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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.



You're welcome. I'm glad you found the information useful.

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.

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.

Nope, it worked inside a forum post also. That's why opera were great for browsing avs

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ahaha.. That's EVERY thread on AVS!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1243512 ??

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

Here we go again!

http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/1.../Product.html#

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.

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

Considering how bright and colorful the film was intended to be, the Sony release just looks dull.

Hopefully they release the remaster in the US one day.. The US version just looks old. Seems like Sony spruced up the old master.