The Fifth Element: Sony remaster vs Gaumont remaster Comparison - Page 4

Originally Posted by Josh Z

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.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

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."

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8

why, quite some time has passed until then and when looking at tier 0 movies like i, robbot or pirates then its just obvious that the 5th element is not on par with that.

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8

why, quite some time has passed until then

and when looking at tier 0 movies like i, robbot or pirates then its just obvious that the 5th element is not on par with that.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Once again, misleading screenshots have caused a hysteria to sweep these boards.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

The last I checked, The Fifth Element is not the same movie as Pirates of the Caribbean or I, Robot.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

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)...

Originally Posted by Ihmemies

...
Maybe Sony did their version from some optical print which had the effect already, or applied it themselves. I mainly look at color, brightness & contrast in movies (and photographs) and I'm not that distracted by compression artifacts, bad sharpening or other "non-essential" variables.

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

"Compression artifacts" and "bad sharpening" are "non-essential variables"? Uhm, okay.

BTW, what is an "optical print"?

Originally Posted by Ihmemies

If anyone wanted to digitally sharpen an image, I don't understand how it's even possible to make it look that weird.

Originally Posted by cakefoo

And I'm just an uneducated idiot with a 24" monitor.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Someone was not paying attention to their video waveform monitor. The white levels are completely Clipped Out on the pictures on the right.

Originally Posted by trailergod

completely agree, look at the curtains at the background... the sony release at least still shows it.. heh

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

Highlights is not the only thing that effects the PQ. Yes the Gaumont release blows the highlights in some scenes, but Sonys release is worse in most other aspects.

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

And what amazes me that people always seems to fail to take into account is that, when there are clipped highlights, that can be by intentional aesthetic design. It's not an automatic, default error.

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

Highlights is not the only thing that effects the PQ. Yes the Gaumont release blows the highlights in some scenes, but Sonys release is worse in most other aspects.

Originally Posted by Josh Z

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.

Originally Posted by madshi

Yes, the Gaumont Blu-Ray has some problems with blown out whites, so it's not perfect. Also I'm not sure about the colors. The Gaumont colors sure are almost over the top, but then that does fit the movie somehow. So I'm not sure which colors are "better" or nearer to the director's intent. But overall after comparing both Blu-Rays, I got rid of the Sony Blu-Ray and kept the Gaumont Blu-Ray, thanks to the less digital and more film like look.

Originally Posted by Deviation

The colors on the Sony disc are correct and the colors on the Gaumont disc are wrong. I don't know how this could even be a question.

Originally Posted by Deviation

It all comes down to a minor bit of EE vs blown out contrast. You prefer the blown out contrast. Good for you. The Sony disc still looks pretty great.

Originally Posted by madshi

Has Luc Besson personally confirmed to you that the Sony colors are correct and the Gaumont colors wrong, or how can you post such a claim?

On another forum a guy with contacts to the encoding house which authored the Gaumont Blu-Ray reported that the master used for the Gaumont Blu-Ray is the only one approved by both the studio *and* Luc Besson. He didn't know any specifics about the master used by Sony, though.

I'd prefer a perfect Blu-Ray. But it does not exist. I do not prefer blown out contrast, but I do hate it less than the processed look EE produces.

Originally Posted by Deviation

That's ridiculous. The contrast is obviously blown and thus the colors are obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by Deviation

That's ridiculous. The contrast is obviously blown and thus the colors are obviously wrong. Whether Besson approved it or not doesn't matter. Claims have been made that Besson also approved the transfer for The Professional but that film also has blown contrast that also screws with the colors. The movies have been changed.

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Sony is obviously the winner. Look at the picture with Milla's face up-close. The other version is washed out, and there isn't hardly any skin detail. The Sony release shows skin detail.

Originally Posted by eric.exe