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 2

post #31 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathbone View Post

IMO the Gaumont is slightly DNR'd

Looking at comparison No. 9:

The grain structure is not intact in the Gaumont and the pic is blurry and softened. Sony shows much more detail for example look at the hair of the guy. Same for comparison No. 11.

And I don't see any EE in the Sony pics which is not present in the Gaumont release. Can you point me to it please?



Plus the grain has that oversharped look, you can tell by the size of the granules. Sharpening bloats them. Sharpening makes details more pronounced by bloating things and enhancing the contrast of certain objects. The halos are the proof that it's been oversharpened and that should raise a flag that the detail you're seeing isn't natural.

The Gaumont looks softer than the Sony more likely because the Sony was oversharpened, not the Gaumont oversoftened.

The overall PQ of the Sony is comparable to the bad Apollo 13. Not as noticeable haloing, sure, but it has that look of there being layer of processing overtop everything. It's important to realize-- edge enhancement halos don't have to be glaringly obvious to me for me to be annoyed by sharpening. The way sharpening works is first the details like wrinkles and grain become more pronounced than the source was. As you increase the intensity of the filter halos begin to form on object edges and by then the non-edge detail it was originally meant to sharpen looks oversharpened, unnatural.

When the Sony remaster first released and the comparisons were done with the original Fifth Element Blu and everyone was in awe of the improvements, I remember thinking, "Wow, people are really happy at the look of this?"
post #32 of 232
I'm really not sure where you're seeing DNR in the Willis closeup

anyway, sharpening/EE is not called that for no reason. It makes an image appear sharper. The contrast/brightness of the image also has to do with how detail is percieved. I can take the Guamont capture #9, sharpen it up a bit, tweak the contrast, and it looks more or less like the Sony release (though I don't have the advantage of manipulating an uncompressed master): http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5381/tfetest1.jpg
post #33 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathbone View Post

The grain structure is not intact in the Gaumont and the pic is blurry and softened. Sony shows much more detail for example look at the hair of the guy. Same for comparison No. 11.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite. The Sony has some sort of sharpening or edge enhancement applied, making edges seem exaggerated and unnatural. Here's a comparison shot I've made.

post #34 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I'm really not sure where you're seeing DNR in the Willis closeup

Went back and looked at the closeup and I'm not seeing the dnr I thought I was. Think my laptop monitor was tilted wrong . Maybe it just my personal opinion but looking at all the pics I still think the sony is better as the Gaumont just doestn't show the same amount of detail. Am I missing something that everyelse get?
post #35 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggles View Post

Shame about the contrast boosting. Apart from it, the Gaumont release looks noticeably better.


Agreed.
post #36 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan View Post

Went back and looked at the closeup and I'm not seeing the dnr I thought I was. Think my laptop monitor was tilted wrong . Maybe it just my personal opinion but looking at all the pics I still think the sony is better as the Gaumont just doestn't show the same amount of detail. Am I missing something that everyelse get?

That the Sony with additional "detail" shows signs of possible oversharpening, which based on our knowledge of what film looks like, causes the picture to lose its filmic qualities.
post #37 of 232
Tough call here. The newer release is definitely blown out though, and it appears detail is getting lost from the brightness boosting.. however, the grain reduction is definitely "pleasing", even if it's inaccurate (the film had grain in theaters, why wouldn't it have grain at home).
post #38 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

I'm seeing exactly the opposite. The Sony has some sort of sharpening or edge enhancement applied, making edges seem exaggerated and unnatural. Here's a comparison shot I've made.


I think this is a good illustration of the colour difference in the two transfers.
Surely his beard is grey as per Sony as opposed to blonde/yellow in the other shot.
post #39 of 232
hey Sony, time for a new transfer, it's been at least a year!!!!!
post #40 of 232
The grain in Sonys version looks more like videonoise. Also the colors reminds me of the colors of the old Gladiator master (extended scenes). And then we of course have the sharpening.

The Gaumont blows the highlights a little to much.

Funny how we all thought Sonys remastered version looked good, but compared to the first release it really was.
post #41 of 232
I can't help but chime in here (normally I stay away from these threads). I have looked at all the screencaps several times and zoomed in on them. Based on my experience as a still photographer, I see no clear evidence of sharpening artifacts in the Sony shots. It is most certainly sharper, which might be due to various sharpening techniques at various stages of the processing workflow, but I personally don't see any telltale artifacts of "over sharpening". I looked at the areas a previous poster highlighted in purple, and do not see what I consider halos. Projecting a piece of 35mm film the sizes commonly seen in movie theaters is not going to result in critically sharp images. If we are comparing the look of an HD video transfer to that we remember from seeing a projected film, everything is going to appear "over sharpened" when viewed on a 40-50" display.

