or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison - Page 6

post #151 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougofthenorth View Post

BR movies on my system or any others I have seen, in some cases show marked improvement in PQ - however the average DVD that I buy is fairly close to any same BR title.

Which viewing distance and screen size? I bet your viewing angle is far too small. Either that, or your Blu-Ray player is configured incorrectly (e.g. 480p output).
post #152 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by themike5000 View Post

EXAMPLE: Skip ahead to around 5:40. Cameron's intention is/was to completely degrain Aliens.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=68820

Yes in the clip he really brags that all the grain is gone, completely.

Well when I see it, I hope it is as he says, incredible and great. Personally do not like heavy or medium grain at all, but the DNR, and all the rest, when used, has just ruined one movie after another....

someday they may get the tech down to where the grain will somehow all be gone and leave a beatiful high quality print, that is more film-like than film ever was....but I ain't seen it yet. Don't know if I will live long enough to see it.
post #153 of 232
Sorry, I couldn't get the frame exactly right. My player didn't like the file and wouldn't play it through, i had to click the progress bar to show the frame and these are as close as I could get.

This is the German disc (ufa) - VC-1 and 6.1 DTS-HR. Region B








post #154 of 232
If I compare those to the US pictures and zoom 400%, they look nearly identical except for black levels. Grain structure is slightly different, but neither looks sharper or softer, IMO.
post #155 of 232
A new version of The Fifth Element was recently released in Australia along with Leon.. it bears a silver tag that reads "A film by Luc Besson".

These factors made me assume it would be based on the recent Gaumont release.. but alas it is from the same stock as the older US release.

US Left, Australian Right




Edit - In fact, it is identical to the original Australian release.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post

stop posting full sized images, its annoying for the layout and useless to compare.

post mini images which are then opened in another browser window.

You're welcome. I'm glad you found the information useful.
post #156 of 232
stop posting full sized images, its annoying for the layout and useless to compare.

post mini images which are then opened in another browser window.
post #157 of 232
That's one thing I truly hate about Firefox. Opera had a great feature that fitted the image to the screen
post #158 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddywhite View Post

That's one thing I truly hate about Firefox. Opera had a great feature that fitted the image to the screen

Firefox does it too, but not when it's in a PHP formatted page inside a forum post. It only works for the image alone.

I'm pretty sure it was the same deal with Opera.
post #159 of 232
Nope, it worked inside a forum post also. That's why opera were great for browsing avs
post #160 of 232
I think they're working with comparable sources, since the resolution is practically the same, give or take a bit of sharpening. A 4K transfer from the OCN this ain't.
post #161 of 232
Ahh, I see. Now the Sony release is "dull". What a load.

It's contrast boosted. Period. Done by the people who made the film, sure. It's still contrast boosted. Just like Leon.
post #162 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz! View Post

A new version of The Fifth Element was recently released in Australia along with Leon.. it bears a silver tag that reads "A film by Luc Besson".

These factors made me assume it would be based on the recent Gaumont release.. but alas it is from the same stock as the older US release.

This is where the specs thread comes in handy. Though perhaps you purchased this before Stephen's post.
post #163 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

This is where the specs thread comes in handy. Though perhaps you purchased this before Stephen's post.

Thanks very much for the link. Would have come in handy to stop me spending time comparing, but thankfully I did not purchase.

Was rather hoping the new Australian release was the nicer looking Gaumont one eric.exe posted shots for
post #164 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I think they're working with comparable sources, since the resolution is practically the same, give or take a bit of sharpening. A 4K transfer from the OCN this ain't.

I see no reason why the Gaumont master should not be from the OCN - I would not think though that it was a recent 4k job comparable to what was done for Gladiator. I would expect more detail and certainly more visible grain structure in that case.
post #165 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

Which is what the Sony U.S. release is, a crappy outdated dull 2nd gen-master print COPY (etc.)

You, sir, are a bright pink elephant with a pretty polka-dot bow tied to your tail.

What am I talking about? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the thread where we just post random nonsense that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever and pretend that it's true.
post #166 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I thought this was the thread where we just post random nonsense that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever and pretend that it's true.

Ahaha.. That's EVERY thread on AVS!
post #167 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You, sir, are a bright pink elephant with a pretty polka-dot bow tied to your tail.

