop :)


Xylon,

thank you very much for the shots. Fantastic, a night and day difference.


This release has been proving itself to be a new landmark for Sony. No generic disc art and from what I recall from paidgeek, no more 3 stickers either. Can anyone confirm that?

I wonder how noticeable these "improvements" would be to the naked eye when sitting 10-15 or so feet away from the actual moving TV images rather than sitting a couple of feet from a computer monitor and watching a frozen frame of film??

Gordon,
It looks like it will be improved enough to now triple dip this title. :D
Regards,
Dom

I wonder how noticeable these "improvements" would be to the naked eye when sitting 10-15 or so feet away from the actual moving TV images rather than sitting a couple of feet from a computer monitor and watching a frozen frame of film??
I'm sure that the difference will be very noticeable. When I first saw the Blu-ray version I thought that it looked worse than the superbit DVD. I actually bought a HD DVD player due to the way this movie looked, because I thought that there was something wrong with Blu-ray as a format---not technically, but certainly a lack of caring about quality. I, and I'm sure many other HD DVD owners would have bought Blu-ray instead of HD DVD if this movie had looked stellar at the launch, and HD DVD WOULD HAVE DIED A QUICK DEATH. The problem that Sony faced is that they released a crappy copy of this movie while there were some stunning looking transfers already out on HD DVD. It appears that Sony has redeemed themselves, and hopefully learned a painfully expensive lesson---that we early adopters were EXPECTING much better quality from Blu-ray and especially on such a revered title that is a reference quality superbit DVD. I'll certainly consider getting a Blu-ray player when the fully developed players are released later this year. I would guess that this is the only movie that will get redone, but hopefully Sony has learned their lesson and will pay more attention to quality control for all future titles.

I wonder how noticeable these "improvements" would be to the naked eye when sitting 10-15 or so feet away from the actual moving TV images rather than sitting a couple of feet from a computer monitor and watching a frozen frame of film??

Well the older version barely looked better than the Superbit Upscaled, had ton of DNR and Macroblocking in certain scenes...

This new one look almost like it's as good as The Patriot.. witch look awesome for a Catalog Title...

this may be late and a stupid question but bear with me please

how can you tell the difference between the two BD on the out side cover????

Just be greatfull they didnt replace them with walkie talkies.


That is FUNNY!

Looks like they got it right this time! :)

this may be late and a stupid question but bear with me please

how can you tell the difference between the two BD on the out side cover????

It's not glaringly obvious, but the original didn't have a Dolby True HD soundtrack - which is listed on the back now.

Awesome.

Don't want to ask too much but can you do a comparison of a clear shot of a face close-up?

I hope that Sony releases remastered editions of Kung Fu Hustle and XXX. I am terribly disappointed with the quality of Kung Fu Hustle. May be I should have bought the Japanese version which costs double the amount here.

In retrospect, I have to agree with others that Sony's less than stellar early releases cost them alot of early-adopters and, inadvertently, pushed them to the Dark Side.
An expensive lesson IMO.

Does anyone know if Netflix will send their copies back to Sony?

striking difference!

Amazing. I never expected the difference to be so large. I am addicted to your comparison shots and need more, lol.

Nice work, man! Definite improvement, (though some now will probably complain that the new shots look grainier!)

I was going to say something about it but the improvements outweigh the negatives. T5E is a Super-35 film with a lot of vfx shots anyway. Some grain is unavoidable unless it's smoothed over or filtered out, like the previous release.

This is Sony's first "Superbit" BRD isn't it? :D

Unavoidable Question: So now where's Universal's remastered real HD release of Traffic? ;)

Nice improvement, but they are still using 720p upscaled master IMO.

Here are some lossless 2X zoomed crops:

http://i8.tinypic.com/5y8a15i.png


http://i10.tinypic.com/4mwl2lt.png

Look at the hairs in the above shot... the difference is very noticeable.

How do you figure 720p? And what telecine facility would produce a 720p master?

How do you figure 720p?

I did the usual "Downscaling-Upscaling" Test. DU Test for short.

If downscaling the original 1080p image to an X resolution and upscaling it back to 1080p it doesn't loose any detail, then the X resolution is likely to be near the original. You can do it yourself with Photoshop using the screenshots posted by Xylon. Just remember to use the best upscaling/downscaling algorithm available in Photoshop.

Here's the DU Test for King Kong HD DVD, a reference movie known to be from a true 1080p master:

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/5232/kingkong1080pdownsclingge5.png

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4392/kingkong1080pdownsclingyo1.png

You can clearly see the loss of details in the DU process.

And there is the DU Test for Fifth Element Remastered (AVC):

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7108/fifthelementremastered1pg0.png

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1060/fifthelementremastered1ta3.png

As you can see, there is no loss of detail in the DU process, so the master must be around the 720p resolution (+-100).

BAH that sucks!!! Love TFE, it's been a demo disc on DVD since it came out... and it still looks like a friggin SD upscale. Why won't Sony give this title the release it deserves? Makes no sense to me, especially considering the black eye they got the first time they bunkhumped this release.

Sigh... 18 months from now, we'll get the "Ultimate Edition", which finally give us the edition we deserved in the first place...

BAH that sucks!!! Love TFE, it's been a demo disc on DVD since it came out... and it still looks like a friggin SD upscale. Why won't Sony give this title the release it deserves? Makes no sense to me, especially considering the black eye they got the first time they bunkhumped this release.

Sigh... 18 months from now, we'll get the "Ultimate Edition", which finally give us the edition we deserved in the first place...
:rolleyes:

Nice sleuth-work FrancescoP. Too bad this still hasn't gotten the transfer it deserves... even if it is better than the MPEG2 version. :(
-Matt

Nice sleuth-work FrancescoP. Too bad this still hasn't gotten the transfer it deserves... even if it is better than the MPEG2 version.

a perfect 1080p transfer of a source will still have only the detail of that source.

It's possible that the 35mm print that was used for TFE is being fully represented here. King Kong was transfered to HD from negative elements and then digitally created before even being printed to film for theatrical release. These two films have very different "source" histories and wouldn't necessarily look the same even under ideal conditions.

Unless we can really conclude that the print contains more visible picture detail than this Blu-ray Disc, we shouldn't get too upset.

I do agree that the 1080p > 720p > 1080p conversion test is very revealing, and helpful to spur discussion about the quality of the transfer and the clarity of the source material.

this does prove tho AVC > MPEG2 doesnt it? if they are from the same master and AVC obviously looking better than the MPEG2.

How many times do folks have to repeat and repeat and repeat that the new disc is taken from a NEW film-to-digital transfer?

dave :)

How many times do folks have to repeat and repeat and repeat that the new disc is taken from a NEW film-to-digital transfer?

dave :)

Is it?

As you can see, there is no loss of detail in the DU process, so the master must be around the 720p resolution (+-100).
The detail on a master and the technical form of the master are different things. This comes from a real new 1080p transfer. The IP used may indeed have at times not more than the equivalent of 720p detail, though. Your examples are all sfx shots with generational loss (negative -> scanned at (presumably) 2K, processed -> put on negative -> copied to IP -> scanned again to 1080p).

Is it?

Paidgeek has established this many times.


The detail on a master and the technical form of the master are different things. This comes from a real new 1080p transfer. The IP used may indeed have at times not more than the equivalent of 720p detail, though. Your examples are all sfx shots with generational loss (negative -> scanned at (presumably) 2K, processed -> put on negative -> copied to IP -> scanned again to 1080p).

