Fifth Element Video Guide
With so many versions of this film out there, it is hard to know which is right for you so we have taken a look at the video quali...
‘The Fifth Element’ is starting to turn into the new ‘Army of Darkness’, with its many different versions across many different regions. So, because of this, we have decided to take a look at the video quality in each release, especially since the original R2 was so awful and there are now Superbit releases in addition to a new R2 2-disc special edition. Brief specs for the discs are as follows:
Note that the R3 Superbit does not say R3 on the cover - I put it there to distinguish it from the R1 Superbit.
Now to look at video captures from each film. These will be presented in the following format. First a cap from the R3 Superbit will be presented following a compilation of five zoomed captures from each DVD (in the same order listed above - that is R1, R1 SB, R2, R2 SE, R3 SB). Each zoomed image is hyperlinked to the original capture measuring 1280x720 pixels and open in a new window. Each image was captured using Cyberlink's PowerDVD software (review) and (no hardware acceleration) which means the quality will be lower than that of the output observed using a standard DVD player. These are presented to show the colour variations and detail, or rather lack of, that some of the versions use. It would appear that the R1 Superbit is encoded for Regions 1, 3 and 4. However, since I had access to the R1 and R3, I thought I would include both even though it would seem they are the same transfer.
First up is a scene from the beginning of the film showing a ship that someone has reliably informed me is called a 'Mondoshawan' ship. Not that that matters.






Anyway, the R1 is widely considered to be a good transfer and here it fares well. However, the Superbit version has slightly more definition and less edge enhancement. Both have good colour, however the R2 and the R2 SE both have awful colour with a vast amount of yellowing. The brightness on these seems higher too, as does the contrast, which results in less detail. Just comparing the backgrounds shows how much of the small detail is simply not present or blurred out in both R2 DVDs. The R3 and R1 Superbit versions win here. Next up is the scene where Leeloo escapes and leaps from the building that held her captive.






Again the standard R1 version is quite decent, however the R1 and R3 Superbit discs show more definition than the standard R1 and better colour rendering that both R2 editions tested. Next up is a scene that introduces Zorg, played by Gary Oldman.






Here it is quite easy to see that even the standard R1 has more detail in the tower than both R2 editions. The lighter background and blurred lines lack cohesion and the harsh blue of the sign is carried further into the rest of the image due to the blurring. Finally we have a scene from near the end of the film. This was picked because of the bright colours in the foreground and the dark detail on the walls at the rear.






What to say? Again the standard R1 has more detail than both R2 editions, and the Superbit versions have more detail still.
So what to conclude from this exercise? Well it would seem the R1 standard and original release has a good transfer, as everyone always said. The standard R2 edition lacks the definition of the R1 and has dreadful colour replication. This is echoed in the newly released R2 Special Edition, which seems by all accounts to have the same appalling transfer that the original R2 has. This is a shock as it was widely publicised that the video transfer would be new for this edition. The R1 Superbit and the R3 Superbit, at a guess, share the same video transfer, and this does come out on top here. While I have not mentioned extra features here, it is worth noting that the R2 SE has DTS (1536Kbps) as well as Dolby Digital 5.1, which is a mirror of the soundtracks available on the Superbit discs.
Therefore, if you are just after the best video and audio quality, I would recommend going for a Superbit DVD, particularly the R3 as it is quite a bargain at the moment (if you can still find it). If you really must have extra features and you want to hear the commentary then the R2 SE is the one for you, however after these revelations I cannot see as many people buying that now.
Editorial by David Beamish
| Aspect Ratio | Audio | Discs | Extras | Cover | |
| R1 | 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 | Dolby Digital 5.1 | 1 - dual sided | no | ![]() |
| R1 Superbit | 2.35:1 | DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 | 1 | no | ![]() |
| R2 (UK) | 2.35:1 | DD 5.1 | 1 | yes | ![]() |
| R2 SE | 2.35:1 | DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 | 2 | yes | ![]() |
| R3 Superbit | 2.35:1 | DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 | 1 | no | ![]() |
Note that the R3 Superbit does not say R3 on the cover - I put it there to distinguish it from the R1 Superbit.
Now to look at video captures from each film. These will be presented in the following format. First a cap from the R3 Superbit will be presented following a compilation of five zoomed captures from each DVD (in the same order listed above - that is R1, R1 SB, R2, R2 SE, R3 SB). Each zoomed image is hyperlinked to the original capture measuring 1280x720 pixels and open in a new window. Each image was captured using Cyberlink's PowerDVD software (review) and (no hardware acceleration) which means the quality will be lower than that of the output observed using a standard DVD player. These are presented to show the colour variations and detail, or rather lack of, that some of the versions use. It would appear that the R1 Superbit is encoded for Regions 1, 3 and 4. However, since I had access to the R1 and R3, I thought I would include both even though it would seem they are the same transfer.
First up is a scene from the beginning of the film showing a ship that someone has reliably informed me is called a 'Mondoshawan' ship. Not that that matters.






