The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 11:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
raoul_duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I find it hilarious the way that forum opinion on the Sony remaster has reversed since the disc was released, when it was widely praised as being reference quality (or very nearly). Now, if this thread is to be believed, it's "dull" and "drab," and smothered in thick, disgusting edge enhancement that makes the entire picture look nasty and "digital."

It had been a while since I last watched the disc. And I'm willing to accept that my standards may have evolved since that time. Perhaps problems that I overlooked originally would stand out to me more now.

So, I put in the disc last night. Yeah, what a bunch of bunk this thread is. There is absolutely nothing dull or drab about the Sony remaster. The disc is very bright and colorful, has tons of detail and fine grain, and next to no noticeable DNR or edge enhancement artifacts. This is still a fantastic looking disc.
On my (yes, calibrated) 6-foot wide screen, the picture is brighter and more naturally film-like than the screenshot comparisons from the original post. Grain is present and looks organic, not sharpened or noisy. The strong ringing you see in some of those of screenshots (like the top of the cigarette box in shot #8) is much fainter and barely visible at all during playback.

Once again, misleading screenshots have caused a hysteria to sweep these boards.

+ One Million.
raoul_duke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 11:13 AM
 
Thunderbolt8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I find it hilarious the way that forum opinion on the Sony remaster has reversed since the disc was released, when it was widely praised as being reference quality (or very nearly). Now, if this thread is to be believed, it's "dull" and "drab," and smothered in thick, disgusting edge enhancement that makes the entire picture look nasty and "digital."

why, quite some time has passed until then and when looking at tier 0 movies like i, robbot or pirates then its just obvious that the 5th element is not on par with that.
Thunderbolt8 is offline  
post #93 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 11:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
Whiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post

why, quite some time has passed until then and when looking at tier 0 movies like i, robbot or pirates then its just obvious that the 5th element is not on par with that.

Indeed, and some of us weren't all that blown away by the Sony remaster of THE FIFTH ELEMENT to begin with.
Whiggles is offline  
post #94 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 12:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,292
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 462 Post(s)
Liked: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post

why, quite some time has passed until then

Hence my second and third paragraphs.

Quote:


and when looking at tier 0 movies like i, robbot or pirates then its just obvious that the 5th element is not on par with that.

The last I checked, The Fifth Element is not the same movie as Pirates of the Caribbean or I, Robot.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #95 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 12:07 PM
Senior Member
 
FitzRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Once again, misleading screenshots have caused a hysteria to sweep these boards.

There has been some slight EE and haloing on the Sony. Just accept it. No one is being "hysterical" about it and demanding a recall. We're just trying to point it out to people who claim they can't see it or that the Gaumont has DNR.

Dillon: My men were in that chopper when it got hit! Hopper's orders were to go in and remove grain and the detail just disappeared.
Dutch: It didn't disappear. It was scrubbed alive!
FitzRoy is offline  
post #96 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 04:05 PM
 
Thunderbolt8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The last I checked, The Fifth Element is not the same movie as Pirates of the Caribbean or I, Robot.

and thats why I said its not on par with them

its just natural to adept (or at least check on) your point of view when something similar turns up, nothing hilarious with it. Im quite sure neither version looks like crap. but thats no reason to keep praising them as gods gift either.
Thunderbolt8 is offline  
post #97 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 04:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Once again, misleading screenshots have caused a hysteria to sweep these boards.

Oh so you watched the Gaumont Nordic disc right after or side by side? Re-reviewing the Sony disc only and saying it is ok in your eyes has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

And the only thing that makes screenshots "misleading" is one's own setup. All my screenshots are taken technically accurate and as fairly as possible. I find scenes with as little change or movement as possible. If your monitor is of good quality and is calibrated relatively close to home theater standards and are at the right viewing distance, viewing screenshots will be a very similar experience to actually watching the disc. Just because screenshots don't look the same as viewing in motion to you doesn't mean they don't for everyone. Some of us view them on accurately calibrated displays.
eric.exe is offline  
post #98 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 06:00 PM
Newbie
 
Ihmemies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The nordic version looks like a cartoon, not a movie. Sony version looks perfectly OK.