Exactly.

LOL King King is Filmed in the Digital Domain, Fifth Element is a 10 years old film Element. The new master is way better then the old and zooming 4x into it doesn't proove anything other than showing how crappy the first one was..

You should take the Superbit Shot from the DVD thread (in the general forum) and put it beside this one.. for a laught..

Wow, looks like a big improvement. Can't wait to get my hands on this! :D

LOL King King is Filmed in the Digital Domain, Fifth Element is a 10 years old film Element.

King Kong and The Fifth Element were both shot on Super35 film, FYI.

King Kong and The Fifth Element were both shot on Super35 film, FYI.
I think he just stopped laughing ;)

Nice sleuth-work FrancescoP. Too bad this still hasn't gotten the transfer it deserves... even if it is better than the MPEG2 version. :(
-Matt
Still worth a rent if not just for Milla Jovovich :D

King Kong and The Fifth Element were both shot on Super35 film, FYI.
Yes, but one is a direct scan from the negative (newer film stock too) and the other at best a scan from a copy of the negative. So King Kong should be sharper on average. But there should also be 1080p sharp stuff on the TFE transfer when we see unmanipulated live action footage.

Hmmm, is it just me...or is it that even though there's a noticeable difference, the remaster still looks below average?

The detail on a master and the technical form of the master are different things. This comes from a real new 1080p transfer. The IP used may indeed have at times not more than the equivalent of 720p detail, though. Your examples are all sfx shots with generational loss (negative -> scanned at (presumably) 2K, processed -> put on negative -> copied to IP -> scanned again to 1080p).

bingo...

Yes, but one is a direct scan from the negative (newer film stock too) and the other at best a scan from a copy of the negative. So King Kong should be sharper on average. But there should also be 1080p sharp stuff on the TFE transfer when we see unmanipulated live action footage.

fully agree; 2nd generation element will not match 1st.

I suppose only a shot-on-digital remake will satisfy the purists.

I think you'll find the same conclusion for many "older" films. I tried it with some of The Matrix screenshots and the fine detail remains pretty close. So does that mean The Matrix comes from a 720p master too? ;)

Of course some CG material will show a loss since it can be much closer to resolving all of the resolution of 1080p than most film transfers we've seen.

Regarding the shot of Anne in Kong's hand.... The original film element of her was most likely much larger in the frame, using much more of the negative space. It was then shrunk and positioned accordingly in post, which is why it's so crisp. The non-vfx shots in Kong are not nearly as sharp but they are better detailed than The Matrix and of course 5E. Not really surprising though given the age and elements used for telecine (8/10 years old IP vs 2005 OCN).

I suppose only a shot-on-digital remake will satisfy the purists.

ppl seem to want everything to look like potc/apocalypto. i'd only expect that out of new titles, not something 10 years old. the fact that there is a re-issue plus the fact that there is dramatic improvement should be reason enough to get this title. i've not seen this movie b4 so i think i may give it a rental first unless it's going to be at fry's for $12.50.

every film should be shot using 70mm film stock :D

I did the usual "Downscaling-Upscaling" Test. DU Test for short.

If downscaling the original 1080p image to an X resolution and upscaling it back to 1080p it doesn't loose any detail, then the X resolution is likely to be near the original. You can do it yourself with Photoshop using the screenshots posted by Xylon. Just remember to use the best upscaling/downscaling algorithm available in Photoshop.

Here's the DU Test for King Kong HD DVD, a reference movie known to be from a true 1080p master:


You can clearly see the loss of details in the DU process.

And there is the DU Test for Fifth Element Remastered (AVC):


As you can see, there is no loss of detail in the DU process, so the master must be around the 720p resolution (+-100).

Well I can clearly see a loss of detail ... so no, master is no around 720p

Marek

I did the usual "Downscaling-Upscaling" Test. DU Test for short.

If downscaling the original 1080p image to an X resolution and upscaling it back to 1080p it doesn't loose any detail, then the X resolution is likely to be near the original. You can do it yourself with Photoshop using the screenshots posted by Xylon. Just remember to use the best upscaling/downscaling algorithm available in Photoshop.

As you can see, there is no loss of detail in the DU process, so the master must be around the 720p resolution (+-100). I don't know where you got the idea that 1080p->720p->1080p will get you to the original image or closer to it. These kinds of image resize/reduction algorithm is just not going to fill up data that already was lost when you went to 720p to begin with.

Even on the photos you posted of King Kong I can see detail loss and that's to be expected of those reduction. I can't even say that the King Kong 1080p->720p->1080p image was close to the original 1080p.

So the simplest reason must be true. Either King Kong and T5E were both mastered from 720p per the DU conversion OR the DU conversion is crap theory and both films are taken from 1080p masters. I'll go with the latter.


fuad

Well I can clearly see a loss of detail ... so no, master is no around 720p

Marek


As could I....

It's not glaringly obvious, but the original didn't have a Dolby True HD soundtrack - which is listed on the back now.



Thanks for the quick response

It looks better... but still a fairly crappy transfer :(

Even on the photos you posted of King Kong I can see detail loss and that's to be expected of those reduction.

I think you completely missed the point.

DU Test theory is based on the opposite: the more difference and detail loss between the DU image and the original, the more the master must be better than the tested resolution (in this case, 720p).

In the case of Fifth Element, the difference is negligible, so the master is not better than 720p.

In the case of King Kong, the difference is very noticeable, so the master must be a lot better than 720p.

We can chose another movie, for example Casino Royale:

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/16/casinoroyale1080pdownscvo6.png

The master here is clearly above 720p, because the difference in sharpness is noticeable.

Yes, but one is a direct scan from the negative (newer film stock too) and the other at best a scan from a copy of the negative. So King Kong should be sharper on average. But there should also be 1080p sharp stuff on the TFE transfer when we see unmanipulated live action footage.

Exactly. Are all the members here understanding this? You can either scan the original *negative* to digital, and then "master" for the release print in the digital domain (and use this digital master to derive the HD and DVD encodes) or, more commonly, you can take a film print or interpositive (one or more generations removed from the original negative) and scan that into the digital domain.

The results will all look very different. The closer to the source (camera negative) you scan, the sharper and more detailed things will look. But dependig on the way the film was produced (special effects etc.) that might not even be possible, in which case an interpositive or print is the earliest-generation "final" form of the film that can be obtained... as with T5E.

Rather than talking about a "720p transfer" a more meaningful, and accurate, way to desribe it might be to say that "this 1080p transfer has an effective resolution of about 720p"-- meaning that regardless of how many pixels you use to scan, you're only seeing a real-world result of about 720p due to other limitations, such as the source material.

BTW, even when this 1080 > 720 > 1080 scaling test is performed and shows a 720p-effective resolution, it doesn't mean that the in-motion video won't still benefit from 1080p encoding. The reason for this is that motion video has to undergo filtering for high-frequency detail to avoid aliasing artifacts pixel-by-pixel. This means that a motion image scanned with 1280 x 720 might not look as sharp/detailed as a static image captured at the same resolution. With 1080 video scanning "low resolution" film-stock, you've got more headroom for fine details, like film-grain, that can shift subtly and be better preserved in the in-motion image.

In the case of Fifth Element, the difference is negligible, so the master is not better than 720p

Francesco,

you're contribution to this thread is greatly appreciated. But let's be sure and all acknowledge that the *reason* that a master may only dispay 720p "effective resolution" (much more correct than saying a "720p transfer") cannot be concluded to be faulty mastering out-of-hand.