Anyway, the R1 is widely considered to be a good transfer and here it fares well. However, the Superbit version has slightly more definition and less edge enhancement. Both have good colour, however the R2 and the R2 SE both have awful colour with a vast amount of yellowing. The brightness on these seems higher too, as does the contrast, which results in less detail. Just comparing the backgrounds shows how much of the small detail is simply not present or blurred out in both R2 DVDs. The R3 and R1 Superbit versions win here. Next up is the scene where Leeloo escapes and leaps from the building that held her captive.






Again the standard R1 version is quite decent, however the R1 and R3 Superbit discs show more definition than the standard R1 and better colour rendering that both R2 editions tested. Next up is a scene that introduces Zorg, played by Gary Oldman.






Here it is quite easy to see that even the standard R1 has more detail in the tower than both R2 editions. The lighter background and blurred lines lack cohesion and the harsh blue of the sign is carried further into the rest of the image due to the blurring. Finally we have a scene from near the end of the film. This was picked because of the bright colours in the foreground and the dark detail on the walls at the rear.






What to say? Again the standard R1 has more detail than both R2 editions, and the Superbit versions have more detail still.
So what to conclude from this exercise? Well it would seem the R1 standard and original release has a good transfer, as everyone always said. The standard R2 edition lacks the definition of the R1 and has dreadful colour replication. This is echoed in the newly released R2 Special Edition, which seems by all accounts to have the same appalling transfer that the original R2 has. This is a shock as it was widely publicised that the video transfer would be new for this edition. The R1 Superbit and the R3 Superbit, at a guess, share the same video transfer, and this does come out on top here. While I have not mentioned extra features here, it is worth noting that the R2 SE has DTS (1536Kbps) as well as Dolby Digital 5.1, which is a mirror of the soundtracks available on the Superbit discs.
Therefore, if you are just after the best video and audio quality, I would recommend going for a Superbit DVD, particularly the R3 as it is quite a bargain at the moment (if you can still find it). If you really must have extra features and you want to hear the commentary then the R2 SE is the one for you, however after these revelations I cannot see as many people buying that now.
Editorial by David Beamish
Advertisements
Existing Posts
hey cybersoga, no one gives a rat's can
go back to your iPorn
go back to your iPorn
How come nobody has compared it with the german remastered version or is that the same as the region 2 uk version?
I want all the features for a R1 release!
Fragnabbit! What I said for my subject.
I would like to have the quality of the best of the best of the best. Deemed kick-ass by my standards of collecting, I will buy when there is a R1 release. I can only hope.
I would like to have the quality of the best of the best of the best. Deemed kick-ass by my standards of collecting, I will buy when there is a R1 release. I can only hope.
I have the original R4 release of this movie. Looks like a direct 'port' of whatever was released in France as its got French titles at the beginning.
The title sequence has titles that seem to have been edge-enhanced waaaay too much. The edges of the text are much to sharp and thus cause an effect much like telecine-wobble along their edges.
Same wierd yellow cast as the R2 release but much less grain. I've compared the 1st screenshot with a grab from my own PC with Power DVD and there is about 90% less grain on my version.
It might be something to do with the jpeg compression used on this site but I doubt that it'd make so much of a difference.
I've just ordered the R4 superbit version so it'l be interesting to see if there is any significant difference in the colour cast and detail levels.
The title sequence has titles that seem to have been edge-enhanced waaaay too much. The edges of the text are much to sharp and thus cause an effect much like telecine-wobble along their edges.
Same wierd yellow cast as the R2 release but much less grain. I've compared the 1st screenshot with a grab from my own PC with Power DVD and there is about 90% less grain on my version.
It might be something to do with the jpeg compression used on this site but I doubt that it'd make so much of a difference.
I've just ordered the R4 superbit version so it'l be interesting to see if there is any significant difference in the colour cast and detail levels.
Where have you seen the demo? Who is making it? Who will be distributing it? France only I presume? Will there be a remastered standard definition PAL version, downsized from the HD master? I don't like WM9 because it is locked and only currently works on PCs.
