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

[Ian B]

Where is the 250 pt reward certificate, not in the packaging and the guy at the store stated it will be credited after the return policy expires.

Does any know when we get it or did they get it when paying at the store?

Tia,

Ian B

[Cook]

Sony needs to get rid of the awful menu system that they are putting on their UHDs. Blu-rays are supposed to allow the viewer to access the menu without stopping the film. It was one of the promoted features when blu-ray first came out. It's been standard for years. Yet with UHD Sony has went backwards and taken us back to the point where a movie has to be stopped to access the menu. Wtf

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by Cook

Sony needs to get rid of the awful menu system that they are putting on their UHDs. Blu-rays are supposed to allow the viewer to access the menu without stopping the film. It was one of the promoted features when blu-ray first came out. It's been standard for years. Yet with UHD Sony has went backwards and taken us back to the point where a movie has to be stopped to access the menu. Wtf

Agree that its a silly system. Totally unnecessary considering how complicated they made it to find the few menu items you are likely to want (chapters, sound, subtitles, extras).

[bbwiscfan]

Originally Posted by Cook

Sony needs to get rid of the awful menu system that they are putting on their UHDs. Blu-rays are supposed to allow the viewer to access the menu without stopping the film. It was one of the promoted features when blu-ray first came out. It's been standard for years. Yet with UHD Sony has went backwards and taken us back to the point where a movie has to be stopped to access the menu. Wtf

The menu system is rancid. I don't understand how they could go back to the stone age with it, to have no access during a 4K film when it should be standard is foolish and stupid. And yet, over a year and they are still using it. As far as I know, Sony is the only one pulling this stunt and I really hope sometime soon they do away with it. I remember the first time I popped in Amazing Spiderman 2 and just being flabbergasted at the menu; it honestly doesn't even make sense and has no simplicity in its use. Just foolish.

[Badrock63]

Originally Posted by Ian B

Where is the 250 pt reward certificate, not in the packaging and the guy at the store stated it will be credited after the return policy expires.

Does any know when we get it or did they get it when paying at the store?

Tia,

Ian B

It will appear on your rewards account later. Normally takes a week or 2.

[bluescale]

Interestingly (after reading the subtle and muted praise in this thread), the review that just posted on the main site claims there's no comparison between the UHD and any previous BD releases - UHD wins hands down:

"Making that largely needless comparison to the Blu-ray anyway -- and the "Mastered in 4K" version at that -- does indeed show just how special a presentation this really is. While the 1080p disc is of reference quality for that format, the UHD destroys it in every way imaginable."

[grodd]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

Found some comparisons between the MI4K blu and the UHD web download:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...7203/picture:3



..

Thanks Nice improvement! A little upset my steelbook order is in Limbo from best Buy.

[Tru-way]

I've seen this movie in regular VHS, DVD/Superbit, TV transmission, blu, remastered blu, and 2015 4k remaster.

Going to pop open my favorite beer and watch the UHD tonight. I'll be sure to provide my thoughts on the transfer.

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

Found some comparisons between the MI4K blu and the UHD web download:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...7203/picture:3



..

Thanx!
Nice!

[gates70]

Originally Posted by Tru-way

I've seen this movie in regular VHS, DVD/Superbit, TV transmission, blu, remastered blu, and 2015 4k remaster.

Going to pop open my favorite beer and watch the UHD tonight. I'll be sure to provide my thoughts on the transfer.

I'll watch this tonight as well and maybe Leon....or King Kong. Undecided but I have all three waiting...but definitely this one first.

[henry00x]

Originally Posted by bluescale

Interestingly (after reading the subtle and muted praise in this thread), the review that just posted on the main site claims there's no comparison between the UHD and any previous BD releases - UHD wins hands down:

"Making that largely needless comparison to the Blu-ray anyway -- and the "Mastered in 4K" version at that -- does indeed show just how special a presentation this really is. While the 1080p disc is of reference quality for that format, the UHD destroys it in every way imaginable."

the disparity in opinions between the official reviews on this site versus the members in the threads is becoming incredibly comical

[gates70]

Originally Posted by henry00x

the disparity in opinions between the official reviews on this site versus the members in the threads is becoming incredibly comical

There's a lot of people in this thread that commented that don't even have the proper equipment to judge. They should refrain from doing so.

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Let's not be overly poetic or obtuse here. You asked if the UHD is a worthy upgrade over the "Mastered in 4K" standard Blu-ray when two posts above yous states that there is aliasing on the BD that isn't present on the UHD. Therefore, your question was answered before you wrote it.