It could be that the print itself only exhibits 720p effective resolution.

In discussions like this it's important that we all move down the path of understanding based on expressed assumptions. I'm not suggesting you've said that the mastering for this transfer is necessarily faulty, but many readers who lack a better understanding of the complexity of film-to-digital transfering may make that (possibly false) assumption based on the tenor of the conversations here.

Nice improvement, but they are still using 720p upscaled master IMO.

In the case of Fifth Element, the difference is negligible, so the master is not better than 720p.
You can't manipulate the image numerous times and then deduce that it came from a 720p master. Do you honestly think that Sony would risk another hit to their reputation by pulling a stunt like the one you're suggesting? Not likely.

I'm giving Sony the benefit of the doubt (and I've been pretty vocal with my feelings about the first version of TFE.) Those new screenshots look pretty good to me and I can't wait to get this new version. Kudos, Sony.

You can't manipulate the image numerous times and then deduce that it came from a 720p master. :rolleyes: This is retarded. Do you honestly think that Sony would risk another hit to their reputation by pulling a stunt like the one you're suggesting? Not likely.

I'm giving Sony the benefit of the doubt (and I've been pretty vocal with my feelings about the first version of TFE.) Those new screenshots look pretty good to me and I can't wait to get this new version. Kudos, Sony.

i actually see noticeably more detail on the 1080p -> 720p -> 1080p screen he showed of mila's face, so i guess he is actually hleping prove that the remaster did not come from a 720p source.

Thank you for being fair and posting the Casino Royale shot, Francesco.

I'm thinking this method of testing the resolution of HD screenshots can be really useful. It's not accurate for judging the quality of an entire movie/transfer because detail can vary from shot, but it can tell you how much resolution a frame is displaying.

On the basis of what I've experiemented with and seen here so far:

960-1080p real resolution - King Kong, Casino Royale
720-960p - POTC 1 & 2
720p - The Matrix 1 & 2, Fifth Element (reissue)
Below 720p - Fifth Element (original), HOFD, Spartacus,
480p and below - Traffic (Universal release)

i actually see noticeably more detail on the 1080p -> 720p -> 1080p screen he showed of mila's face, so i guess he is actually hleping prove that the remaster did not come from a 720p source.
Same here. Though using FX shots that had to have involved optical compositing probably isn't the best idea, since it adds a few more generations of film, hence lower resolution.

Maybe Lowry can restore it all some day and totally muck up the intended colors and contrast like the Star Wars films! :)

*** laugh ***

;)

Maybe Lowry can restore it all some day and totally muck up the intended colors and contrast like the Star Wars films!

After all is said and done the PQ improvements are significant. Getting rid most of the macroblocking/artifacts alone are worth noting.

Yes its "ugly" compared to the recent CGI releases but dear Lord we have to take into account the time and technology available in making the film.

After all is said and done the PQ improvements are significant. Getting rid most of the macroblocking/artifacts alone are worth noting.

Yes its "ugly" compared to the recent CGI releases but dear Lord we have to take into account the time and technology available in making the film.


I think it is amusing, and somewhat amazing that the previous goal of recreation of a brand new print in theater in home is no longer good enough.

How far we have come...home theater...nay... home "better than" theater.

here are Xylon's screenshots as mouseover images for easy comparison ;)
» http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/thefifthelement_bd-vs-bdremastered/01.html

I think it is amusing, and somewhat amazing that the previous goal of recreation of a brand new print in theater in home is no longer good enough.

How far we have come...home theater...nay... home "better than" theater.


crazy... i wonder how many people saw this movie in theaters ten years ago? it can't be better than the master.

here are Xylon's screenshots as mouseover images for easy comparison ;)
» http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/thefifthelement_bd-vs-bdremastered/01.html

I love your mouseovers. It looks like you have enough bandwidth to handle the traffic.

Yeah, you rock, msv.

:rolleyes:
? WTF is your deal? TFE should be a feature release - it's legendary demo material. Now perhaps, as some have stated, it's as good as can be had, in which case, it's clearly better than the first release. I would expect Sony to really go all out to highlight the eye candy that is this movie. If it's a better encoding of a less than optimal transfer, it's not what fans of this flick deserve.

MEC2

My sarcasm was noted because you come across as ungrateful and are passing judgment on a product which you haven't even seen.

here are Xylon's screenshots as mouseover images for easy comparison ;)
» http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/thefifthelement_bd-vs-bdremastered/01.html

Awesome, I dig these things.

Makes it much easier to see the difference.

Awesome, I dig these things.

Makes it much easier to see the difference.
I was thinking the same thing. Well done to both Xylon and msv. Now I just need my copy of the new version...

Hmmm, is it just me...or is it that even though there's a noticeable difference, the remaster still looks below average?

i felt the same way when i saw the shots, seems to be overly grainy. but given this is a 10yr old movie, we can't expect potc/apoc quality video. it's also rather unjustified to claim sony did a poor job for what has been a reference material for new formats. this movie was not 10 yrs old when dvd's came out and potc/apocalypto certainly were not around either.

considering the first blu-ray release is a noticeable if not significant upgrade over the dvd, then consider this remaster is another signficant upgrade over the first BD, we really shouldn't be complaining. i'll be adding this to netflix queue.

I'm thinking this method of testing the resolution of HD screenshots can be really useful. It's not accurate for judging the quality of an entire movie/transfer because detail can vary from shot, but it can tell you how much resolution a frame is displaying.

On the basis of what I've experiemented with and seen here so far:

960-1080p real resolution - King Kong, Casino Royale
720-960p - POTC 1 & 2
720p - The Matrix 1 & 2, Fifth Element (reissue)
Below 720p - Fifth Element (original), HOFD, Spartacus,
480p and below - Traffic (Universal release)
This is certainly useful, Mark.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that has watched a lot of DVDs: Newer films have better resolution when put to disk.
This is only a general rule of thumb and there are many exceptions out there (Grand Prix anyone?).
As wonderful as BD is, not all movies will end up looking like Casino Royale or Apocalypto.

As wonderful as BD is, not all movies will end up looking like Casino Royale or Apocalypto.

if they dont we will continue to make posts bashing the hell out of sony. :rolleyes:

I found a copy of the re-master at my local Wal-Mart today, they had one copy and I snatched it.

I'd like to preface by saying that I have not seen the original release of this disc as I decided to wait for the re-master. So I can't really comment on how much better it is then the previous release. However after scanning through it and watching some of my favorite scene's, I'm pretty blown away. It looks much better then the superbit version when I compared the two and and is what I was hoping the movie would look like in HD. There is some film grain in certain shots such as some of the wide desert landscapes at the beginning and in a few of the low light shots, but nothing that made me cringe or took away from the film in anyway. I never thought to myself, "boy this movie doesn't hold up in HD". The Transfer looked very clear and I would definitely use this disc to show off to friends what HD is really like. I watched this at 1080i playing on a PS3 and a 65 inch Mitsubishi WS-65615 CRT Television. I did not really notice much difference between the PCM and Dolby Tru-HD tracks. But I'm not very good when it comes to comparing audio. I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on the audio comparison.