Maybe Sony did their version from some optical print which had the effect already, or applied it themselves. I mainly look at color, brightness & contrast in movies (and photographs) and I'm not that distracted by compression artifacts, bad sharpening or other "non-essential" variables.
Ihmemies is offline  
post #99 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 08:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I find it hilarious the way that forum opinion on the Sony remaster has reversed since the disc was released, when it was widely praised as being reference quality (or very nearly)...

I honestly do not recall the Sony remaster of THE FIFTH ELEMENT being regarded as "reference" or "near reference" quality. I do recall that most folks were very pleased with the upgrade compared to the initial Blu-ray release, but I honestly can't recall the remastered THE FIFTH ELEMENT being spoken of as a "reference" or "near reference" Blu-ray.

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #100 of 232 Old 08-15-2010, 08:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vincent Pereira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmemies View Post

...
Maybe Sony did their version from some optical print which had the effect already, or applied it themselves. I mainly look at color, brightness & contrast in movies (and photographs) and I'm not that distracted by compression artifacts, bad sharpening or other "non-essential" variables.

"Compression artifacts" and "bad sharpening" are "non-essential variables"? Uhm, okay.

BTW, what is an "optical print"?

Vincent
Vincent Pereira is offline  
post #101 of 232 Old 08-16-2010, 02:26 AM
Newbie
 
Ihmemies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

"Compression artifacts" and "bad sharpening" are "non-essential variables"? Uhm, okay.

Well, they are defects of course, but they don't distract me nearly as much. It's a bit like eating otherwise good, but too mildly spiced food. A minor disturbance who doesn't ruin the whole experience

Quote:


BTW, what is an "optical print"?

A copy from original film, usually not as high quality. Maybe Sony couldn't use or didn't bother to use the original film so they used some copy with had that effect.

If anyone wanted to digitally sharpen an image, I don't understand how it's even possible to make it look that weird.
Ihmemies is offline  
post #102 of 232 Old 08-16-2010, 06:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihmemies View Post

If anyone wanted to digitally sharpen an image, I don't understand how it's even possible to make it look that weird.

Unsharp mask, levels and desaturation.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #103 of 232 Old 08-17-2010, 10:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 32
The guy in shot 9's face looks like oatmeal on the Sony because of the unsharp mask. It's weird that people can't use their eyes to observe things like this. And I'm just an uneducated idiot with a 24" monitor.
cakefoo is offline  
post #104 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 12:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

And I'm just an uneducated idiot with a 24" monitor.

1. It doesnt take much education to learn about EE.

2. 24 inch is enough if you sit close enough.

3. I dont think you are an idiot.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #105 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 02:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
trailergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: germany
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Someone was not paying attention to their video waveform monitor. The white levels are completely Clipped Out on the pictures on the right.

completely agree, look at the curtains at the background... the sony release at least still shows it.. heh
trailergod is offline  
post #106 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 03:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailergod View Post

completely agree, look at the curtains at the background... the sony release at least still shows it.. heh

Highlights is not the only thing that effects the PQ. Yes the Gaumont release blows the highlights in some scenes, but Sonys release is worse in most other aspects.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #107 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 10:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
Filmmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Highlights is not the only thing that effects the PQ. Yes the Gaumont release blows the highlights in some scenes, but Sonys release is worse in most other aspects.

And what amazes me that people always seems to fail to take into account is that, when there are clipped highlights, that can be by intentional aesthetic design. It's not an automatic, default error.
Filmmaker is offline  
post #108 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmmaker View Post

And what amazes me that people always seems to fail to take into account is that, when there are clipped highlights, that can be by intentional aesthetic design. It's not an automatic, default error.