What am I talking about? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the thread where we just post random nonsense that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever and pretend that it's true.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1243512 ??
post #168 of 232
The US version definitely looks dull.

Yellow is one of the most highlighted colors in the entire film, the Gaumont master certainly looks truer to the design of the film
post #169 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You, sir, are a bright pink elephant with a pretty polka-dot bow tied to your tail.

What am I talking about? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the thread where we just post random nonsense that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever and pretend that it's true.

And why are you the authority on this film?
post #170 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

Like alot on this forum, most of what I said was speculation. Although unless a Representative from Sony comes on the boards and say they made the film along with having original negatives in their possession, I'm GONNA ASSUME they're getting second hand goods from Gaumont, who have higher quality sources to work from.

Whether the source was second-hand or not, nothing about the Sony disc looks "crappy outdated dull". Not even remotely. That description is flat-out ridiculous.

You may prefer the Gaumont transfer; good for you. That doesn't make the Sony transfer crap just because it looks different. There are plenty of people in this thread who prefer the look of the Sony transfer over the Gaumont.
post #171 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

Not to sound like a smartass, but... the Sony U.S. release is, a crappy outdated dull 2nd gen-master print COPY (etc.) YA KNOW, bro? brah? broseph? BROSKY???!

Oh, but you do *absolutely* sound like a smartass. If you've followed this thread, you know there are two camps with preferences for both discs, and reasonable arguments for both. Then you come along and make these deliberately inflamatory statements.

Now that I think of it, I believe it is called "trolling"? Do we allow that here at avsforum (where are the mods when you need them)?
post #172 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

I find that accusation infuriating. I'm not trolling, i'm just eccentric. And really? Just because you're disagreeing with my opinion, you think it's necessary to bring mods into this. kinda whiny guy, just saying.

Yeah, you're trolling. Unless you really are just that much of a jerk during your everyday personal interactions. Which would just make you an all around unpleasant person.
post #173 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

Yeah, you're trolling. Unless you really are just that much of a jerk during your everyday personal interactions. Which would just make you an all around unpleasant person.

Actually, I happen to agree with a lot of what Synchg is saying. No, I don't think the Sony release is "crappy" or anything like that, just an outdated, mediocre presentation that has now been superseded by a superior release. It may be my imagination, but (naming no names) I'm picking up an undercurrent of certain posters in this thread being determined to defend the Sony release (against a new release that most of them don't appear to have actually seen) no matter what.
post #174 of 232
To be clear, his assertion that one presentation is superior to the other has absolutely nothing to do with my comments and everything to do with his attitude and demeanor.

As it is, I absolutely understand people preferring the Gaumont release. Even though I prefer the Sony release, it's not without it's flaws, and I recognize the ways in which the Gaumont release is superior.
post #175 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchg View Post

I find that accusation infuriating. I'm not trolling, i'm just eccentric. And really? Just because you're disagreeing with my opinion, you think it's necessary to bring mods into this. kinda whiny guy, just saying.

If I were a mod I would say to you that your "eccentric" behavior is not welcome. Around here we (try very hard to) act like civilized adults.
post #176 of 232
post #177 of 232
There's a newer (than Sony) Japan Blu-Ray, too, which is using the same master as the Nordic Blu-Ray. So I think it's pretty likely that the play.com Blu-Ray will use the same new master, as well.
post #178 of 232
Here's a comparison of the Japanese release to the Sony remaster:









Personally, the Sony xfr looks more natural, but I prefer the new release much better. The yellows are stronger and give better depth to the scene in the desert. I like it when the colors are accentuated like that.

Some observations:
1. The Japanese release is longer, 2:06:32 compared to 2:05:53.
2. Video:
Jap: MPEG-4 AVC Video 27999 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
other: MPEG-4 AVC Video 27880 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

3. Audio
Jap: Dolby TrueHD Audio 3898 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3898 kbps / 24-bit
other: LPCM Audio 4608 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 4608 kbps / 16-bit
post #179 of 232
Considering how bright and colorful the film was intended to be, the Sony release just looks dull.
post #180 of 232
Hopefully they release the remaster in the US one day.. The US version just looks old. Seems like Sony spruced up the old master.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison