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 3

post #61 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

Which is better is really personal preference.

That is always the case.

From a video standpoint of view the pictures in the right column are not correct (severe white clipping, imbalance in black levels, etc.).
post #62 of 232
Both don't exactly look great, but I personally like the Gaumont better. Sony's looks just a tad too processed for my liking. But Gaumonts boosting definitely removes some of the finer shadow detail.
post #63 of 232
I'll keep my Sony disc. The contrast boosting is too distracting.
post #64 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post



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?"

Correct.
Sony has additional sharpening, but better colors.
I do DVD/BD encoding for many years and can see it easily.


Andrew
post #65 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_HD View Post

Correct.
Sony has additional sharpening, but better colors.

Better colors? That would depend on what color the IP has.
post #66 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

I'll keep my Sony disc. The contrast boosting is too distracting.

I added some shots from later in the movie. It's pretty severe during the beginning but it seems to relax later on.
post #67 of 232
In this pic she should look dirst and worn out
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4599/25b.png
Like this
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9294/25afe.png
The new timing makes her look all fresh faced
post #68 of 232
I think the original DVD release had different color than the Superbit. Does anyone know how similar/different are they to the remastered Sony blu-ray and the Gaumont release?
post #69 of 232
Tweaked Gaumont version: levels changed, colors tweaked and some EE.

post #70 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

It looks more to me like Sony's has some slight EE rather than Gaumont having DNR. It's pretty obvious that Sony's contrast is better, though.

My thoughts exactly. Some of the halos and ringing are gone, but the either due to the contrast pump and/or DNR, a lot of the grain is missing. The closeup shot of "Ruby Rod" is about all I need to avoid this version. His hair is blown to the point where you can't see any of the strands.

I saw this movie many times in the theater and have watched it countless times on DVD and on my remastered Sony Blu-Ray. According to my memory, this new transfer is the odd duck.

Do not want.

P.S. Perhaps Luc should check to see that his monitor is properly calibrated? LOL
post #71 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

My thoughts exactly. Some of the halos and ringing are gone, but the either due to the contrast pump and/or DNR, a lot of the grain is missing.

Not everything in an image is grain. It could just be videonoise from an old transfer (or a combination of grain and videonoise).
post #72 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Not everything in an image is grain. It could just be videonoise from an old transfer (or a combination of grain and videonoise).

True. Either way, this is a tough call for me because it's obvious that the Sony version has been sharpened, but this is clearly a case of "one step forward, one step back". I believe that the images speak for themselves: the contrast boost infringes more on the image than the EE does. I'll take minor artifacting over over complete blowout any day... but this is stated with the hope that ONE DAY we will get a proper remaster with no EE, no DNR, no digital artifacts, and no boosting or crushing.

After Leon and this, I am fearful that GoldenEye will see a similar fate.
post #73 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Better colors? That would depend on what color the IP has.

Better than Gaumont version.

Andrew
post #74 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_HD View Post

Better than Gaumont version.

Andrew

If the orginal film has a warmer tone, then would the Gaumont version be better.
post #75 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

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?

For shame, Eric! You should know this already.

Post 4 in the EE/DNR/etc. thread, way back in 2007:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

The Fifth Element (remaster)
Disc:
BD, USA
Problem: incorrect Inverse Telecine (IVTC), EE
Time Codes: IVTC: 00:29:55 - look at the backs of the police uniforms. EE: throughout.
Comments: Incorrect inverse telecine of 1080i source material causes Combing, will get picture soon.
URLs: Soon

BTW, one of your shots from the first page shows the same artifact (on Bruce Willis's finger).

Having looked at all of the screenshots, I'm really glad Sony used their own master for this. I could live with the yellowed tones, but that blooming is just awful.
post #76 of 232
Blown out highlights or not, the bright, colour-rich Gaumont transfer seems to me to be a better fit. Those gaudy sets and costumes look almost drab on the Sony transfer, whereas the Gaumont seems more like the movie I saw in the cinema all them years ago. It's not often that I see a movie as wildly imaginative as TFE, so it left more of a mark on me than most. Milla Jovovich's perky nips helped with that as well.
post #77 of 232
Received my Dutch version today, and I've been doing a few comparisons with the remastered Sony BD. The contrast has obviously been upped, but to my eyes it's not as hurtful as it is on Leon. As I said above, it actually seems to fit this particular flick.