Certainly can you bring in extra details from highlights and shadow when you master a movie to video, but I think in this case it clips because of a technical limitation of the videotransfer. 8 bits isnt perfect for film.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #109 of 232 Old 08-18-2010, 02:50 PM
Senior Member
 
fuzz!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Highlights is not the only thing that effects the PQ. Yes the Gaumont release blows the highlights in some scenes, but Sonys release is worse in most other aspects.

Indeed. The new release is a lot more detailed.. and that curtain shot is pretty much the worst of the higher levels. Most of the screenshots (Thanks eric.exe!) don't loose anything in the top-end.
fuzz! is offline  
post #110 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 02:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I find it hilarious the way that forum opinion on the Sony remaster has reversed since the disc was released, when it was widely praised as being reference quality (or very nearly). Now, if this thread is to be believed, it's "dull" and "drab," and smothered in thick, disgusting edge enhancement that makes the entire picture look nasty and "digital."

It had been a while since I last watched the disc. And I'm willing to accept that my standards may have evolved since that time. Perhaps problems that I overlooked originally would stand out to me more now.

So, I put in the disc last night. Yeah, what a bunch of bunk this thread is. There is absolutely nothing dull or drab about the Sony remaster. The disc is very bright and colorful, has tons of detail and fine grain, and next to no noticeable DNR or edge enhancement artifacts. This is still a fantastic looking disc.

On my (yes, calibrated) 6-foot wide screen, the picture is brighter and more naturally film-like than the screenshot comparisons from the original post. Grain is present and looks organic, not sharpened or noisy. The strong ringing you see in some of those of screenshots (like the top of the cigarette box in shot #8) is much fainter and barely visible at all during playback.

Once again, misleading screenshots have caused a hysteria to sweep these boards.

Josh, I've compared the remastered Sony Fifth Element Blu-Ray to the Gaumont Blu-Ray *in motion*. Have you?

I can say that the Gaumont Blu-Ray is a clear step up for me. The Sony Blu-Ray looks more digital/processed in comparison. The Gaumont Blu-Ray looks more natural. Both have grain, but the Sony grain is made more rough/obvious by digital post processing, while the Gaumont grain looks more natural - *in motion*. No DNR effects I could see on the Gaumont Blu-Ray at all.

Yes, the Gaumont Blu-Ray has some problems with blown out whites, so it's not perfect. Also I'm not sure about the colors. The Gaumont colors sure are almost over the top, but then that does fit the movie somehow. So I'm not sure which colors are "better" or nearer to the director's intent. But overall after comparing both Blu-Rays, I got rid of the Sony Blu-Ray and kept the Gaumont Blu-Ray, thanks to the less digital and more film like look.

And I disagree with the remastered Sony Fifth Element Blu-Ray being seen as anywhere near reference material. At least that was never my personal opinion. It was noticeably better than the original Blu-Ray, and that's it.
madshi is offline  
post #111 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 02:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
QuiGonJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 833
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Is the Gaumont version region free?

This is it, correct?

http://www.amazon.fr/cinqui%C3%A8me-...2379423&sr=1-1
QuiGonJosh is offline  
post #112 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 02:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Yes, the Gaumont Blu-Ray has some problems with blown out whites, so it's not perfect. Also I'm not sure about the colors. The Gaumont colors sure are almost over the top, but then that does fit the movie somehow. So I'm not sure which colors are "better" or nearer to the director's intent. But overall after comparing both Blu-Rays, I got rid of the Sony Blu-Ray and kept the Gaumont Blu-Ray, thanks to the less digital and more film like look.

Blasting the contrast does more than blow out the whites, it has an effect on all of the colors in the movie. The colors on the Sony disc are correct and the colors on the Gaumont disc are wrong. I don't know how this could even be a question.

It all comes down to a minor bit of EE vs blown out contrast. You prefer the blown out contrast. Good for you. The Sony disc still looks pretty great.
Deviation is offline  
post #113 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 02:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,480
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

The colors on the Sony disc are correct and the colors on the Gaumont disc are wrong. I don't know how this could even be a question.