I'd like to add that I am very wary of looking at just screenshots to judge the quality of a transfer. While it can show a lot, I find that when doing a side by side comparison of HD and SD material if I'm just pausing the picture it's often times very hard to tell the difference. (granted some of the pictures in this thread are pretty obvious when it come to these two discs) I did some side by side comparisons of HD sources vs SD sources for a friend of mine who is not a videophile but wanted to see the difference and he was not impressed by the still images. It wasn't until I actually played clips of the the SD version of a film on dvd and then the same scene in HD on Blu-ray or HD DVD that he really saw the difference and was then convinced that HD really is that much better.

-bish

Sorry if this has been covered as this is a long thread. I checked out the bitrate for the TrueHD track and the lowest I saw was 2.6Mbps, while the highest was over 4Mbps. It is possible that the original soundtrack was 16/48, but this one must have been put on the disc with higher for the bitrates to be what I saw. Not sure if it would be 20/48 or 24/48 though (or even something in between).

Also, the color difference on the general's sweater was significant in the reconstruction scene. It was very green on the new version, which I haven't seen before.

--Darin

Damn, how are so many people getting their hands on this disc so early?! :mad:

I know. I want my copy Amazon...

I know. I want my copy Amazon...

That's where I ordered mine too Joe....along with Apocalypto! :cool:

Damn, how are so many people getting their hands on this disc so early?! :mad:Wal-mart in my case.

--Darin

Thank you for being fair and posting the Casino Royale shot, Francesco.

I'm thinking this method of testing the resolution of HD screenshots can be really useful. It's not accurate for judging the quality of an entire movie/transfer because detail can vary from shot, but it can tell you how much resolution a frame is displaying.

On the basis of what I've experiemented with and seen here so far:

960-1080p real resolution - King Kong, Casino Royale
720-960p - POTC 1 & 2
720p - The Matrix 1 & 2, Fifth Element (reissue)
Below 720p - Fifth Element (original), HOFD, Spartacus,
480p and below - Traffic (Universal release)

Okay I'm coming into this late and I'm trying to figure out what your results are trying to say. Are you saying the titles listed are their true resolution? Even despite most of the movies being advertised as 1080p (such as the back of the case)?

It's just like CD, where all CD's are mastered to a technical spec of 16/44, but that is still no guarantee that the material on that CD fully utilizes that spec. It may effectively fall quite short of that spec. Imagine if someone burned a CD using a poorly done cassette tape recording of somebody's garage band. The format is a technical 16/44, but the actual recording will never be any better than cassette tape. It's just on a different format, now.

What is the difference between the cases of the old and the remastered? I will check out Walmart but how do I know which is which?

Edit: Nevermind I just found out how.

Okay I'm coming into this late and I'm trying to figure out what your results are trying to say. Are you saying the titles listed are their true resolution? Even despite most of the movies being advertised as 1080p (such as the back of the case)?
He's basing those numbers on a highly-flawed, totally unproven method of "testing." Basically, they're manipulating screen captures a few times in Photoshop (introducing who-knows-how-many artifacts in the process) and then comparing them to the original screen capture. Somehow, they have decided that that comparison will tell them what the "real" resolution is. Of course, I've read no scientific reason that would explain why this would work, but they seem to accept it. What are ya gonna do?

If this was mentioned, I missed it: Is all the dirt, scratches, and crud gone from the remaster? That was clearly evident in the sky of the opening desert scene...

I fully agree that the source film stock has got to be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the original when doing a telecine scan (and it should be at least a 4k scan with the best equipment).

The more generations way it is from the original negative the worse it will look. That's why I find it funny people are comparing high speed, low-QC'd prints at their local megaplexes to Blu-ray transfers, and hoping it looks the same as what they saw. They shouldn't people! The Blu-ray release should look BETTER, much much better. If it looks the same or worse then something went terribly wrong at some point in the mastering chain.

I wish the studios would use their digital archival IP scans from the original camera negatives as the source for these disc transfers. You can't get a much better source than from the originals!!

If Sony went back to the ORIGINAL negatives of The Fifth Element and did a new 4k scan I better it would look even better.

However, many times the IP used for a consumer grade telecine job is not of the best quality. You then get more grain, gate weave/judder, nicks, dirt, scratches, and far less detail.

Watch Spiderman 1 during the boardroom sequence where Willem Dafoe gets the boot. For a few seconds there is terrible frame jitter. It happened in a few scenes of Enemy of the State too.

The IP used were probably damaged and they didn't bother QC'ing them or didn't notice these problems and it slipped through.

Sony used a fairly beat up copy for the fairly recent film Capote.

That's why I call on the studios to start using their archival digital files for our Blu-ray releases.

Dan

Capote looked awful.

If this was mentioned, I missed it: Is all the dirt, scratches, and crud gone from the remaster?From what I saw, it isn't all gone, but a whole lot of it is. As they go down the hall before the reconstruction I see some kind of pulsing on the walls with the original version, where the new version looks a lot better there to my eyes. I also think a lot of dirt (and maybe a hair or scratch) got cleaned up during that reconstruction scene.

--Darin

just picked up my copy at a local wal-mart too. They had a stack full of them.

Sorry if this has been covered as this is a long thread. I checked out the bitrate for the TrueHD track and the lowest I saw was 2.6Mbps, while the highest was over 4Mbps. It is possible that the original soundtrack was 16/48, but this one must have been put on the disc with higher for the bitrates to be what I saw. Not sure if it would be 20/48 or 24/48 though (or even something in between).

Also, the color difference on the general's sweater was significant in the reconstruction scene. It was very green on the new version, which I haven't seen before.

--Darin

Puzzling isn't it. 16 bit TrueHD encodes hover between 1-3Mbps. Perhaps the resolution of the master was higher than they thought.

It's an all new transfer, I've also noticed for the first time in the original transfer there was a red push that's gone now. Much more accurate colors.

I wonder how noticeable these "improvements" would be to the naked eye when sitting 10-15 or so feet away from the actual moving TV images rather than sitting a couple of feet from a computer monitor and watching a frozen frame of film??

Big.

Especially on a calibrated HD viewing set.

I found a copy of the re-master at my local Wal-Mart today, they had one copy and I snatched it.

I'd like to preface by saying that I have not seen the original release of this disc as I decided to wait for the re-master. So I can't really comment on how much better it is then the previous release. However after scanning through it and watching some of my favorite scene's, I'm pretty blown away. It looks much better then the superbit version when I compared the two and and is what I was hoping the movie would look like in HD. There is some film grain in certain shots such as some of the wide desert landscapes at the beginning and in a few of the low light shots, but nothing that made me cringe or took away from the film in anyway. I never thought to myself, "boy this movie doesn't hold up in HD". The Transfer looked very clear and I would definitely use this disc to show off to friends what HD is really like. I watched this at 1080i playing on a PS3 and a 65 inch Mitsubishi WS-65615 CRT Television. I did not really notice much difference between the PCM and Dolby Tru-HD tracks. But I'm not very good when it comes to comparing audio. I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on the audio comparison.

I'd like to add that I am very wary of looking at just screenshots to judge the quality of a transfer. While it can show a lot, I find that when doing a side by side comparison of HD and SD material if I'm just pausing the picture it's often times very hard to tell the difference. (granted some of the pictures in this thread are pretty obvious when it come to these two discs) I did some side by side comparisons of HD sources vs SD sources for a friend of mine who is not a videophile but wanted to see the difference and he was not impressed by the still images. It wasn't until I actually played clips of the the SD version of a film on dvd and then the same scene in HD on Blu-ray or HD DVD that he really saw the difference and was then convinced that HD really is that much better.

-bish

Nice post.

Didn't Bill Hunt talk about a swap program for those that have the old one? Any news on that?

