The Fifth Element (Remaster): Blu-ray

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by ganthc

The idea was the encoding and space it took.

Yep and it being a space hog basically nullified the "extra space" advantage Blu-Ray has over HD DVD, when talking commercial movies. Given enough space, MPEG-2 can look great but it's time for something new and VC-1 and AVC can deliver the goods more efficiently, as you state. I don't know why anyone would actually argue AGAINST using the new video encoding technologies since we're talking about next gen gear here but many did.

Peace...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think the mpeg2 is just fine is not about mpeg2 itself, because there are mpeg2 bd movies that look fantastic (The Covenant, U:E). The idea was the encoding and space it took. I believe that mpeg2 can deliver a great hd picture. But it's not efficient, and there are better codecs, like avc and vc-1.

Ahem...
http://forums.dvdfile.com/showpost.p...51&postcount=1

[ganthc]

I'm also curious as to which master they used. Everyone raves about the Superbit version, and how it looked clean with no blemishes. So obviously they didn't use that master to create the bd-25 disc. Also, those other movies I listed were bd-25's as well, and yet they looked good. Really, it comes down to Sony doing a terrible job with the FE release. I guess I didn't believe it was that bad till I saw it with my own eyes. It's one reason why I am looking forward to the remaster.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I'm also curious as to which master they used. Everyone raves about the Superbit version, and how it looked clean with no blemishes. So obviously they didn't use that master to create the bd-25 disc. Also, those other movies I listed were bd-25's as well, and yet they looked good. Really, it comes down to Sony doing a terrible job with the FE release. I guess I didn't believe it was that bad till I saw it with my own eyes. It's one reason why I am looking forward to the remaster.

Dude, great minds think alike (since I JUST read about the master used for the re-release of Fifth Element. Check THIS out. Scroll down post #73 and read from there to see the 1080p/720p comparisons. ).

Peace...

[ganthc]

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/fift...emastered.html

Looks like it got two thumbs up from Bracke.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by ganthc

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/fift...emastered.html

Looks like it got two thumbs up from Bracke.

I like the original screen shots better. I'm sure the detail is pumped up quite a bit, just hope noise & grain are not so more present now with the AVC.

[billyslits]

This is a new 4:4:4 transfer and it has been through a very thorough dirt removal pass. The initial BD release was made from the wrong master.

The differences between the two versions are night and day. It is well worth a purchase if you are a fan of the film.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Derb

I like the original screen shots better. I'm sure the detail is pumped up quite a bit, just hope noise & grain are not so more present now with the AVC.

I don't see how it can be worse than the original bd release.

Thanks for the update on the transfer, Billy!

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think the mpeg2 is just fine is not about mpeg2 itself, because there are mpeg2 bd movies that look fantastic (The Covenant, U:E). The idea was the encoding and space it took. I believe that mpeg2 can deliver a great hd picture. But it's not efficient, and there are better codecs, like avc and vc-1.

I'm not convinced that MPEG2 can deliver in the same capacity as VC-1/AVC. Even on high profile BD50 releases like Mission Impossible 3, you can spot obvious macroblocking in many of the direct screenshots posted on AVSFORUM in the MPEG2 encode.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I'm not convinced that MPEG2 can deliver in the same capacity as VC-1/AVC.

It can deliver if a lot of care is taken in encoding and there's lots of space available. The second (or maybe it was the third) Blu-ray demo disc they released before the format launch was a thing of beauty to behold. Completely flawless and the very definition of demo material. Of course, the disc was also only 12 minutes long, so there was lots of room to boost the bitrate to the max.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by dugpa

It can deliver if a lot of care is taken in encoding and there's lots of space available. The second (or maybe it was the third) Blu-ray demo disc they released before the format launch was a thing of beauty to behold. Completely flawless and the very definition of demo material. Of course, the disc was also only 12 minutes long, so there was lots of room to boost the bitrate to the max.

Even if there is a ton of space and bitrate dedicated to the MPEG2 encode, MPEG2 as a codec lacks the features of VC-1/AVC that are designed to hide artifacting like macroblocking & block edges. Meaning even if you are very careful it is likely there will be artifacting somewhere because MPEG2 lacks the robust mechanisms that VC-1/AVC have to reduce and hide artifacting from the viewer.

Mission Impossible 3 is a great example. Much effort went into both the HD DVD & BD encodes, the BD version has 20gb more space and 20mbps more bandwidth available than the HD DVD version, yet there is still macroblocking at points in the BD MPEG2 version that is not present in the HD DVD VC-1 encode.