As far as the color timing differences, who knows? While the Sony is certainly a more neutral color balance (skin tones are much more "accurate"), we have no way of knowing how this was lit and what filmstock was used. The DP or director may well have used gels to obtain the warmer white balance in the French transfer.

I think the Sony transfer is a great job that I find very pleasing to watch. I never saw this film in the theater, so I have no idea if the color balance was as warm as the new transfer - I don't really care. The US release BD is wonderfully detailed with very natural color (on the things that are organic and should appear natural). I'm happy. Frankly, there is nothing in the French transfer that would induce me to trade it for the US one, director approved or otherwise.
post #42 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by khollister View Post

I'm happy. Frankly, there is nothing in the French transfer that would induce me to trade it for the US one, director approved or otherwise.

Lack of videonoise?
post #43 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Lack of videonoise?

There is "noise" in the new release as well, whether it is film grain or noise from the film scanning process. I am not personally watching on a large projection system, so the level of noise in the image isn't readily visible at normal viewing distances for me.

I have scanned a lot of B&W and color film over the years before going 100% digital several years ago. Even with moderate speed film (ASA 100-200), there is a ton of grain compared to what most people are used to with current digital imaging. I am personally skeptical that any film-based movie (especially ones shot in dark sets like many of the scenes in Fifth Element) would be noise-free without post-processing (i.e. DNR).
post #44 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by khollister View Post

There is "noise" in the new release as well, whether it is film grain or noise from the film scanning process. I am not personally watching on a large projection system, so the level of noise in the image isn't readily visible at normal viewing distances for me.

It doesnt look like filmgrain in the Sony release.

Quote:


I have scanned a lot of B&W and color film over the years before going 100% digital several years ago. Even with moderate speed film (ASA 100-200), there is a ton of grain compared to what most people are used to with current digital imaging. I am personally skeptical that any film-based movie (especially ones shot in dark sets like many of the scenes in Fifth Element) would be noise-free without post-processing (i.e. DNR).

There has been alot of improvments over the years in terms of grain on filmstock (even if 5th Element has some years now), also take into account that they dont scan the orginal negatives so there should be less grain visible.

That a scene looks dark isnt the same as it actually was filmed dark.
post #45 of 232
Thread Starter 
Noticed this tiny artifact popping up occasionally in the remastered Sony version:

Looks like a tiny bit of combing, maybe they used a 1080i master for it?

I did a hear a rumor a long time ago that Sony just dug up a different transfer that was still old for the "remastered" release, not a newly created one. The much better AVC encoding probably helped it more to improve over the original release.
post #46 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

It doesnt look like filmgrain in the Sony release.



There has been alot of improvments over the years in terms of grain on filmstock (even if 5th Element has some years now), also take into account that they dont scan the orginal negatives so there should be less grain visible.

That a scene looks dark isnt the same as it actually was filmed dark.

What I find so humorous in all of this is the contrast with what normally happens here - a BD is released with less noise/grain and less detail (exactly the case with the new 5E transfer) and everyone cries " down with DNR!". Here we go from a BD that was universally acclaimed as excellent to one with less noise, less detail (and odd color timing with blown highlights to boot) and everyone is claiming "this is how it should look - down with EE!".

Ironic. I will go back to not commenting on DNR/EE other than to state my philosophy that post processing isn't the problem - bad processing is. Noise reduction without hammering detail/texture (yes it is possible with the sophisticated SW available today) or sharpening without introducing visible artifacts is fine. Unskilled application of either is not.

To each his own.
post #47 of 232
Less detail? Where?
I've looked through most of them and the only one I can find where there's actually "less" detail may be #9. On several shots the new version resolves slightly finer detail. Mostly it seems toe to toe. The rest is attributable to brightness/contrast/sharpening differences.
post #48 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by khollister View Post

What I find so humorous in all of this is the contrast with what normally happens here - a BD is released with less noise/grain and less detail (exactly the case with the new 5E transfer) and everyone cries " down with DNR!". Here we go from a BD that was universally acclaimed as excellent to one with less noise, less detail (and odd color timing with blown highlights to boot) and everyone is claiming "this is how it should look - down with EE!".