You can't manipulate the image numerous times and then deduce that it came from a 720p master. Do you honestly think that Sony would risk another hit to their reputation by pulling a stunt like the one you're suggesting? Not likely.

I'm giving Sony the benefit of the doubt (and I've been pretty vocal with my feelings about the first version of TFE.) Those new screenshots look pretty good to me and I can't wait to get this new version. Kudos, Sony.


This version looks better than ever. The Superbit SD-DVD was reference DVD material for a long time and this new version blows it away and shows what HD is supposed to look like. Moving from Mpeg2 to AVC on this release and cleaning up the colors while removing a lot of the banding caused by wrong color's and saturation in space scenes makes this a must buy for Fifth Element fans. If you want reference material for HD, this movie should still look great compared to many releases and will probably be placed upper tier 1. It is not in the same tier category as Apocalypto and POTC however on a 50 inch screen which is the average HDTV screen size j6p will be buying, it is better than perfect even at 720p... So unless you have a 100 inch or greater home theater at 1080p24, this title should look perfect while being played. A zoomed still image comparison is good when comparing codecs and looking for artifacts in the encode. However in this case we have already concluded that the AVC encode is superior to the Mpeg2 TFE Blu-Ray encode... TFE also has the plus that it is a fun movie to watch with many bright color's and very good sound which is what made it demo reference material on SD-DVD for so long.. I'm glad SOny listened to all of us here in the avs forum that complained how terrible TFE Blu-Ray was, and allowed for a free trade-in program as well once they finished.

Didn't Bill Hunt talk about a swap program for those that have the old one? Any news on that?
Currently in progress. Many of us have already sent in our copies and are awaiting the replacement.

Thank you for being fair and posting the Casino Royale shot, Francesco.

I'm thinking this method of testing the resolution of HD screenshots can be really useful. It's not accurate for judging the quality of an entire movie/transfer because detail can vary from shot, but it can tell you how much resolution a frame is displaying.

On the basis of what I've experiemented with and seen here so far:

960-1080p real resolution - King Kong, Casino Royale
720-960p - POTC 1 & 2
720p - The Matrix 1 & 2, Fifth Element (reissue)
Below 720p - Fifth Element (original), HOFD, Spartacus,
480p and below - Traffic (Universal release)


I agree, it can be very useful. I collected some DU test screenshots in this new thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=872992

If you want to help me with the thread we can try to do a ranking of the masters like the one you proposed. PM me if you are interested. :)

I agree, it can be very useful. I collected some DU test screenshots in this new thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=872992

If you want to help me with the thread we can try to do a ranking of the masters like the one you proposed. PM me if you are interested. :)

To eliminate any doubt, please know that SPE does not transfer titles at 720p and I am not aware of any studio that does. Films are either transferred at 1920 x 1080 or they are source from digital intermediates and downconverted to 1920 x 1080. The observations made in the post are purely a function of the resolution present in the film elements. If you check the entire feature exhaustively, you will see that this varies from scene to scene throughout the title (as it does with other titles). I consider the new version of this master to be good to very good and a marked improvement over previous master that was made with a flying spot telecine. There was no expense spared in getting everything we could out of the film elements for this release.

To eliminate any doubt, please know that SPE does not transfer titles at 720p and I am not aware of any studio that does. Films are either transferred at 1920 x 1080 or they are source from digital intermediates and downconverted to 1920 x 1080. The observations made in the post are purely a function of the resolution present in the film elements. If you check the entire feature exhaustively, you will see that this varies from scene to scene throughout the title (as it does with other titles). I consider the new version of this master to be good to very good and a marked improvement over previous master that was made with a flying spot telecine. There was no expense spared in getting everything we could out of the film elements for this release.

all you doubters just got told. :D

I was hoping Paidgeek would show up and squash the BS being posted in this thread. :D

There was no expense spared in getting everything we could out of the film elements for this release.Thanks. And your reward will be even more purchase of TFE. It’s been at the number 3 or 4 spot at Amazon for several days now. Not bad for a BD re-release of a 10 year old movie.

Thanks. And your reward will be even more purchase of TFE. It’s been at the number 3 or 4 spot at Amazon for several days now. Not bad for a BD re-release of a 10 year old movie.
Damn right. I've been scouring the local Wal-Mart stores (the ones that carry BD at least) ever since the first reports of TFE showing up there surfaced. I can't wait to check this bad boy out...

Thanks. And your reward will be even more purchase of TFE. It’s been at the number 3 or 4 spot at Amazon for several days now. Not bad for a BD re-release of a 10 year old movie.

It will be interesting to see the Nielson numbers for the week of the 17th. Will TFE be the exception to the catalogue titles performing poorly observation?

ted

Currently in progress. Many of us have already sent in our copies and are awaiting the replacement.
Do you have a link for info on that? I must have missed it. I'd like to send mine in.

Do you have a link for info on that? I must have missed it. I'd like to send mine in.
do a search in this thread, many ppl have given instructions in the previous pages.

Thanks. I read through the thread and must have missed it. (That was the whole reason I read through it all. I'll look at it again. I guess it got lost in the aruging over clarity improvements. :D

Thanks. I read through the thread and must have missed it. (That was the whole reason I read through it all. I'll look at it again. I guess it got lost in the aruging over clarity improvements. :D
Info. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10977264&&#post10977264)

Info. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10977264&&#post10977264)
Gracias.

ah, it was in the other thread, this one is all about how it looks compared to the old copy.

To eliminate any doubt, please know that SPE does not transfer titles at 720p and I am not aware of any studio that does. Films are either transferred at 1920 x 1080 or they are source from digital intermediates and downconverted to 1920 x 1080. The observations made in the post are purely a function of the resolution present in the film elements. If you check the entire feature exhaustively, you will see that this varies from scene to scene throughout the title (as it does with other titles). I consider the new version of this master to be good to very good and a marked improvement over previous master that was made with a flying spot telecine. There was no expense spared in getting everything we could out of the film elements for this release.

Thanks for the info, paidgeek. Your input is appreciated as always.

To eliminate any doubt, please know that SPE does not transfer titles at 720p and I am not aware of any studio that does. Films are either transferred at 1920 x 1080 or they are source from digital intermediates and downconverted to 1920 x 1080. The observations made in the post are purely a function of the resolution present in the film elements. If you check the entire feature exhaustively, you will see that this varies from scene to scene throughout the title (as it does with other titles). I consider the new version of this master to be good to very good and a marked improvement over previous master that was made with a flying spot telecine. There was no expense spared in getting everything we could out of the film elements for this release.

I'd love to see it first hand, but I have emailed the address at Sony to find out how to do the exchange 3 times now with no response. How can I get a new copy already!?

Did you try calling the 800 number?

How can I get a new copy already!?Not trying to speak for Sony/paidgeek but IIRC the “official re-release” of the TFE RM is July 17, 2007. I would be surprised if they responded/acted on any replacements prior to said date. Just MHO.

It will be interesting to see the Nielson numbers for the week of the 17th. Will TFE be the exception to the catalogue titles performing poorly observation?

ted

Not all catalog releases do poorly, both of the Pirates movies were catalog releases.

I'd love to see it first hand, but I have emailed the address at Sony to find out how to do the exchange 3 times now with no response. How can I get a new copy already!?

I e-mailed last night, and got a response this morning. Perhaps you should check your e-mail's filtering/blocking settings.

