Framing and lack of headroom in Excalibur - Page 2

Check out the tag lines on the LD and the DVD:

LD:
Forged by a god.
Foretold by a wizard.
Found by a King.

DVD:
Forged by a god.
Foretold by a wizard.
Found by a man.

That last line is riveting on the LD, and leaves something to be desired on the DVD. I wonder if the movie had this duality when it was released, or if Warner decided to change yet another thing for the DVD...?

Today, directors are a little careless on how they shoot their movie. When you watch an old movie that's widescreen, you notice that there's a bit of breathing room. Lots of it too. The cameraman didn't zoom too close and everything was perfect. Now I see some movies today that'd look better if they just zoomed out just a little because a little part of the head is cut off and stuff. I noticed a lot of that on Pearl Harbor. Guess that's why the VHS version is almost pan and scan. Probably was shot by a director that did not want his movie pan and scanned. So, he did some things on purpose to make it hard. Guess a pan and scanner said "f*** it" and made a 1.85:1 frame for most of the movie, and made the fight scenes in 2.35:1. Hey. More movies should be done like that where it's too hard to pan and scan. Put one character on one side and one on the other. I guess however they filmed the movie is just the way they wanted us to see it. I definently wouldn't want ANY movie I'd make Pan and Scanned. I'd SUE if a movie of mine was Pan and Scanned. Uh, I haven't made a movie yet. LOL

This is simple political correctness. To beleive that someone is ordained by noble birth the be "better" than others is not a politically correct belief, as it goes against the idea that everyone is potentially equal.

IMDB shows two taglines. One of them says "Found by a man", not "Found by a King". Perhaps the LD was wrong. I like "Found by a man" better. Although Arthur didn't really find it. Everybody knew it was stuck in that rock.

The other is "No mortal could possess it! No kingdom could command it!" What the hell is that?

Well, my poster says "Found by a King". I think the Warner alternate coverart designer really wanted to hammer home his incompetence with that one.

The sword Excalibur, of course! One version of the legend says that Arthur is immortal, and will return one day. And pretty much the entire kingdom tried to retrieve the sword from the stone.

i watched this dvd for the first time in ages last night (also the first time i'd seen in on my 16:9 tv), and the top of the frame seems VERY cropped. it was a lot worse than i was fearing.

i might actually sell it on ebay, since i don't think i'd want to see it like this again.

It's really a shame that Excalibur can't stir up as much attention as Back to the Future for a properly framed DVD. I always loved this movie, I had to buy back my LD!

Ric

This is really disapointing news to me...I've passed on Excalibur on DVD a few times, but it was on my short list. Now it sounds like I'm glad I did pass...I knew there was a reason I kept my VCR.

IMHO this movie should be considered a classic. I can still remember my parents taking me to the R rated and making me stand out in the hall for the sex scenes (they watched it in advance to know where the naughty scenes were). I've watched my VHS tape too many times to count. What a tribute to the "fantasy" genre. I guess we'll just have to raise a fuss until they get the DVD right.

Well... maybe the framing is off, but at least the Region 2 edition I have has the same cover art as the LD

As a diehard Excalibur fan for many years, I'd love to see a decent SE of this, with a Boorman (and cast) commentary on ALL regions, not just the R1 version; any surviving deleted scenes; and a nice documentary. For me, this still beats LOTR for the best fantasy film I've seen, and given some of the crud that gets SE treatment, it's hard to imagine why Excalibur is treated so poorly.

It'd also be nice if whoever currently owns the film put in some money to film and add footage to the battle scenes, which suffer somewhat from looking like they had 20 knights on each side.

Jack, you are correct that this is so far the best rendition of the Arthur legend. But word has it THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING is finally in production - if this is done with the same care as, say, LORD OF THE RINGS, we are in for a treat.

Yes, definitely. I love this awesome movie and I'm annoyed that there's a framing issue with the DVD. Please, Warner Brothers give this classic movie some justice and re-release it as an SE or CE!


Many years ago during high school I believe, a teacher brought in a videotape of Excalibur and we watched it in class. I can't exactly recall if there were any additional scenes but the one thing that stuck out and I still remember is that particular version was broken up with the cards in between the various acts or phases of the story. For example, just before one of the knights of the round table was riding across the desolate landscape populated by begging and moaning people the screen was black and it read "The Dark Ages". So currently in the beginning of the movie as it lists the various important moments, that stuff was actually cut into the movie announcing the various passages of time. Kind of hard to explain and hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about. Maybe it was also like that on one of the LD versions?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Warner's DVD of another Boorman classic, DELIVERANCE is badly framed - overmatted, to be precise. It should be 2.40:1, but it is overmatted to somwhere in the region of 2.60-70:1 - GAH! But the transfer is sharp and colorful and the extras are interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------The only reson "DELIVERANCE" seems extra wide on DVD,is because the transfer has been windowboxed. This should also be the reason why you'd see more side info on the "EXCALIBUR" LD. As it was also windowboxed and the DVD most likely is not.

No, EXCALIBUR on DVD is absolutely misframed. Badly so. ANyone that has both the DVD and the Laserdisc can see this with their own eyes.

Wish I had thought to bring this subject up during the WB chat a week ago! This film is in bad need of a new transfer with correct framing.