A New R2 release in 2004, and it's HD !
A new release of the movie is schedule in 2004.
It will be a High Definition transfert, PAL, DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1, english, French, and more than that, you'll find a HD version of the movie ala T2 Extreme Edition (1080p).
I've seen a demo version of this, and it's amazing ! Even a better work than was done for T2 !
Just too bad it's a Microsoft locked technology...
It will be a High Definition transfert, PAL, DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1, english, French, and more than that, you'll find a HD version of the movie ala T2 Extreme Edition (1080p).
I've seen a demo version of this, and it's amazing ! Even a better work than was done for T2 !
Just too bad it's a Microsoft locked technology...
French Superbit is R2 PAL. I used to have a copy. I am tempted to get another copy to do my own comparison, although it does have the odd forced french subtitle to translate english words in the picture. It does come in very strange looking packaging.
This is an interesting film to compare, because all of the R1 versions have a superieur image quality when compared to the R2 versions (always have, always will???). But a long time ago, when Superbit just started, there was also a R2 Superbit version (France) of this film available (it's still available at some sites). I wonder where this version stands in this comparison. So: Is there actually a R2 version available that matches the R1 versions (wich you all forgot to compare)???
i am still using PowerDVD4 as I dont like 5. I told Cyberlink why and am waiting to see if they will fix the list of bugs I gave them.
Ah right. I've not used it with version five (although I do have that) as I do my captures on a PC with version four. And I've come to the same conclusions about FE SE as you two (as you'll see when my review goes live), but I do think that the contrast have been ever so slightly elavated from the previous R2 release. I really wish I'd bought the R1 from a friend of mine now.
The built in capture facility in PowerDVD 5 (as opposed to using print screen or another utility) does actually work with Hardware Acceleration enabled. It uses software decoding to produce the captured image, so what you see while your taking the captures isn't the same quality as the actual captures. What you see is not what you get.
I'm not affiliated with dvdbeaver or any other site. I wrote that piece for them to put up because I liked their other comparisons. It really doesn't matter, i'm kinda glad we came to the same conclusions
erm I have no idea who DVDBeaver are but I wouldn't read that if you paid me man! looks awful! Not surprising you came to the same conclusion. Why wouldn't you?
Actually.. I could copy and paste the chat me and Chris had a few days ago about the high brightness/contrast levels but you wouldn't believe me. Not sure why you feel you have to come here and say I copied your article when it seems to be half as long as mine and look half as good too?
Still, I certainly won't stop you!
Gary - no I haven't - get some glasses.
Mal - hardware acceleration blocks caps on software like PowerDVD.
Wow.. what a lot of hassle .. someones very uptight..
Actually.. I could copy and paste the chat me and Chris had a few days ago about the high brightness/contrast levels but you wouldn't believe me. Not sure why you feel you have to come here and say I copied your article when it seems to be half as long as mine and look half as good too?
Still, I certainly won't stop you!
Gary - no I haven't - get some glasses.
Mal - hardware acceleration blocks caps on software like PowerDVD.
Wow.. what a lot of hassle .. someones very uptight..
I didn't think you could even take caps with the hardware decoding enabled? In any case, one of my video cards doesn't like hardware acceleration at all. It's not a pretty sight!
Ah right, cheers for the info Chris and cybersoga. I wonder how WinDVD and PowerDVD compare visually...
PowerDVD's software decoding doesn't do a very good job of chroma upsampling - things in red for example look pixellised. Scaling is also not as good. (ATI) hardware decoding produces a much better image at large sizes (Tick "Enable Hardware Acceleration" ), but you have to remember to put PowerDVD on "Force Weave" otherwise it stays in "Bob" mode if it's set to auto and image quality suffers. It is impossible to take screen shots of the hardware overlay, so it uses software decoding while taking screen shots even if you have hardware acceleration enabled.
Quote: Originally posted by Malcolm Campbell
Out of interest, why would the software decoded version be inferior to the hardware decoded image? I would have thought that computers these days would be fast enough for efficiency savings in the software to be kept to a minimum.
To tell you the truth Mal, I don't really notice a lot of difference (if any) between the two using an XP 3000+. However, I do notice a lot of difference between Power DVD and a standalone.
