Fifth Element Remastered

[Tech-UK]

The only comparison that I have found is over on DVDBeaver (although the caps are highly questionable, being taken with a camera), but to me it looks like the original hasn't been sharpened.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...nt_blu-ray.htm

I really want to see some caps of the original now.

Yes its MPEG-2 against AVC, but if there is no sharpening, I may pick up the original.

The Gaumont transfer looks soft right? Perhaps this film isn't meant to be sharp. Perhaps the reviewers were expecting something that wasn't there. And thus Sony applied sharpening.

Is it just me, or have skin tones been warped of colour in the remaster over the original?

[Geoff D]

The Gaumont isn't "soft" at all, there's loads of detail. It just doesn't have the overt sharpening of the Sony remaster which makes the edges 'pop' (as the sharpening is designed to do ).

As for caps, I thought Xylon at AVS had done some back in the day and he had, but the image hosters have all gone down. There's a couple of zoomed-in shots on this page though: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-bl...-review-3.html (and note that even back in 2007 some people noticed the sharpening ).

Hold the press! Here's some old/new Sony comparisons for you: http://hd.maltebauer.de/thefifthelem...stered/01.html

The old one was so reviled because it really was overly soft and filtered and kinda processed-looking in general.

[Tech-UK]

Looking at those caps the MPEG-2 release is full of noise, and zero grain.

The remastered doesn't look that sharpened in those pic's.

Thanks for those Geoff.

[Geoff D]

Sure. It's not like the Sony remaster didn't beat their old one quite easily, and I said it was "pretty darn good (if a little 'edgy')" in my old comment from AVS. I'd happily own the Sony remaster if it was the only game in town because it's not some horrible EE-ridden mess, BUT there is still visible sharpening going on and since there are now other options available I've gone with one of those.

[HeavyHitter]

I haven't watched any of the versions, but going by the screencaps, I would hands down go with the Gaumont. I just have a hard time stomaching overly-processed discs.

[Kryptonic]

The Sony remaster looks like they just applied sharpening to the old transfer based on those shots. Still, neither one looks filmlike at all.

[Geoff D]

No, it was definitely a new transfer, a Sony insider confirmed it at the time. But even back then they weren't in the habit of fiddling with their HD transfers too much, so I wonder if they added a little lick of sharpening because of all the complaints about softness on the first BD?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, it was definitely a new transfer, a Sony insider confirmed it at the time. But even back then they weren't in the habit of fiddling with their HD transfers too much, so I wonder if they added a little lick of sharpening because of all the complaints about softness on the first BD?

It wouldn't surprise me and many studios were still applying unncessary processing in the early stages of the format (although some still do with older masters) but there wasn't as much of an uproar about it at that time and I think there is better understanding of it today. If/when Sony does a new 4K transfer, I would suspect it will be excellent.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, it was definitely a new transfer, a Sony insider confirmed it at the time. But even back then they weren't in the habit of fiddling with their HD transfers too much, so I wonder if they added a little lick of sharpening because of all the complaints about softness on the first BD?

It looks practically the same aside from the sharpening. The color timing and everything looks identical to me.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It looks practically the same aside from the sharpening. The color timing and everything looks identical to me.

The colour isn't identical, there's a slight green tint to the newer Sony transfer and a slight magenta tinge on the old one. The framing and geometry is also different.

Look at the white highlights on the robot arms in this shot, they change from pink to green. The green tubing is also more vivid: http://hd.maltebauer.de/thefifthelem...stered/05.html

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It looks practically the same aside from the sharpening. The color timing and everything looks identical to me.

It isn't the same.

Grain is nowhere to be seen on the original, just noise, and as Geoff states above.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The colour isn't identical, there's a slight green tint to the newer Sony transfer and a slight magenta tinge on the old one. The framing and geometry is also different.

Look at the white highlights on the robot arms in this shot, they change from pink to green. The green tubing is also more vivid: http://hd.maltebauer.de/thefifthelem...stered/05.html

It looks like it's just a result of sharpening. I'm not seeing a big shift either way, other than it looking like shit.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It looks like it's just a result of sharpening. I'm not seeing a big shift either way, other than it looking like shit.

There is clearly better grain preservation and thus more detail in the remaster over the original. This is not a result of sharpening, because it doesn't reproduce grain, it will make the grain look harsher, as seen from the caps-a-holic cap that I posted on the previous page, but the improvement over the original isn't from sharpening.

My speculation was based off images taken by a camera from the DVDBeaver review, which as I said are very questionable. But the caps that Geoff linked to, seem closer to the actual look of the two transfers.

[Geoff D]

Well, we know that caps can vary but Xylon at AVS had it down to a fine art and I'd take those caps any day of the week over photos of a TV screen. To think that DVD Beaver were doing that up until a few years ago! Not that I trust their proper caps and/or ill-informed opinions now anyway...

[Blu-21]

The remaster has quite a bit more natural detail and while both have been filtered, I'd take sharpening over softening any day.

[Geoff D]

But nothing's been "softened" on the Gaumont transfer, that's the point. Unless you're talking about the original Sony encode which is so poor in most respects that it's not worth even talking about any more.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But nothing's been "softened" on the Gaumont transfer, that's the point. Unless you're talking about the original Sony encode which is so poor in most respects that it's not worth even talking about any more.

Yeah I was referring to the orignal Sony encode vs the remastered Sony encode due to the comparisons you found for us and posted on here. Everybody else were stating their opinions on the 2 Sony BDs so I thought I'd add my 2 cents too.