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

[Scottishguy]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not a fan, personally. His love for film is obvious but it clouds everything he does, i.e. when it comes to reviewing the actual disc he’s supposed to be reviewing he’ll talk for like a minute then go right back to how awesome film is and then mention some other random movie shot using the same process that looks miles better (to him). In his “review” of 2001's UHD he literally spends more time talking about the Murder on the Orient Express UHD than he does the 2001 UHD, remarks which consist of little more than “it looks like a decent 35mm reduction print” without mentioning any visual characteristics of the UHD transfer itself. He also lauded the dreadfully DNR'ed UK Blu of Zulu in the Spartacus UHD “review” which is enough to set alarum bells ringing, I don’t care who you are.

So yes, film is his thing and that’s great if it was a review dedicated solely to celluloid presentation (dvdmike must love his channel), but while he’s got far more knowledge than the average bear he’s as useless as a concrete parachute when it comes to actual disc reviews. IMO.

I've caught him doing some dodgy things. Like lifting Midways HDR with his panny player. In fairness he does state this is his usage experience.

The worst was saying Overdrive is like faux HDR. I checked it out, and nooooo, just noooo.

Good dude though. Probably wouldn't want to get into a argument with him down a pub though. He'd go on for hour's and hour's.

Also I like Zulu. The DNR didn't bother me.

[Geoff D]

If he’s watching HDR on a projektor then that’s reason enough for me to steer clear, with all due respekt to my PJ homies up in here.

Overdrive?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If he’s watching HDR on a projektor then that’s reason enough for me to steer clear, with all due respekt to my PJ homies up in here.

Overdrive?

Cheap if you want to check it out. Some think it's pants, but I find it passable mindless entertainment.

Cheap if you are curious.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Cheap if you want to check it out. Some think it's pants, but I find it passable mindless entertainment.

Cheap if you are curious.

I don’t understand what that has to do with HDR. Was he saying that it looked so good it might as well be HDR? Again, without wanting to annoy my PJ homies, it so doesn’t surprise me that a PJ owner would say such a thing. Now I’m definitely never watching his channel again, not for “4K reviews” anyway.

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If he’s watching HDR on a projektor then that’s reason enough for me to steer clear, with all due respekt to my PJ homies up in here.

How does HDR look on a HDR capable Projector?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

How does HDR look on a HDR capable Projector?

It varies. But as HDR is a system based around reproducing the light levels the content was encoded at - often many thousands of nits - then the much lower light level of projektors vs flat screen displays has meant that PJs have historically had a much harder task to properly tone map the HDR image to fit.

It’s not so much the display technology itself at fault as some PJs are capable of superb contrast, it’s the need for such extreme tone mapping that’s been the major Achilles heel and people have resorted to using custom tone curves, spoofed Dolby Vision, SDR conversion, expensive outboard processors with their own 'dynamic' processing etc in order to try and tame it. It’s getting betterer all the time, but if I don’t know someone from Adam and they’re using a PJ to actually “review” HDR content then my default reaction is one of scepticism, not helped by someone saying that a regular Blu looks so good it might as well be HDR - which to me implies that they’ve got no idea what “true” HDR actually looks like, in part because of the shortcomings of their display.

However, I’m not saying that flat panel displays are perfick for HDR because they’re not, and so many supermarket specials sold as “HDR” TVs are a disgrace to that name as they’re nothing of the sort. And the tone mapping inside many popular high end TVs is still quite bad, getting worse by the day as newer sets improve upon them. But as bad as the HDR situation is for flat panels, it’s just that bit worse for PJs and so I’ll never trust an HDR review that uses a consumer PJ as its basis.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

How does HDR look on a HDR capable Projector?

People pay extra for DV in cinemas...

[eledoremassis02]

The Fifth Element 4K Blu-ray vs. 35mm Theatrical Release Print - YouTube

[Hedrox]

Time to bump this thread for a pretty useless observation.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed this or bothered to check, but despite the big differences between the Sony and SC UHDs, the standard 1080p discs(which should theoretically be downconverts of their respective 4k ones) look almost identical.

[Agent Kay]

That isn't enough K's for this thread

[coolguy25]

Hi guys you think this is worth 14.99 for an upgrade from my blu? I know the price will never go lower so wondering if I should just buy now.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yes... And more so if you have access to Dolby Vision kit...

[James Luckard]

I have a question about both LEON and THE FIFTH ELEMENT. I looked in the last few pages of the threads for each film and didn't see anything clearly addressing this.

The Sony and StudioCanal UHD discs of each look noticeably different, based on caps.

I have a theory, does anyone know if I'm right?

Gaumont financed both of these films. Sony just had distribution rights in the US and a few other markets for each film.

As the financing studio, Gaumont would have retained the negative.

Isn't it likely that the StudioCanal discs are mastered from the original negative, while the Sony discs are mastered from whatever second-generation materials Gaumont sent them back in the 90s to make their release prints from?

This would explain why the StudioCanal discs have greater detail, and also different color timing.

If this is the case, the Sony discs would presumably have color timing matching what was originally there, it would be baked into the film materials, I would think, unless the new digital masters were tinkered with, while the StudioCanal discs would have needed to be color timed again from scratch.

Or is the general opinion that these are the same masters, just cropped differently and processed differently?

Does anyone know for a fact what materials each disc was mastered from?

Thanks!

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I have a question about both LEON and THE FIFTH ELEMENT. I looked in the last few pages of the threads for each film and didn't see anything clearly addressing this.

The Sony and StudioCanal UHD discs of each look noticeably different, based on caps.

I have a theory, does anyone know if I'm right?

Gaumont financed both of these films. Sony just had distribution rights in the US and a few other markets for each film.

As the financing studio, Gaumont would have retained the negative.

Isn't it likely that the StudioCanal discs are mastered from the original negative, while the Sony discs are mastered from whatever second-generation materials Gaumont sent them back in the 90s to make their release prints from?

This would explain why the StudioCanal discs have greater detail, and also different color timing.

If this is the case, the Sony discs would presumably have color timing matching what was originally there, it would be baked into the film materials, I would think, unless the new digital masters were tinkered with, while the StudioCanal discs would have needed to be color timed again from scratch.

Or is the general opinion that these are the same masters, just cropped differently and processed differently?

Does anyone know for a fact what materials each disc was mastered from?

Thanks!

Yes

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Yes

The bigger question is, did Sony have access to the negative too? Is their master derived from it? Or is it derived from secondary film materials Gaumont sent them back in the day.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

The bigger question is, did Sony have access to the negative too? Is their master derived from it? Or is it derived from secondary film materials Gaumont sent them back in the day.

Nope, was an interneg or an IP as I understand it

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Nope, was an interneg or an IP as I understand it

That's what I suspected. The difference in detail between the SC and Sony discs is too big. The SC disc looks like it comes from the negative. The Sony disc looks like it doesn't.

Just look at the grain structure on Milla's arm (and indeed everything) in this shot:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...3&l=0&i=2&go=1

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

That's what I suspected. The difference in detail between the SC and Sony discs is too big. The SC disc looks like it comes from the negative. The Sony disc looks like it doesn't.

Just look at the grain structure on Milla's arm in this shot:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...3&l=0&i=2&go=1

The Sony disc (and German from the same master) are the worst discs I own.

[coolguy25]

from what I've seen from just caps I like the colors on the Sony more.. It's a bright popcorn loud flick don't care about fine detail. A little HD looking waxy with bright colors is fine for a movie like this.

[barrett75]

not to mention SC disc is one of the last FiM Joint...