Has Luc Besson personally confirmed to you that the Sony colors are correct and the Gaumont colors wrong, or how can you post such a claim?

On another forum a guy with contacts to the encoding house which authored the Gaumont Blu-Ray reported that the master used for the Gaumont Blu-Ray is the only one approved by both the studio *and* Luc Besson. He didn't know any specifics about the master used by Sony, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

It all comes down to a minor bit of EE vs blown out contrast. You prefer the blown out contrast. Good for you. The Sony disc still looks pretty great.

I'd prefer a perfect Blu-Ray. But it does not exist. I do not prefer blown out contrast, but I do hate it less than the processed look EE produces. EE does not only produce halos, it changes the whole look of the film, including the grain. And there is more than just "a bit of EE", to my eyes. The Sony Blu-Ray looks clearly more processed to me. In screenshots and in motion. I am aware, though, that my personal tolerance level for EE is very low. Probably lower than the tolerance level of most other guys.
madshi is offline  
post #114 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 03:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Has Luc Besson personally confirmed to you that the Sony colors are correct and the Gaumont colors wrong, or how can you post such a claim?

On another forum a guy with contacts to the encoding house which authored the Gaumont Blu-Ray reported that the master used for the Gaumont Blu-Ray is the only one approved by both the studio *and* Luc Besson. He didn't know any specifics about the master used by Sony, though.

That's ridiculous. The contrast is obviously blown and thus the colors are obviously wrong. Whether Besson approved it or not doesn't matter. Claims have been made that Besson also approved the transfer for The Professional but that film also has blown contrast that also screws with the colors. The movies have been changed.
Quote:


I'd prefer a perfect Blu-Ray. But it does not exist. I do not prefer blown out contrast, but I do hate it less than the processed look EE produces.

You're saying the exact same thing I said with different words.

You prefer one over the other. Stop getting so damn defensive about it.
Deviation is offline  
post #115 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 03:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

That's ridiculous. The contrast is obviously blown and thus the colors are obviously wrong.

There are several ways of blowing the contrast in an image. That doesnt make the colors wrong. You dont go from Sonys color to Gaumonts color by blowing the highlights.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #116 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 08:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGonJosh View Post

Is the Gaumont version region free?

This is it, correct?

http://www.amazon.fr/cinqui%C3%A8me-...2379423&sr=1-1

No, I said it's Region B in the first post.

However there's a new Japanese release that uses the Gaumont remaster and is only $32 http://www.yesasia.com/global/fuifus...0-en/info.html

$32 for a Japanese release is like 5 bucks for domestic release
eric.exe is offline  
post #117 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 09:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Filmmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

That's ridiculous. The contrast is obviously blown and thus the colors are obviously wrong. Whether Besson approved it or not doesn't matter. Claims have been made that Besson also approved the transfer for The Professional but that film also has blown contrast that also screws with the colors. The movies have been changed.

How can that not matter? You've nailed the key point here: two different Luc Besson films with the exact same "error" in both (namely, blown highlights). Does it not obviously stand to reason that this means LEON and the Gaumont version of THE FIFTH ELEMENT are exactly as Mr. Besson intends them to look? And how can a director's approval not matter? It should be the final confirmation of what is correct.
Filmmaker is offline  
post #118 of 232 Old 08-21-2010, 09:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FendersRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Sony is obviously the winner. Look at the picture with Milla's face up-close. The other version is washed out, and there isn't hardly any skin detail. The Sony release shows skin detail.
FendersRule is offline  
post #119 of 232 Old 08-22-2010, 12:36 AM
Senior Member
 
fuzz!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Sony is obviously the winner. Look at the picture with Milla's face up-close. The other version is washed out, and there isn't hardly any skin detail. The Sony release shows skin detail.

You mean Gaumont (It's the one with more detail)
fuzz! is offline  
post #120 of 232 Old 08-22-2010, 03:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post


lf only the whole movie looked like this then I would buy that the Gaumont version is superior.
Kram Sacul is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off