The Fifth Element 4K UHD (1997) (20th Anniversary Edition)

[darkedgex]

Bought it yesterday, watched a little of it on the Sony 65" A1E we have at work before going home to watch it on my Samsung 55JS8500. Picture looks gorgeous. Yes, the shots with visual effects have issues around the edges of CGI elements, but it's surprising (to me anyways) how hard it is to look at that during the course of the movie. I only made it halfway, so maybe the diva scene will change my view overall, but... I'm hoping not. :P

[radewagon]

Saw it yesterday on my SDR 4K sony set with HDR conversion set to narrow on my UBP X800 UHD player. Movie looked great though the initial menu looked very dull and had me worried that the HDR on the disc wouldn't translate well. Luckily, it wasn't a problem.

The last time I'd seen the movie was on the old Superbit release, so this was quite the improvement. I didn't have any trouble with the halos people are mentioning, but I've never had a problem with halos unless they were on DVD when scaled to HD sets.

[Patsfan123]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

The haloes are baked into the film elements due to sharpening of sfx shots before film out. They can't be fixed unless one redoes the sfx shots.

The halos are there, but less noticeable on the Gaumont master.

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a...=63696&i=2&l=0

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Patsfan123

The halos are there, but less noticeable on the Gaumont master.

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a...=63696&i=2&l=0

But it also looks like the Gaumont 1080p Blu-ray has some filtering/de-graining applied, which would also help hide the digital effects print out to film artifacts.

[Patsfan123]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

But it also looks like the Gaumont 1080p Blu-ray has some filtering/de-graining applied, which would also help hide the digital effects print out to film artifacts.

I don't want to rehash this argument here but I thought the common theory was that Sony used an IP which they may or may have not sharpened while Gaumont (owning the elements) went to the OCN and did a new scan which they may or may have not filtered.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by madfloyd

I watched the first 30 minutes or so tonight. I'm slightly disappointed but in hindsight my expectations were too high. The recent bluray remaster is so good that the differences are, overall, subtle.

Resolution is much improved in some scenes but no different in others. In fact, even with the recent Bluray, some scenes just seem to be devoid of resolution (e.g. more like DVD quality) and the 4k can't improve on what is a source limitation.

As for HDR, nothing is jumping out at me (which is good in a way, the color grading shouldn't be distracting) but other than the odd scene here and there I didn't notice much difference and I didn't (yet) go back to the Bluray to refresh my memory. Usually even if there aren't impressive highlighting I notice much smoother gradients throughout the image and I can't say I noticed any so far.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have this release, but my expectations were (probably unfairly) higher. Again, I think it's the source and not any fault of the transfer.

Are you the same person that said John Wick didn't look good ?

[henry00x]

this is the best the movie is ever going to look, it was filmed 20 years ago and we are nitpicking every minute thing we can find to diminish the 4k transfer

i watched the 4k disc last night, its very impressive, we are never going to get perfection on 4k transfers of old movies like this, if youre not willing to accept that then theres no point in upgrading

[Joce]

Everyone who are reviewing UHD BD should be able to judge only if owning 4k Oled Sony A1 65' or Pana EZ 65.

[OI8T12]

Originally Posted by Joce

Everyone who are reviewing UHD BD should be able to judge only if owning 4k Oled Sony A1 65' or Pana EZ 65.

No.

[Joce]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

No.

One of the best argument i have ever read.

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by Joce

Everyone who are reviewing UHD BD should be able to judge only if owning 4k Oled Sony A1 65' or Pana EZ 65.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

The haloes are baked into the film elements due to sharpening of sfx shots before film out. They can't be fixed unless one redoes the sfx shots.

This could be factually correct, but is it?

Easy to blame the scan and transfer work, but has the blame been misplaced?!

[jh901]

Originally Posted by Joce

Everyone who are reviewing UHD BD should be able to judge only if owning 4k Oled Sony A1 65' or Pana EZ 65.

Ah. Such a tiny 2.40 image!

JVC RS4500 at 10 - 15 feet wide and pro calibrated by ChadB or the opinion doesn't count!

[AdubW1982]

Originally Posted by joce

everyone who are reviewing uhd bd should be able to judge only if owning 4k oled sony a1 65' or pana ez 65.

lg c7 oled

[Doctorossi]

"Display"- hah! No review is valid unless the pits and lands are examined directly with a jeweler's loupe.

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

No.

I don't know why this made me laugh so hard.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Joce

One of the best argument i have ever read.

As was your initial argument.

[vincentric]

Had a quick glance at it. The UHD BD's contrast and colors look more in line with the MI4K BD rather than the Gaumont one (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...3#post11456373).

Minus the CGI shots, the UHD does look naturally sharper (less digital) than the MI4K BD with improved spatial resolution. The colors and contrast also look subtly improved (less yellow tint and black crush) topped all with an impeccable looking grain field void of compression issues.

The UHD looks great but need to take a closer look at it when I get a chance to see if it contains any issues such as banding (which am almost sure it doesn't as this does look to be another typical high quality Sony UHD release).

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Patsfan123

I don't want to rehash this argument here but I thought the common theory was that Sony used an IP which they may or may have not sharpened while Gaumont (owning the elements) went to the OCN and did a new scan which they may or may have not filtered.

I'm more inclined to go with what FilmFreak said, it seems like the Gaumont was softened or processed in some way which hides the sharpening. I think the movie was sharpened a long time ago as part of the finishing process and there's nothing Sony could do about it.

In any event, this is the recent Sony BD, just on UHD. The HDR is nice but subtly used, not a ton of pop. Everyone should know from that summary pretty much exactly what they're getting.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by vincentric

Had a quick glance at it. The UHD BD's contrast and colors look more in line with the MI4K BD rather than the Gaumont one (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...3#post11456373).

Minus the CGI shots, the UHD does look naturally sharper (less digital) than the MI4K BD with improved spatial resolution. The colors and contrast also look subtly improved (less yellow tint and black crush) topped all with an impeccable looking grain field void of compression issues.

The UHD looks great but need to take a closer look at it when I get a chance to see if it contains any issues such as banding (which am almost sure it doesn't as this does look to be another typical high quality Sony UHD release).

The grain should act as a natural dithering agent anyway, although sometimes banding can still creep in on the filmed-out VFX which I've noticed on ID4 and The Mummy. They weren't always working on VFX with the kind of bit depth, colour gamut and dynamic range that we take for granted today, e.g. ILM were still working in linear space rather than logarithmic at that time, and even used the 709 gamut well into the Noughties.

[edit] How does Zorg's stripy suit look in the weapons test scene with the Mangalores? It shimmers like a mofo on the Mi4K blu.