Out of interest, why would the software decoded version be inferior to the hardware decoded image? I would have thought that computers these days would be fast enough for efficiency savings in the software to be kept to a minimum.
To tell you the truth Mal, I don't really notice a lot of difference (if any) between the two using an XP 3000+. However, I do notice a lot of difference between Power DVD and a standalone.
Quote: Originally posted by Gary Tooze
You have copied much of the wording of the comparison located here:
At least you didn't steal the images...
Regards,
Gary
Please substantiate this accusation. ‘Copied’ implies that the author has lifted sections of an article and incorporated them into his own work. I can see no evidence of this.
You have copied much of the wording of the comparison located here:
At least you didn't steal the images...
Regards,
Gary
Please substantiate this accusation. ‘Copied’ implies that the author has lifted sections of an article and incorporated them into his own work. I can see no evidence of this.
Out of interest, why would the software decoded version be inferior to the hardware decoded image? I would have thought that computers these days would be fast enough for efficiency savings in the software to be kept to a minimum.
Well like I said I can see similarities, but that's to be expected. The Answers review is more in-depth in any event, and covers more than just the R1 Superbit and R2 SE, so it can hardly be accused of plagiarising something that’s not there in the first place.
I can't say I really agree with your first example, as there are few similarities in the writing, just in the conclusion (which is to be expected if both people have eyes).
I take your point with the second one, but then I have the luxury of knowing it wasn't taken from your comparison. It was merely intended to give the readers a little background info on the control measures used to ensure all regions were given a ‘fair chance’ (i.e. no dodgy Cyberlink filters or the like). He also alludes to the quality being lower than a standalone DVD player, not a hardware accelerated video card.
I can't say I really agree with your first example, as there are few similarities in the writing, just in the conclusion (which is to be expected if both people have eyes).
I take your point with the second one, but then I have the luxury of knowing it wasn't taken from your comparison. It was merely intended to give the readers a little background info on the control measures used to ensure all regions were given a ‘fair chance’ (i.e. no dodgy Cyberlink filters or the like). He also alludes to the quality being lower than a standalone DVD player, not a hardware accelerated video card.
It's statements like this that made me wonder
me "R2 has an overexposed look that hides the detail in the upper whites, the black level is also lower hiding detail in the blacks."
dvdanswers "The brightness on these seems higher too, as does the contrast, which results in less detail."
me "Bare in mind that these screen shots were taken using Power DVD, and to take screen shots it uses software decoding rather than the (superior) video card's decoding - so even though it's a fair comparison there is better picture quality to be had than from these screen shots"
dvdanswers "Each image was captured using Cyberlink's PowerDVD software (review) and (no hardware acceleration) which means the quality will be lower than that of the output observed using a standard DVD player."
me "R2 has an overexposed look that hides the detail in the upper whites, the black level is also lower hiding detail in the blacks."
dvdanswers "The brightness on these seems higher too, as does the contrast, which results in less detail."
me "Bare in mind that these screen shots were taken using Power DVD, and to take screen shots it uses software decoding rather than the (superior) video card's decoding - so even though it's a fair comparison there is better picture quality to be had than from these screen shots"
dvdanswers "Each image was captured using Cyberlink's PowerDVD software (review) and (no hardware acceleration) which means the quality will be lower than that of the output observed using a standard DVD player."
I've just read both articles, and yes, there are similarities with the other review, but only because they concern the same subject. There's no way that was copied from any other site. It is like saying people have plagiarised reviews because they happen to use the same adjectives or something.
The R2 discs feature poor transfers. Was he supposed to come to a different conclusion just because someone else might have written the same thing before?
The R2 discs feature poor transfers. Was he supposed to come to a different conclusion just because someone else might have written the same thing before?
inspired review you might say?
funny, I came to exactly the same conclusions in my own review, still at least you used slightly different wording.