Ric

Anyone know of a properly framed dvd overseas somewhere?

Last night, I compared the amount of headroom in my original VHS, cropped copy of Excalibur against the dvd; with overscan factored in, there was only the slightest bit of vertical gain in the VHS edition...I'd say about a tenth of an inch on the top and bottom over the dvd. More or less negligible. Predictably, there was also the subtantial gain in image width with the dvd. As far as viewing on 4 x 3 sets is concerned, the VHS has got nothing on the dvd.

Understanding the original laser framing apparently showed a good deal more vertical picture information than either the VHS or dvd, I'm still curious how this was framed theatrically.

Not having seen the laser, though, the dvd's the best I've ever seen this film look; I have no complaints. It's hard for me to believe that the vertical framing of the VHS would've been off a similar amount.

Any word on how Boorman feels about the film as is appears on dvd?



--Jack

i'm not sure what boorman's thoughts on the dvd are, but there are so many shots that looked badly misframed (mostly cramped headroom, etc) that i doubt he would approve.

wasn't he watching the transfer when he made his audio commentary?

not necessarily. a lot of times they're watching older LD transfers, or even VHS tapes.

it's entirely possible he was watching this DVD though....that doesn't change the fact that this transfer seems oddly cropped in the top of the frame.

i'd go as far as saying it wouldn't matter to me if Boorman approved the transfer. lovers of this film who are familiar with it seem to agree there is something "wrong" with the framing. artistically it just doesn't jive with the otherwise high quality of the production.

I think Excalibur is absolutely a classic. I hope some day it receives the special treatment that it deserves.

I went through and re-watched the entire film from the dvd while paying careful attention to the framing (on my 27 inch, 4 x 3 set).

I'd say there are just as many scenes which had little or no room to spare on the bottom of the frame as well; some shots barely incorporated important elements on both the top and bottom (no margin for error)...and it was scenes like these that made me think the framing actually seemed carefully done; a sensitive job of framing with--overall--too small a window of picture information to work with. I don't know how they could've opened up the vertical a little on this to give things a little more clearance in both directions...but maybe that's what it needed.

Pretty great image quality, though. Excalibur, sliding up out of the lake, lit with greenish light. Amazing.


--Jack

A year later...

Anyone heard any news info on this? I'd like to see them come out with a SE. I was hoping with the influx of new movies in this genre, they might try and take advantage.

I know this is a very old thread but still relevant. EXCALIBUR on DVD and even now on BD is a botched disaster. The film was shot hard matted (I had it from a Warners exec) at 1.66:1 aspect ratio. On DVD it was cropped to 1.85:1 and on Blu ray it has been cropped to 1.78:1. Both of these home video versions are WRONG. That is why there is no head room. It is unwatchable. If Warners had to absolutely release this film cropped for idiot HD 16x9 rather than retain the film's original aspect ratio, why didn't they reposition to a "common top" which would have given the image more comfortable head room?? Sony Home Entertainment have released A PASSAGE TO INDIA and JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS in their original 1.66:1, which means narrow black bars to the left and right of the image, to great success. WTF is wrong with Warners?? It is entirely possible that director John Boorman has sanctioned this half-assed attempt at "widescreen" for the one major hit film in his repertoire, so in that case Warners is not to blame. Cinematographer Alex Thomson is long dead and can do nothing to protest the truncation of his carefully framed work. This is a disgusting outrage that this sort of thing still happens. Blu ray format was supposed to be the definitive home video format that would allow a viewer to watch the movie as similar to how it was seen  theatrically.

 

DELIVERANCE was no slouch at the boxoffice, either. AV Maniacs has a thread about the framing (and I'm sure there must be others on here, too): http://www.avmaniacs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47092

And Hope and Glory, that did very well, too. Got Boorman an Oscar nom!

Thanks, Bob, read the thread. There is a serious problem with Excalibur and I don't buy their theory that it was zoomed in tight on a 1.85:1. Also, this idea that 1.66:1 British Flat is/was never shown in the US is not true. David Lean's A PASSAGE TO INDIA was shot 1.66:1 and was definitely screened as such in US theaters (and is still screened this way in revival theaters). Passage was released in 1984 which shatters the myth that British 1.66:1 was made obsolete by American 1.85:1 by 1980. Even in the late 90's, MRS. BROWN was released 1.66:1. It does seem to me that I saw a PAL to NTSC converted VHS of Excalibur nearly twenty years ago from the UK that seemed to have 1.85 framing and nothing then bothered me about it. I don't know if that's because I was just entering the film industry as an assistant editor and didn't know squat about aspect ratios, or if there is something wrong with the negative that warrants serious cropping. To me, it looks as if Warners has used the TV safe area only to frame this for 1.78. It's truly awful. I don't understand how this can be remotely enjoyable to watch when characters are literally popping out of the top of the frame, it's not even nice to look at.

 

My BD, which was thankfully inexpensive, will have to go into the recycle pile for my next trip to Amoeba.

Oh, I guess I should mention that I have no overscan on my monitor, or at least very little. My plasma inexplicably has two settings, one for 100% of the image, another for 95% (as if anyone would want anything other than 100% of the image...).