Yes, Sony support responded to my email request pretty fast too. They wrote to print their response and enclose it with the original disc while mailing it to Sony.

ah, it was in the other thread, this one is all about how it looks compared to the old copy.
No sweat. As long as I know I'm not crazy. Someone else helped me out, so it's all good. I'll send the email tonight.

Not all catalog releases do poorly, both of the Pirates movies were catalog releases.

How could I forget - Ok anything older than Johnny Deppe's children. ;)

ted

What I like about this whole 720 vs 1080 craziness, is its pretty much proven that there's not much to be gained in going beyond 1080p in the future, at least in regards to catalog titles that are actually from film transfers. Indeed, til all processing is done the effective resolution of the film is going to fall between 720 and 1080.

Now, with newer films and new processes you may yield a higher resolution, but you're probably going to need an actual movie-theater size screen in your house to appreciate it.

Of course, that also means there's good opportunity for the movie houses to stay in business if they adopt these advanced digital projection systems in the future which can yield a more detailed image than today's theaters and home theaters.

Sounds like there needs to be more of a push, not so much in shooting films on video vs. film (film still looks better), but on presenting the finished project digitally so there's no loss from the master to the theater.

This is what the studios should be pushing for so that they can keep butts in theater seats; they need a product that is actually superior (and not just bigger and louder) than what people can find at home.

It will be interesting to see the Nielson numbers for the week of the 17th. Will TFE be the exception to the catalogue titles performing poorly observation?

I don't know but here's what I can tell you. TFE is one of the best selling BD's ever, despite the lousy job they did. That could mean two things. Firstly if 50% of people were put off from the reviews then it's going to shift some big numbers. Secondly if they don't count the free replacement copies in the numbers, then the numbers might be low if most people got the original version.

This is what the studios should be pushing for so that they can keep butts in theater seats; they need a product that is actually superior (and not just bigger and louder) than what people can find at home.
They are (and for reasons "not just to keep butts in theater seats").
Here’s a resource to keep up with.........for other threads -
http://www.dcinematoday.com/

Most significantly, and which may or may not have been mentioned in the past on the above link is that last May the DCI approved an addendum in their latest spec for……… 3D Digital Cinema, which some believe will be the only thing that will get people coming back into theaters like in the olden days.

I don't know but here's what I can tell you. TFE is one of the best selling BD's ever, despite the lousy job they did. That could mean two things. Firstly if 50% of people were put off from the reviews then it's going to shift some big numbers. Secondly if they don't count the free replacement copies in the numbers, then the numbers might be low if most people got the original version.

upon release of the new version they should add sales numbers to the older one, tho that would skew the numbers of those who double dip w/o returning the old copy for comparison purposes and what not. or just to have the out of print first release of t5e.

Thanks. And your reward will be even more purchase of TFE. It’s been at the number 3 or 4 spot at Amazon for several days now. Not bad for a BD re-release of a 10 year old movie.

Damn straight! :cool:

Picked up a copy today from WalMart and watched about 20 min so far.

Looks excellent, a lot better then the orginal BD release, oh, and it even defaults to the TrueHD track. :)

Great job Sony Pictures, thanks paidgeek.

Picked up a copy today from WalMart and watched about 20 min so far.

Looks excellent, a lot better then the orginal BD release, oh, and it even defaults to the TrueHD track. :)

Great job Sony Pictures, thanks paidgeek.

Does it really default to the TrueHD track?!?!?

If so, I think that is great. I think these HD titles that default to the legacy tracks will remind us of the first DVD's that defaulted to the 2 channel or dolby pro-logic track instead of the 5.1 track (ironically the first DVD release of TFE did exactly that)!

TFE - Superbit - Upscaled in 1080p (Xylon)
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/DVD/66d79fe9.png
TFE - Remaster AVC (Xylon)
http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/90247/0/5thelementbdremastered1.png

if these new pictures are an accurate representation of what the new version looks like, I'll definitely pass on buying it. It still looks like garbage.

if these new pictures are an accurate representation of what the new version looks like, I'll definitely pass on buying it. It still looks like garbage.

Ah come on........... please... Garbage?.. LOL NO it does freaking look like King Kong.. Yes the DVD was nice because it was SOFT and look like DNR to death.

That new version BD screenshot looks way better than the upscaled Superbit DVD screeshot.....what are people complaining about?

That new version BD screenshot looks way better than the upscaled Superbit DVD screeshot.....what are people complaining about?

For a reason unknow, people tought that it was going to be better than King Kong .. witch is technically impossible in this case since most SFX Shot in 5th Element seems to have been transfered to film, where King Kong , film was scanned digitally and incorporated into the digital world then transfered on the HD DVD ...

Waiting for someone to say that the frame screenshot are not the same in 5,4,3,2,1...

nice work as usual, xylon!
Looks fab, and people who think it looks like garbage are insane...!

;)

if these new pictures are an accurate representation of what the new version looks like, I'll definitely pass on buying it. It still looks like garbage.

Uh.......OK! :rolleyes:

if these new pictures are an accurate representation of what the new version looks like, I'll definitely pass on buying it. It still looks like garbage.
We all thank you for the insightful post. I'll make sure to refer to you in the future when I want to know how any given movie should look. :rolleyes:

Does it really default to the TrueHD track?!?!?

If so, I think that is great. I think these HD titles that default to the legacy tracks will remind us of the first DVD's that defaulted to the 2 channel or dolby pro-logic track instead of the 5.1 track (ironically the first DVD release of TFE did exactly that)!Yep, I was all ready to select the TrueHD track when the audio menu came up it was selected by default...nice going Sony, hope they keep this up.

Another note, there is no native English Dolby Digital track on this, just TrueHD and PCM. I'm not sure how this works if your only using optical.

paidgeek does this TrueHD track contain a core Dolby Digital track?

I do remeber the first DVD releases, I still have some of the original ones with 2 channel selected by default. I think Sony Pictures and Paramount released a lot like this for the first year or so. I also remember a lot of releases that were just letterbox (non-anaphormic) and not formatted for widescreen televisions.

Did they start shipping replacements

Any reviews on the remastered version yet?

Review copies have not been shipped out to my knowledge. I have all of the Sony releases up to that date already but have not received it.

Yep, I was all ready to select the TrueHD track when the audio menu came up it was selected by default...nice going Sony, hope they keep this up.

Another note, there is no native English Dolby Digital track on this, just TrueHD and PCM. I'm not sure how this works if your only using optical.

paidgeek does this TrueHD track contain a core Dolby Digital track?

I do remeber the first DVD releases, I still have some of the original ones with 2 channel selected by default. I think Sony Pictures and Paramount released a lot like this for the first year or so. I also remember a lot of releases that were just letterbox (non-anaphormic) and not formatted for widescreen televisions.


I thought Tru-HD had a DD core track?

I thought Tru-HD had a DD core track?

There is no DD core in Dolby True HD. But I thought it is in the bluray specs that a Dolby True HD track must be accompanied by a DD track.

My PS3 is linked with my AV amp using optical out. This would suck big time if I would get only 2 channel sound from the new TFE bluray.

Can anybody check this? Can the PS3 convert 5.1 DD THD into 5.1 DD (for the optical out)? I think I would cancel my pre-order an stick with the DVD, if I would get only stereo from the bluray. The sound of the remastered DVD version really kicks a**.

