Sound & Vision:SP has NO firm plans for TFE rerelease

[4K display]

S&V magazine October 2006
"Sony Pictures is now telling us there are no firm plans to rerelease The Fifth Element on Blu-ray. C'est la vie..."

[PeterTHX]

Makes sense if they can't get a better picture "element".

The Digital Bits reported that Sony Pictures used the best version available and the Blu-ray looks transparent to the master, flaws and all.

[4K display]

Then they need to send a print off to Lowry Digital and do this title justice.
A flawless TFE will sell Blu-ray machines...IMO

[JTK]

^^ Good idea! Something's got to be done.

[zombie]

Once there are millions of Blu-ray players in people's homes then you'll see Sony start to reissue the crappier looking BDs and they'll be more than happy to sell them again.

[Jazar]

Anyone catch the Fifth Element showing on TNT last week and can compare it to the BR title? Cause the TNT version looked pretty damn good to me (least compared to their Kill Bill showing).

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by 4K display

Then they need to send a print off to Lowry Digital and do this title justice.
A flawless TFE will sell Blu-ray machines...IMO

It's DTS Digital Images now, not Lowry. Yep, DTS will be making quite big sums of dollars for a while.

That being said, there is a clear line that divides movies produced before digital intermediates and digital color correction was present and after. Too often now, I see movies where the colors are tweaked that exhibit ringing around the edges. The sky is an odd shade of blue while the foreground and the talent looks natural. The technologies of digital filmmaking are not being used properly. There is still a lot of experimentation going on.

At least with TFE and a small number of films made before DI and DCC were prevalent, the directors chose the best shot of the best take. Not many directors have the budget and money like George Lucas, who took the best take and put them in the best shot in his SW films.


fuad

[phloyd]

I borrowed a Samsung player (recent build) and had 5th E running.

A friend of ours saw it and commented over and over how great it looked. Which I thought was funny since it is commonly regarded as the worst looking BD disc.

In any case, I am not sure if it is the NR circuit or my CRT TV is forgiving but it looked hell of a lot better than the time I saw it in Fry's playing on a Samsung LCD TV.

I remember it looking pretty damned bad before and on my set up it looks quite good.

I will try to get a chance to compare it to the broadcast. For House of FLying Daggers, the BD was about even with the broadcast in clarity and beat it hands down for lack of artifacts in the action scenes.

[theknub]

i too don't quite get what was just said. running the exact same sony as you and quite frankly think it doesn't get much better without spending another 2k. anyway, as i have said before in a few other threads, i have no idea what people are talking about when it comes to some of these PQ issues. i have demoed it numerous times at a local shop and really don't see any problems. now, is it as good as some ofther titles? no, but is it still phenomenal looking (at least to me), yes.

i do notice some of the "badness," but it isn't as big as what some people say.

[theknub]

ok, so what makes a CRT purely analog. obviously, this definition/idea is what makes or breaks my t.v. from being a real hdtv .

[PeterTHX]

Quite a number of CRT HDTVs exist, both direct view and rear projection. You rarely see any of them defined as 720p; most are identified as 1080i. Direct-view televisions (i.e., the good old tube) max out at around 34 inches for a wide-screen unit, while rear-projection CRT TVs can be 65 inches diagonal or more. CRTs are purely analog devices. If you hook your PC up to a CRT HDTV, you might be surprised to find out that it can only support an 800 by 600 pixel resolution or, if you're lucky, 1024 by 768. This would seem to indicate that a CRT HDTV isn't a "true" HDTV, Because they're analog, however, they do resolve the full 1080i signal. Since 1080i is interlaced, the TV only needs to support 540 actual lines of resolution. CRTs do have other benefits. They're still the best displays currently available for resolving standard television. Part of this is because the CRT analog technology "masks" the image defects in NTSC TV. CRTs can resolve more details in deep blacks, though the best digital displays look pretty good as well. Also, CRT HDTVs have the benefit of being considerably cheaper (albeit bulkier) than their digital cousins.

That's a lot of FUD.
The author clearly doesn't understand what 1080i IS.
540 lines may be on screen at the same time for any given frame, but the OTHER frame contains the other 540 lines of information. 1080i STILL has more pixels than 720p (about 1.2 million vs. 921,000). 1080p has 2 million active pixels at any given time.

To further show his cluelessness my monitor is CRT, and running at 1600x1200 progressive (85Hz refresh). Can they explain THAT? That is a helluva lot more lines than 540.

Professionals use CRTs for CAD, ILM uses them to monitor visual FX.

My Sony CRT has 1440 lines of resolution (KD-34XBR960). It can actually run 720p NATIVELY, which pretty much no other CRTs outside of computer monitors can. Studios use the industrial version to check their HD masters. If the article is correct, why would they instead of a plasma or LCD?

Llyod Case needs to sit in the corner with a dunce cap.

[theknub]

thank you peter. honestly this article made no sense to me, i just had absolutely no proof or knowledge

[phloyd]

Thanks for helping out guys.

I was pretty mad with the post and was just gonna be mean (and I might still yet ).

Anyone who has used one of the high end Sony CRT TVs knows how good they are.

Interlacing is a technique to get a similar result resolution-wise with lower scan rate and 1080i does not equal 540p. If it did it would not make sense to use it.

In any case the XBR is a great TV and is easily suitable for quality comparisons of different sources.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to ignore everything I say

[phloyd]

11111
22222
11111
22222

That is how it displays. It is really simple. And that is 1080 high. 1080. Not 540.

The content is 30 --- yes 30 frames per second - not 60.

I am sorry if you don't get it.

[phloyd]

Note that the DLP 1080p sets also use a form of temporal spatial pixel reuse to achieve the 1080 lines.

What resolution are those displays?

[phloyd]

1080i is a 30 fps system and 720p is a 60 fps system.

Film is a 24 fps system. There is no advantage is showing the same data over and over to make it 60 fps. The original 24 fps of the film can be adequately displayed at 30 fps cos 30 > 24.

Can you explain how displaying 24 fps at 60 fps with less resolution is a plus?

The only time 720 is better is if the source is shot at 720p and 60 fps. Otherwise it contains less information than the original source whether it be 1080p24 film or 1080i 30 fps HD video.

Perhaps you can list all of the 720p 60 fps sources that are available to buy?

[dobyblue]

Those 1080p sets are using half the mirrors to light up all of the pixels at a refresh rate of 120 times per second per two pixels.
(each pixel gets lit up 60 times per second with the mirror "wobulating" between two sets of pixels)

[PeterTHX]

Yes, and all the folks claiming 720p is somehow superior are forgetting the vertical resolution. 720p has only 1280, while 1080i has 1920.

Interlaced or not, 60fps vs 30fps or not, that extra 600 vertical lines are ALWAYS there.

[theknub]

shadow. nice explanation. thank you.

[theknub]

umm, wasn't it just explained that things are filmed at 24 fps