The reason why this was universally acclaimed is that the previous release were so bad that it didnt need to be that good to look so much better. The same thing happend with the extended scenes of gladiator. Compared to the theatrical scenes, the other looked fantastic.

And I dont agree that the other has less detail, it actually looks to have more detail, but need some sharpening to look as sharp as the previous BD.

Quote:


Ironic. I will go back to not commenting on DNR/EE other than to state my philosophy that post processing isn't the problem - bad processing is.

It looks like they used a old 1080i master for this. Thats bad.
post #49 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The reason why this was universally acclaimed is that the previous release were so bad that it didnt need to be that good to look so much better. The same thing happend with the extended scenes of gladiator. Compared to the theatrical scenes, the other looked fantastic.

Agreed. My reaction to the FIFTH ELEMENT re-release was always "Well, it's a lot better than what we had before, but it's hardly jaw-dropping."
post #50 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacabeb View Post

It's a shame Gaumont overshot the contrast and color, because lacking the EE of the Sony version is a nice improvement.

I agree with this.
post #51 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by khollister View Post

I can't help but chime in here (normally I stay away from these threads). I have looked at all the screencaps several times and zoomed in on them. Based on my experience as a still photographer, I see no clear evidence of sharpening artifacts in the Sony shots. It is most certainly sharper, which might be due to various sharpening techniques at various stages of the processing workflow, but I personally don't see any telltale artifacts of "over sharpening". I looked at the areas a previous poster highlighted in purple, and do not see what I consider halos.

Here are some of the areas in question. I can see the halos fine at 1x so I'll do the comparisons at 1x as well. Note: The halos themselves being offensive is not my sole issue- it's the fact that when they can't be attributed to chromatic abberation, these dark and light halos are the proof of an image overall being sharpened to high heaven, and that the "detail" you're seeing isn't natural.

Dark halo along outer edge of his nose:


At various points:


Dark halo inside armpit, light halo outside


Dark halo along top of her neck:


Dark halo along top of necklace



Quote:


Projecting a piece of 35mm film the sizes commonly seen in movie theaters is not going to result in critically sharp images. If we are comparing the look of an HD video transfer to that we remember from seeing a projected film, everything is going to appear "over sharpened" when viewed on a 40-50" display.

I'm not comparing a projected version to a monitor-sized version though. I'm comparing it to the variety of Blu-rays and screenshots of movies that I've viewed on the same screen I'm looking at these screenshots on, and of course the new Gaumont on the same monitor directly. The filter being used in the Sony is the same kind of filter used in Baraka, Apollo 13, etc.
post #52 of 232
Someone was not paying attention to their video waveform monitor. The white levels are completely Clipped Out on the pictures on the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post


Sony US | Gaumont Scandinavia


post #53 of 232
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.

And because of that, I'll take Sony's minor sharpening issues over the white clipping.
post #54 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post


The sharpening is visible in the Gaumont shots too but softer due to the oversharpening of the Sony. That's the reason I assume both masters are based on the same scan.
post #55 of 232
The Sony version by a long shot. The Gaumont boosted contrast shots wash out almost all the facial details.
post #56 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathbone View Post

That's the reason I assume both masters are based on the same scan.

You assume wrong. They look too different, no amount of tinkering could make one look like the other. The geometry of the frame is the biggest giveaway, they don't match up at all when you crop the Gaumont to match the Sony. Which is better is really personal preference.
post #57 of 232
New version is so blown out it's laughable - not an improvement in the slightest.
post #58 of 232
Agree - The Gaumont is too much. Detail is lost.
post #59 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfrench View Post

I think this is a good illustration of the colour difference in the two transfers.
Surely his beard is grey as per Sony as opposed to blonde/yellow in the other shot.

The light in the room should yellow his appearance somewhat, but it's a bit excessive.

And to the guy claiming this is the same transfer: I highly doubt it. There is more detail and more vertical information. The old transfer is 2.40:1 and the new one is expanded to 2.35:1.
post #60 of 232
The Sony looks too dark with crushed blacks and EE, and the Gaumont looks too bright with blown out whites and possibly DNR... if the Gaumont version was released by Warner, we'd say the grain looked smeary because of their filtering and/or low bit-rates...

I think I'll stick with the Sony version...
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