Blu-ray specs require that any TrueHD track be accompanied by a legacy Dolby Digital track (usually 640 kbps in practice) for backwards compatibility. However, even though technically it's a separate DD track, the BD spec causes it to *act* like a "core" stream. For instance, the disc-packaging might only mention the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack and not the standard Dolby. Also, I'm not sure if the standard Dolby is made available as an option in the menu.... I think you might only see the TrueHD soundtrack option in the audio setup choices.

HOWEVER:

ALL BD players will stream the Standard Dolby "core" (core in quotes here) out the traditional coax/optical digital output for those with standard receivers. This is true even if your BD player can decode TrueHD and/or has HDMI 1.3. In other words, if you select the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, you'll be able to hear the 5.1 Dolby Digital (probably at 640) out the SPDIF digital ouptut. That's automatic because the player knows you can't put TrueHD on an old-fashioned SPDIF digital cable.

If you have a built-in TrueHD decoder (like in the PS3) you should also be able to hear the Lossless TrueHD converted to 2.0 PCM via the SPDIF output, depending on your player settings.

For a reason unknow, people tought that it was going to be better than King Kong .. witch is technically impossible in this case since most SFX Shot in 5th Element seems to have been transfered to film, where King Kong , film was scanned digitally and incorporated into the digital world then transfered on the HD DVD ...

Waiting for someone to say that the frame screenshot are not the same in 5,4,3,2,1...
The detail in the BD makes the "detail" in the DVD look like mosquito noise.

Looks pretty good to me for being struck from a Super 35 print. Now if this had been 70mm....

Can't wait till MTV ships mine. It ought to look phenomenal.

I got notification that my copy shipped. Hope I get it for the weekend.

Puzzling isn't it. 16 bit TrueHD encodes hover between 1-3Mbps. Perhaps the resolution of the master was higher than they thought.

It's an all new transfer, I've also noticed for the first time in the original transfer there was a red push that's gone now. Much more accurate colors.

No, a higher bit rate indicates that it is difficult to compress. Given the era (1997) it's (at best) a 20-bit resolution masater but more likely 16.

There are a number of potential reasons for the high bit rate, here are some:
1) Audio data represents a near pathologic case with high degrees of randomization.

2) Channel content is highly scattered making the encoder work harder to get the compression.

3) The title has significant dynamic range compression in the master. The more DRC you apply, the less the audio data will compress.

Cheers,

I want a perfect transfer as well, and don't forget to throw in the best audio codec to boot, but saying this transfer is garbage certainly has no merit. I will gladly take this new release, and kudos to Sony for replacing customers originals free of charge.

If you want the perfect transfer than go buy yourself a movie theater. :p

I got notification that my copy shipped. Hope I get it for the weekend.


Call the number below and give them your reference number to ask if they have recieved your mail. Nobody has had their order shipped yet since they all will ship the 17th...

Phone: 800-860-2878
Email: consumer@sphecustomersupport.sony.com

Hmmm, is it just me...or is it that even though there's a noticeable difference, the remaster still looks below average?


It's just you ;)....

Review copies have not been shipped out to my knowledge. I have all of the Sony releases up to that date already but have not received it.Great, can't wait until your review Kris

Found this response from paidgeek in the Industry Insiders thread concerning the TrueHD track and Dolby Digital.

Whenever Dolby THD is used, there is a legacy DD stream that shadows it. Although you do not see it as a menu selection, it will be output from your optical/coaxial connector if you have made the appropriate player system settings.

Given the virtues of lossless/uncompressed audio, it is well worth putting a new receiver on your Christmas list.

here are Xylon's screenshots as mouseover images for easy comparison ;)
» http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/thefifthelement_bd-vs-bdremastered/01.html


This is a great service you are doing for all of us along with Xylon.. My thanks and appreciation go out to you two. Keep up the great work on here :)

Boy that looks LOADS better than the upscale. It's got what I love about HD - texture. That looks like pocked stone now, the additional resolution gives slight detail the depth that looks real. Definitely worth upgrading over the SD DVD...

MEC2

Boy that looks LOADS better than the upscale. It's got what I love about HD - texture. That looks like pocked stone now, the additional resolution gives slight detail the depth that looks real. Definitely worth upgrading over the SD DVD...

MEC2


It is worth upgrading over the Mpeg2 Blu-Ray as well... The new transfer makes the MPEG2 BD look fuzzy in comparison...

i can't wait for this.........i check my mailbox everyday hoping they send them out early like a preorder from amazon........still hasn't arrived....... :mad: :mad: :mad: how much longer :mad: :mad: :mad:

i can't wait for this.........i check my mailbox everyday hoping they send them out early like a preorder from amazon........still hasn't arrived....... :mad: :mad: :mad: how much longer :mad: :mad: :mad:
Just take a chill pill man!!
The email states the replacement discs will shipped After July 17th, so you got about a week & a half left depending on where they are shipped from.

I just boxed mine up tonight & will be sending it out tomorrow.

Remember, "good things come to those who wait".

Well, nice to know about the TrueHD and DD tracks. I'm in the same boat as many folks, running through optical to a receiver. My problem is that I don't like buying new stuff until the old stuff breaks, and my receiver is only a couple years old, from just before they put HDMI into 'em. I'll upgrade eventually, to be sure, and when I do, I'll make damn sure I'm able to take full advantage of all the audio that Blu-ray has to offer. :)

pcm 5.1 is better that truehd I have a HDMI receiver and i test it both pcm run at 28.76mbps truehd run at 24.87mbps DOLBY TRUE IS A LOSSLESS AUDIO TO

The 17th is right around the corner! :D

pcm 5.1 is better that truehd I have a HDMI receiver and i test it both pcm run at 28.76mbps truehd run at 24.87mbps DOLBY TRUE IS A LOSSLESS AUDIO TO

um... those are video bitrate, not audio.

relax, everyone. People can't wait, what another week...?!?!?

;)

Damn, how are so many people getting their hands on this disc so early?! :mad:

As it's been noted, some Walmarts are breaking street date. They can do that, mainly because the studio can't afford to penalize them.

exactly. You piss off Walmart, you're effed....

As it's been noted, some Walmarts are breaking street date. They can do that, mainly because the studio can't afford to penalize them.
when do you suppose they'll have 300 on BD available :D

I just saw it at Future Shop. They have copies of both versions and it's pretty easy to tell them apart. Not only does the new one have the foil "Experience High Definition", but the cover itself is kind of a foil, and the colors are vastly different from from the old "yellowish" look.

As it's been noted, some Walmarts are breaking street date. They can do that, mainly because the studio can't afford to penalize them.

That does me no good since my local Walmart doesn't carry BD. :mad:

That does me no good since my local Walmart doesn't carry BD. :mad:

My local Wal-Mart doesn't even know what Blu-Ray is.. The people in charge of the Technology section have DLP's on the top shelf looking so dim, nobody would want to buy one. (They need to be eye level) And they have the Plasma's eye level which don't need to be.. The LCD screen's above the game consoles are so high you can't play the demo's without getting a neck ache..It's kind of funny..

Watched my remastered disk again, day and night difference between the orginal release. :D

What do some of you guys have against mail order? Do you not have checking accounts or credit cards? I'd rather wait a week and save $5+ than pay more from somewhere like Wallyworld.

Oh, FYI: If you really must, Walmart.com will do In-Store pick-up on BLU now in most states, so check their website. Order online, which is cheaper than buying in store, and then go down and pick up and save on shipping charges.

What do some of you guys have against mail order? Do you not have checking accounts or credit cards? I'd rather wait a week and save $5+ than pay more from somewhere like Wallyworld.

