The Fifth Element SE (CONSOLIDATED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Mark_Mc]

Our review of this release is online now, along with a comparison against the 2003 UK Region 2 Special Edition and the 2001 US Region 1 SuperBit

Clicky

 

[Will_B]

Mark_MC, thanks for a super comparison!!!

Everyone should read that comparison.

My assumption that the new 2005 US Region 1 Ultimate Edition was simply presenting the extras previously released in the UK's 2003 UK Region 2 Special Edition was entirely wrong. Thanks for sussing out the truth.

I'll be buying the new 2005 US Region 1 Ultimate Edition tuesday.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Ditto that.

Looks like this will be a definite double dipper for me!

 

[Mark_Mc]

That's what I had thought as well, but I was happy to find that Columbia had put together a far better collection of extras for the Region 1 release than Pathe did for Region 2, missing commentary not withstanding.

 

[Mark_TS]

from your review, it indeed looks like the UE is a slightly better transfer than the standalone SB release.

now where is our HTF review....?

 

[Mike Wadkins]

will not be replacing my superbit (for dts)
or wm9 copy (for pic)

 

[Mike Wadkins]

to add to dvddebate's great comparison :

 

[TonyD]

were does the wm hd version come from?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cannot wait to get this on BluRay

Mark,

thanks for that amazing comparative review...EXACTLY the type of review I was looking for...one that detailed the comparison of the previous R1 SB version and noted any differences in picture and sound. Well done! This new version is MINE....

 

[Mike Wadkins]

it looks from the pix that the 1st superbit is closer to the hi def

 

[TonyD]

were does the wm hd version come from?

 

[Carlo_M]

Damn...double dip...er...triple dipping for me... :frowning:

 

[Mike Wadkins]

a perk of my old job

 

[Scott L]

It's too close a call for me. I'll hang onto my original SB until an HD version is available.

 

[Brian_cyberbri]

(cross-post from the HTF Review thread on this title)

Someone on the AVS forum "reviewed" the release, and even mentioned that it's 2.40:1 AR, as opposed to the 2.35:1 on the original superbit, restoring cut-off screen area.
I cannot post the link, as I haven't posted 15 times yet, but here is an excerpt ("Real Reference" thread in Digital Software/Movie forum):


That's all I'll post. Just wanted to point this out.

 

[Grant H]

Well, another fine example of Super35.

Anyone who checked out the P&S side of the original disc would know this was shot Super35.

The question is which is the correct scope transfer?

Are we saying all the old releases were "zoom-boxed"? Or is one of the transfers matted too high or too low?

Man, now I'm going to want the new version if it's correct.

Why can't they get it right the first time, or the second?

 

[Pat Frank]

Anybody else notice that one of the interviews on disc two (Chris Tucker? I forget exactly) was not formatted for 16:9? Kinda awkward.

 

[TonyD]

bruce willis interview is also like that.

i think one of the opera out takes is not enhanced and maybe some others also.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Brian_cyberbri,

can you quickly post 14 times so you can post the link to that thread at AVS?

-dave

 

[TonyD]

is this it/

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=493497