[Iguana Man]

So are you (Ruined) saying that given the same master, using VC-1/AVC is easier and basically more efficient to get a pristine picture for those that do this versus having more space to utilize for the opposing MPEG2 version?

I'm trying to see which is more cost effective to the people doing the same transfer in both the more space provided MPEG2 version and the lesser space provided VC-1/AVC version.

Or, do I simply have this whole comparitive thought in my head at this time mixed up?

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I'm not convinced that MPEG2 can deliver in the same capacity as VC-1/AVC. Even on high profile BD50 releases like Mission Impossible 3, you can spot obvious macroblocking in many of the direct screenshots posted on AVSFORUM in the MPEG2 encode.

Watch All The King's Men in its Mpeg-Twoish glory!

[supercutz]

Is there any way to tell if the retail version has the new transfer? Any subtle tells on the packaging or something?

[ganthc]

"The Covenant" probably remains the premiere mpeg2 transfer in my opinion. Too bad the movie is mediocre at best. Still, it shows that mpeg2 can have a perfect transfer if given the care. Not giving the care to vc-1 has meant some recent films have gotten poor encodes as well, for example:

Last HD Movie Watched

However, I think it's been shown that vc-1/avc encodes are more efficient than mpeg2, and thus preferable.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by supercutz

Is there any way to tell if the retail version has the new transfer? Any subtle tells on the packaging or something?

Yes, the packaging has TrueHD under audio features.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

So are you (Ruined) saying that given the same master, using VC-1/AVC is easier and basically more efficient to get a pristine picture for those that do this versus having more space to utilize for the opposing MPEG2 version?

I'm trying to see which is more cost effective to the people doing the same transfer in both the more space provided MPEG2 version and the lesser space provided VC-1/AVC version.

Or, do I simply have this whole comparitive thought in my head at this time mixed up?

Well, doing this simple test yourself it is easy to see what I mean.

If you take a really blocky MPEG2 stream - I used a DVD that I got from a cruise that had horrible artifacting throughout - and encode that stream in VC-1, much of the artifacting will disappear! That's right, taking an MPEG2 and encoding it in VC-1 actually improves the video quality. Despite two lossy encodes, the second generation lossy encode actually looks better if it is VC-1.

That should tell you right off the bat that the VC-1 codec and its encoder have mechanisms in it to find and eliminate artifacts. AVC has similar measures. MPEG2 does not.

In the end, what this means is that if the compressionist does a mediocre job with an MPEG2 encode, there will likely be artifacting. If a compressionist does a mediocre job with a VC-1 encode, there will likely be significantly less artifacting due to the mechanisms of the VC-1 encoder & codec.

So, in addition to VC-1 taking up less space and bandwidth, it also gives the compressionist more room for error because it has builtin systems to reduce & hide obvious artifacting.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If you take a really blocky MPEG2 stream - I used a DVD that I got from a cruise that had horrible artifacting throughout - and encode that stream in VC-1, much of the artifacting will disappear! That's right, taking an MPEG2 and encoding it in VC-1 actually improves the video quality. Despite two lossy encodes, the second generation lossy encode actually looks better if it is VC-1.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the VC-1 encode did a bad job of reproducing the source material?

[videoworx]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the VC-1 encode did a bad job of reproducing the source material?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the VC-1 encode did a bad job of reproducing the source material?

Terrible MPEG2 artifacting does not occur naturally in any source, so no it wouldn't IMO. And, Microsoft knows this so the default settings of the consumer encoder are designed to prevent/reduce digital artifacting when present.

[dugpa]

At the risk of being on topic, has anyone recieved their replacement disc yet?

["The Dude"]

Originally Posted by dugpa

At the risk of being on topic, has anyone recieved their replacement disc yet?

I haven't even sent my old one in yet!

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by Derb

Yes, the packaging has TrueHD under audio features.

Thank you kindly

[urbanlegend]

Originally Posted by dugpa

At the risk of being on topic, has anyone recieved their replacement disc yet?

I came to the forum wondering the same .. I guess no one received anything yet I havent ..

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by urbanlegend

I came to the forum wondering the same .. I guess no one received anything yet I havent ..

Nothing in my mailbox yet either.

[ganthc]

I completely lost track of time on this one. I will be sending it out when I get home from work. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Sony to send the replacement compared to Toshiba to send me my free movies for buying their player.

[Sehnzeleid]

Interesting...