Oh, FYI: If you really must, Walmart.com will do In-Store pick-up on BLU now in most states, so check their website. Order online, which is cheaper than buying in store, and then go down and pick up and save on shipping charges.

Walmart instore price for TFE 19.96.
Walmart.com price for TFE 21.16 + .97 cents shipping.

In this case it's cheaper to go to the store and pick it up, not to mention you may be shipped the orginal version.

Is this particular item on sale nationally? Walmart's in store price on most items varies from store to store. Why bother? Amazon for me, no tax, $17.99.

^^^ I'm not sure, I thought all the stores had the same pricing.

when do you suppose they'll have 300 on BD available :D
The 5 or so they have in stock is enough. It would take awhile to wrap those blinking security devices around 300 of them and where would they put them all?

^^^ I'm not sure, I thought all the stores had the same pricing.Unfortunately not. Unless it's an advertised special (which is rare), Walmart prices agressively store to store.

at my walmart they had Blood Chocolate, Ghost Rider, Bridge to Terabithia for 20 each, Untouchables and Patriot at $15.. to bad i picked them up at Fry's already.

Walmart instore price for TFE 19.96.
Walmart.com price for TFE 21.16 + .97 cents shipping.

In this case it's cheaper to go to the store and pick it up, not to mention you may be shipped the orginal version.

For 2 bucks more, I would sit on my fat ass and let them mail it to me. Once you consider the cost of gas, and the thought of actually having to go inside a Walmart :eek: , it is more than worth the minor extra cost.

For 2 bucks more, I would sit on my fat ass and let them mail it to me. Once you consider the cost of gas, and the thought of actually having to go inside a Walmart :eek: , it is more than worth the minor extra cost.


LoL :) If I had a nice sportscar like yours, I'd make it a fun roadtrip to the Walmart instead of staying home ;) Who knows, you might get a hot lady to drop from the sky into your car and you'd find yourself saying.. Big Badaboom..

For 2 bucks more, I would sit on my fat ass and let them mail it to me. Once you consider the cost of gas, and the thought of actually having to go inside a Walmart :eek: , it is more than worth the minor extra cost.

so true. That store and Best Buy give me the wigguns. Maybe it's the lighting or the sad zombie like vibe of the employees...

I just hope Amazon doesn't run out of stock on this one as I just got around to pre-ordering mine yesterday.

How does one go about getting the original release replaced with this new one?

How does one go about getting the original release replaced with this new one?

from post #155 which is goes to the initial thread about the new remaster. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10977264&&#post10977264)

That does me no good since my local Walmart doesn't carry BD. :mad:

heh. i carried my fat ass up to walmart even though i had it preordered from amazon. (no patience)

walmart had 2 HDDVD's and 1 bluray total. worthless...

LoL :) If I had a nice sportscar like yours, I'd make it a fun roadtrip to the Walmart instead of staying home ;) Who knows, you might get a hot lady to drop from the sky into your car and you'd find yourself saying.. Big Badaboom..

The problem with this theory is that I would have to park my car so far out in the parking lot to avoid door dings from car doors and shopping carts that I might as well just walk! ;)

Got my copy yesterday, 10 times better picture then the first release, but still not top tier which is too bad, had very high hopes for it, had a nasty edge to it, almost like a upconvert, but instead of 480 to 720P/1080i, it looks very similar to when I watch ABC shows ( which are 720P) at 1080i.

I've hit 3 walmarts (and best buys) so far with no success...

boo,

can you talk more? what to you mean by "nasty edge"?

boo,

can you talk more? what to you mean by "nasty edge"?

Like too much sharpness( and I keep my set turned down to about 10), maybe this is what everyone calls edge enhancement, sorry everyone but I have to call it very low Tier 1.

Like too much sharpness( and I keep my set turned down to about 10), maybe this is what everyone calls edge enhancement, sorry everyone but I have to call it very low Tier 1.


It's sounding better and better. Too sharp without it being EE and no halo's can only mean one thing.. more of a 3D look.. The color's look even better than the Superbit version which in itself is an amazing accomplishment. Maybe some scenes will look 720p'ish however from some of the screen caps I have seen this isn't the case. It is a vast improvement over the previous release and I'm getting it replaced for free.. No complaints from me on that one..So far I've had my Stargate replaced as well..

The problem with this theory is that I would have to park my car so far out in the parking lot to avoid door dings from car doors and shopping carts that I might as well just walk! ;)

That's priceless. There is actually someone else who does this also. My wife won't let me drive when we go to the store because I park 3 miles away. The sad part is, even then, there is someone who still manages to park right next to you. :rolleyes:

I just got mail, from replacement dept, to be shipped out on 17th, i.e street date

The problem with this theory is that I would have to park my car so far out in the parking lot to avoid door dings from car doors and shopping carts that I might as well just walk!
That's priceless. There is actually someone else who does this also. My wife won't let me drive when we go to the store because I park 3 miles away. The sad part is, even then, there is someone who still manages to park right next to you. :rolleyes:
You guys remind me of George Burns in "Just You and Me, Kid." You should get some rubber cones and carry them in your trunk, so that when you park you can block off the spaces on either side of you... :D

You guys remind me of George Burns in "Just You and Me, Kid." You should get some rubber cones and carry them in your trunk, so that when you park you can block off the spaces on either side of you... :D

I like it!!!

:D

I just got mail, from replacement dept, to be shipped out on 17th, i.e street dateThanks for the update.

I just got mail, from replacement dept, to be shipped out on 17th, i.e street date

The SPHE rep told me they'd be shipped Fed-Ex ground, so depending on what part of the country you live a day to a week I guess.

Like too much sharpness( and I keep my set turned down to about 10), maybe this is what everyone calls edge enhancement, sorry everyone but I have to call it very low Tier 1.

There's no EE from the 4 shots that Xylon have taking... they may be Haloing, but that's different beast all along..

I would have to park my car so far out in the parking lot to avoid door dings from car doors and shopping carts that I might as well just walk! ;)
A simple fact of life...if you care about your wheels. ;)
BTW, what are ya drivin'?
(sorry, I'm a car dude :o )

So far I've had my Stargate replaced as well..
Stargate has a replacement? :confused:
Can you give me an explanation on that...I am interested in buying that title.

The sad part is, even then, there is someone who still manages to park right next to you. :rolleyes:
And it is always some SOB in a 1971 F150 work truck.
One of these days.... :mad:

A simple fact of life...if you care about your wheels. ;)
BTW, what are ya drivin'?
(sorry, I'm a car dude :o )

Then:

Now:

I seriously doubt they would purposefully add EE to this very highly scrutinized transfer.

Great job paidgeek and Sony. I waited to get this movie and am ordering from Amazon right now..

Universal. Please pay attention. This is how catalog titles should look...

Great job paidgeek and Sony. I waited to get this movie and am ordering from Amazon right now..

Universal. Please pay attention. This is how catalog titles should look...


Yeah, all catalog titles should get this treatment. And if they don't get them right the first time, try try again as Sony has...

Then:


Wow..

Ive had 2 FD3S's and a 6-speed JZA80. Good taste is constant in your cars and formats =)

There's no EE from the 4 shots that Xylon have taking... they may be Haloing, but that's different beast all along..

Maybe that's it, the only example I can give with my un-trained eyes is like when you watch Lost ( broadcasted as 720P) unconverted to 1080i/1080P, where it looks HD but is a little off, that is what the picture of TFE reminds me of, very similar.