The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison - Page 3

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.).

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.

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

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


Andrew

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

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

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?

Tweaked Gaumont version: levels changed, colors tweaked and some EE.

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

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.

Better than Gaumont version.

Andrew

If the orginal film has a warmer tone, then would the Gaumont version be better.

For shame, Eric! You should know this already.

Post 4 in the EE/DNR/etc. thread, way back in 2007:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with the previous two posts.

Gaumont


Sony


Gaumont Modified



Changes to the Gaumont:
Gamma
Brightness
Contrast
Hues
Blur
Unsharp Mask

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.

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.

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".

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.

Nice.. the new one certainly is an improvement.

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.

Someone at Gaumont sure loves their contrast, Besson or not.

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.

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.