You don't have to be so snarky about it. I wanted to know if that was a big enough problem that I should just skip the 4K and keep the one I have. Or if it was something I could overlook.

[singhcr]

One thing that confuses me about this UHD is how it can have such fine film grain compared to say, Leon considering they were only three years apart.. I'm not saying that Sony is aggressively wiping it away because they haven't really ever done that with UHD or BD and have titles like Crouching Tiger and Ghostbusters on the format, but how could a 35mm OCN scan yield such fine grain? Either it's an IP scan, they used very slow stocks back then or pull processed it or something, or it's been managed such that detail isn't lost but the grain is reduced like Mummy '99.

Reading all these UHD reviews is making me very jealous.

Some day, singhcr, some day....

[henry00x]

Originally Posted by singhcr

One thing that confuses me about this UHD is how it can have such fine film grain compared to say, Leon considering they were only three years apart.. I'm not saying that Sony is aggressively wiping it away because they haven't really ever done that with UHD or BD and have titles like Crouching Tiger and Ghostbusters on the format, but how could a 35mm OCN scan yield such fine grain? Either it's an IP scan, they used very slow stocks back then or pull processed it or something, or it's been managed such that detail isn't lost but the grain is reduced like Mummy '99.

Reading all these UHD reviews is making me very jealous.

Some day, singhcr, some day....

Leon has 0 special effects, vs. 5th element which is filled with them which I assume had an effect on the finished master and what is possible on cleaning up what they can

[HuggyBear73]

Just read the review here and there was that word again....marginal. I hope 4K UHD crash and burns.

[henry00x]

Originally Posted by HuggyBear73

Just read the review here and there was that word again....marginal. I hope 4K UHD crash and burns.

i guess you overlooked this part of the review

While the 1080p disc is of reference quality for that format, the UHD destroys it in every way imaginable. Immediately, the striking difference in textural detail is obvious. Rocky formations and skin textures are practically smeary by comparison on the Blu-ray. The elevation in detail is substantial and the increase in color depth and saturation, even if the image is a bit darker overall, is obvious.

and the last line of the review

The UHD picture quality is absolutely spectacular...

[Doctorossi]

I don't know, man... an "absolutely spectacular" image "destroying" a reference quality disc "in every way imaginable"... sounds pretty marginal to me.


#readingcomprehension

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

One thing that confuses me about this UHD is how it can have such fine film grain compared to say, Leon considering they were only three years apart.. I'm not saying that Sony is aggressively wiping it away because they haven't really ever done that with UHD or BD and have titles like Crouching Tiger and Ghostbusters on the format, but how could a 35mm OCN scan yield such fine grain? Either it's an IP scan, they used very slow stocks back then or pull processed it or something, or it's been managed such that detail isn't lost but the grain is reduced like Mummy '99.

Reading all these UHD reviews is making me very jealous.

Some day, singhcr, some day....

From American Cinematographer:

To reduce grain, Element's Parisian cinematographer, Thierry Arbogast, AFC (J'embrasse pas, Ma Saison Préférée, Mina Tannenbaum, The Horseman on the Roof, Ridicule, L'Appartement and the upcoming She's De Lovely), chose to shoot the film with slower stocks that wouldn't be as vulnerable to image degradation. Kodak's 5293 was employed for non-effects photography, and 5248 for any scenes requiring greenscreen work or other image manipulation. This concession also allowed Besson, who prefers lightweight equipment for obvious reasons, to avoid using the bulkier VistaVision cameras.

5293 = 200T stock

5248 = 100T

Many movies in the last few decades were shot on a mix of 250D for daylight exteriors and 500T for interiors & night work, so using 200T as your main taking stock will indeed result in finer grain than perhaps we're used to. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't expect this to look as grainy as Ghostbusters (old-school 5294 400T, anamorphic) or Crouching Tiger (mostly 5277 320T with the t-grain EXR 5245 50D for very bright exteriors like the desert scenes and some lower light shots on 250D 5246, Super 35).

[madfloyd]

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.

I need to follow up on this.

First of all, the version that I was comparing this UHD to was NOT the bluray, but the 4k version on Amazon.

I am also embarrassed to say that I didn't check the focus of my projector (I use lens memories to switch between different aspect ratios and the focus needs to be re-adjusted every so often).

So, with corrected focus I watched some more last night.

While there are still a number of soft scenes in the source as well as some that look like they were 'sharpened', there is a big difference in resolution (151" screen) and I'm now a LOT happier with the UHD. While I will never use it as a reference disc, I think it's probably the best this movie will ever look and I'm thrilled to have the disc.