Forget about DNR, as fine texture and detail are there in abundance, and the lack of edge-enhancement brings this out even more. I know that this is the fashionable thing to say, but I've genuinely never been impressed with the PQ of the remastered Sony disc. It looked too 'edgy' somehow, and upon comparison the sharpening is blatantly obvious.

I hate EE with a passion, so I'll gladly take the blown highlights of the Gaumont transfer as a trade-off.
post #78 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Forget about DNR, as fine texture and detail is there in abundance, and the lack of edge-enhancement brings this out even more. I know that this is the fashionable thing to say, but I've genuinely never been impressed with the PQ of the remastered Sony disc. It looked too 'edgy' somehow, and upon comparison the sharpening is blatantly obvious.

Same here. The Sony remaster was of course an improvement on their first release, but honestly, how could it fail to be?

My copy of the Dutch release arrived yesterday and, contrast boosting aside, it's a clear improvement on the Sony in every way.
post #79 of 232
I agree with the previous two posts.
post #80 of 232
Gaumont


Sony


Gaumont Modified



Changes to the Gaumont:
Gamma
Brightness
Contrast
Hues
Blur
Unsharp Mask
post #81 of 232
I agree that the contrast of the Gaumont makes some things too bright, but what puzzles me is why so many people seem to take the Sony as the "benchmark" for all the other attributes. It might very well be that the older transfer was actually the one that was "off" in those departments and the Gaumont is correcting these things. For example, skin tones are indeed more yellow in the Gaumont, but only in direct comparison does it seem to look *too* yellow. When I look at the Gaumont on its own I really don't see anything strange about the colours. I sure learnt my lesson after nitpicking over these kinds of differences in the new Gladiator transfer. Sometimes you just need to look at the thing "on the fly" to experience if a transfer convinces or not, and the Gaumont - just like the new Gladiator transfer - definitely does.
post #82 of 232
The Gaumont transfer looks closer to how I remember the movie looked in the theaters. It certainly didn't look as dull as that Sony transfer.
post #83 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godbluffer View Post

For example, skin tones are indeed more yellow in the Gaumont, but only in direct comparison does it seem to look *too* yellow. When I look at the Gaumont on its own I really don't see anything strange about the colours.

You can say the same thing about most hue/color differences. That's one thing that the human visual system is really good about adapting to. I guess it falls under the umbrella of "color constancy".
post #84 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post


Wow! Yeah, those are really bad man!! I never noticed those horrible pink things before.

Good job, and well spotted.

Seriously, is this newer one really better? Really? Totally blown out whites? That is how you prefer it to look? And we are not talking about Besson's preference here.

I mean, if you do like it like that, then fine, buy it. Each to there own, but there is no actual justification for thinking that this is a huge improvement over the SONY 'remaster'. It is, at best, a side step of a remaster, neither better nor worse but about the same, in a 'changed in different areas' sort of way.
post #85 of 232
Nice.. the new one certainly is an improvement.
post #86 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTWoodward View Post

Wow! Yeah, those are really bad man!! I never noticed those horrible pink things before.

Good job, and well spotted.

Seriously, is this newer one really better? Really? Totally blown out whites? That is how you prefer it to look? And we are not talking about Besson's preference here.I mean, if you do like it like that, then fine, buy it. Each to there own, but there is no actual justification for thinking that this is a huge improvement over the SONY 'remaster'. It is, at best, a side step of a remaster, neither better nor worse but about the same, in a 'changed in different areas' sort of way.

You know this how?
post #87 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

You know this how?

I think you misinterpreted what he meant. I'm pretty sure he was just saying that we're talking about our own preferences here. I don't think he was trying to say this is not how Besson prefers it.
post #88 of 232
Someone at Gaumont sure loves their contrast, Besson or not.
post #89 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTWoodward View Post

Wow! Yeah, those are really bad man!! I never noticed those horrible pink things before.

Good job, and well spotted.

EE is a side-effect of using excessive unsharp mask filtering. Excessive unsharp mask filtering is the true culprit. It sharpens details and textures to amplify visibility and this is looked down on by myself as a form of artificial enhancement that makes the image look less like film and more like a lesser-quality digital camera.
post #90 of 232
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.
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