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

[Bar81]

So everything looking jaundiced = better transfer? The colors on the Sony are normal - the SC has everything run through a yellow filter - if that horrible yellow was the director's intent then I'm glad Sony did some revisionist color grading.

And not sure what horrible level of processing Sony added - yes, it looks sharper and allows detail to better come through, but I'm not seeing any haloing or other weird artifacts that would result from oversharpening? Or do we just prefer not improving things because it was blurry in the theater?

Happy to be set correct if I'm missing something.

[Noremac Mij]

35mm

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/35mm-Fea...-/254335995598

[KMFDMvsEnya]

That new Studio Canal UHD looks pretty darn good and makes the Sony UHD look rather muddling.

The much vaunted by some Gaumont version has always looked poor with its nuked contrast and it appears even worse in comparison to the newest SC 4K version.

The Sony version looks like it is derived from a generation away from what the SC is derived from with its clumpier grain and curious color grading.

Guess I'll need to import the SC edition.

[lgans316]

Both look fine to me. Its like comparing LED-LCD and OLED where each one of them shines depending upon the content. I don't find the sharpening on Sony UHD to be overwhelming but it can bother sensitive viewers.

[Tru-way]

I may have to pick up the SC version.

I feel the yellow color push may be closer to the source as the image has a cleaner and smoother gradiation of color tones/shades. This is a tongue in cheek movie and I feel the warmer colors work better for it as opposed to the cooler color grading the Sony provides.

Look at the dragon carpet
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...0&l=1&i=9&go=1

The Sony looks over-processed with cooler color tones, whereas I feel the SC has more of an organic look to it without extra processing.

[NKB2017]

Originally Posted by Bar81

So everything looking jaundiced = better transfer? The colors on the Sony are normal - the SC has everything run through a yellow filter - if that horrible yellow was the director's intent then I'm glad Sony did some revisionist color grading.

And not sure what horrible level of processing Sony added - yes, it looks sharper and allows detail to better come through, but I'm not seeing any haloing or other weird artifacts that would result from oversharpening? Or do we just prefer not improving things because it was blurry in the theater?

Happy to be set correct if I'm missing something.

I also find the 'yellow push' to be exaggerated. Each to their own I guess.

[sleeman]

Received my SC steelbook today and just watched it. IMO I liked the PQ of this disc better than that of Sony. Unfortunately can't say the same about Atmos. Atmos in SC has low bitrate and is weaker than Sony. I compared both in several scenes and Sony is far more dynamic and superior than SC. Needless to say I'll still hang on to Sony disc at least for audio.

[PissedOffPeoN]

Sony has a higher bit rate to vs SC seen on capsaholic but im guessing they put most of the quality towards video since it is a 100 GB disc.

[sleeman]

Originally Posted by PissedOffPeoN

Sony has a higher bit rate to vs SC seen on capsaholic but im guessing they put most of the quality towards video since it is a 100 GB disc.

There is no reason for SC to not put a similar higher bitrate audio especially when they still had quite a bit of space left in the disc. It would've been a more Complete disc. Oh well.

[PissedOffPeoN]

Ask david M about it he did the encode meh .

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Bar81

So everything looking jaundiced = better transfer? The colors on the Sony are normal - the SC has everything run through a yellow filter - if that horrible yellow was the director's intent then I'm glad Sony did some revisionist color grading.

And not sure what horrible level of processing Sony added - yes, it looks sharper and allows detail to better come through, but I'm not seeing any haloing or other weird artifacts that would result from oversharpening? Or do we just prefer not improving things because it was blurry in the theater?

Happy to be set correct if I'm missing something.

I agree with this person, the studio should always try and make the movie look "better" for home video, regardless of the director's intent.

BRAVO S O N Y!

[MF-Judge]

The Sony transfer was my first disappointing 4K and I am more than happy double dipping with StudioCanal's transfer. The transfer doesn't feel overly dark and over processed. It is literally a night and day difference on my Epson 4010 on my side.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by sleeman

Received my SC steelbook today and just watched it. IMO I liked the PQ of this disc better than that of Sony. Unfortunately can't say the same about Atmos. Atmos in SC has low bitrate and is weaker than Sony. I compared both in several scenes and Sony is far more dynamic and superior than SC. Needless to say I'll still hang on to Sony disc at least for audio.

I do have to agree with this comment.

[Patsfan123]

Originally Posted by sleeman

There is no reason for SC to not put a similar higher bitrate audio especially when they still had quite a bit of space left in the disc. It would've been a more Complete disc. Oh well.

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. The UK disc is probably 16bit audio based on that bitrate. BDInfo does not measure audio bitdepth, it just guesses based on the bitrate but has not been updated for years. Therefore it thinks every atmos track is 24bit from the bitrate alone.

The original mix is 16bit so it doesn't matter. Sony's audio is upsampled to 24bit.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bar81

So everything looking jaundiced = better transfer? The colors on the Sony are normal - the SC has everything run through a yellow filter - if that horrible yellow was the director's intent then I'm glad Sony did some revisionist color grading.

And not sure what horrible level of processing Sony added - yes, it looks sharper and allows detail to better come through, but I'm not seeing any haloing or other weird artifacts that would result from oversharpening? Or do we just prefer not improving things because it was blurry in the theater?

Happy to be set correct if I'm missing something.

You're looking at SDR converted screen caps, the sheer vibrancy of the SC transfer when viewed in actual HDR is largely negated here. The SC does however have that yellower tinge to skin tones but the Sony still looks duller and darker in comparison when viewed in HDR.

The Sony also looks grittier too because of the sharpening, it's not classic high frequency edge ringing but more like an unsharp mask that offsets contrasting edges and leaves a thin black outline behind. If that's your idea of "improving things" (it reminds me a lot of what Universal did to the Blu of Back to the Future) then you can keep it.

This movie was never meant to look grim and gritty but bright and bouncy, the SC grade restores this look and also makes it look like film negative again rather than some weird sharpened intermediate.

[Mr. Chaverria]

Well, guess that answers my question. Studio Canal UHD is what I'll go after.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You're looking at SDR converted screen caps, the sheer vibrancy of the SC transfer when viewed in actual HDR is largely negated here. The SC does however have that yellower tinge to skin tones but the Sony still looks duller and darker in comparison when viewed in HDR.

Most definitely but there's also a deep-rooted problem on this here forum - which is an almost automated whining anytime colours aren't 100% 'natural'. If there's any kind of hue or the whites, god forbid, don't look pure white, then people start losing their shit. Apparently oblivious to the fact that filmmakers sometimes like to, ya know, actually grade their movies to give them a certain look or feel.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Most definitely but there's also a deep-rooted problem on this here forum - which is an almost automated whining anytime colours aren't 100% 'natural'. If there's any kind of hue or the whites, god forbid, don't look pure white, then people start losing their shit. Apparently oblivious to the fact that filmmakers sometimes like to, ya know, actually grade their movies to give them a certain look or feel.

Yeah. I've done my own share of whining on that issue to be fair, but if it suits the content (unlike them yellow peas in the old BD of Apocalypse Now! ) then I'm down with it.

[Darth Marcus]

My God that's a night and day difference. SC is the clear winner. Sony looks overly processed where the SC looks much more natural. I'm glad I sold off my Sony in favor of picking up the SC!

[OutOfBoose]

Beautiful golden look is back. As well as lush oranges.