Framing and lack of headroom in Excalibur (1 Viewer)

[Sean Campbell]

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

 

[Ben JH]

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.

 

[Dick]

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.

 

[Gary->dee]

view the massively extended original cut that we all know exists

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?

 

[Jason Stocker]

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.

 

[Cassy_w]

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.

 

[Ric Easton]

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

 

[Mark_Wilson]

Anyone know of a properly framed dvd overseas somewhere?

 

[Jack Johnson]

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

 

[Sean Patrick]

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.

 

[Paul_Scott]

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?

 

[Sean Patrick]

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.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

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

 

[Jack Johnson]

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

 

[JeffPh]

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.

 

[24fpssean]

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.

 

[Bob Cashill]

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

 

[24fpssean]

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

 

[24fpssean]

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.

 

[24fpssean]

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...).