[beatboy77]

My wife and I rented Excaliber on HD-DVD tonight from Blockbuster. I had always wanted to see this film, so this was the perfect night to check it out. However I am shocked at the PQ on this one.


I saw lots of macroblocking, lots of banding and lots of noise. I have seen many Upconverted DVD's that blow this one away.


At times it almost seemed like the colors were shifting from bright to dim etc. I also noticed a fair amount of film debris while watching this film.


Has anyone else had a similar viewing experience with this release?


~Josh

 

[the47ronin]

yup definitely one of the worst looking films on HD-DVD in my opinion.

 

[luismanrara]

I rented it on netflix and watched it yesterday, parts of it anyway. besides not looking too hot, something is wrong with this movie. It's a slow, slow movie, as slow as life itself. What a weird flick.

 

[Paulidan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


I saw lots of macroblocking, lots of banding and lots of noise. I have seen many Upconverted DVD's that blow this one away.

Needless to say, you haven't seen an sd copy of Excalibur upscaled that 'blows this one away'.


I never noticed any macro-blocking on my copy. As far as noise, the film can be quite grainy at times- especially noticeable during the early Uther segments.


It wasn't a huge upgrade over the now budget sd dvd, but it was an upgrade nonetheless.

 

[bobgpsr]

Grainy in the low light scenes. Some of the brightly light, full sunshine scenes were fairly sharp. I saw no macroblocking. Enjoyed it esp the soundtrack with the Wagner and also Orff's Carmin Burana - O Fortuna. I wonder if John Boorman had a low budget back in 1981 to make this. Wasn't it a struggle for him to get it made?

 

[gordong11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


My wife and I rented Excaliber on HD-DVD tonight from Blockbuster. I had always wanted to see this film, so this was the perfect night to check it out. However I am shocked at the PQ on this one.


I saw lots of macroblocking, lots of banding and lots of noise. I have seen many Upconverted DVD's that blow this one away.


At times it almost seemed like the colors were shifting from bright to dim etc. I also noticed a fair amount of film debris while watching this film.


Has anyone else had a similar viewing experience with this release?


~Josh

I have both an XA2 and Excalibur. I have 15 HD Titles and this by far plays the worst. I wonder why they released it as such., but the quality is less than desireable. It is the only Title I own that is this way. The XA2 upconverts the SD version so well, it's almost better, and is better in some ways, only its 4:3.

 

[AaronSCH]

Did I watch the same disc? Mine looked pretty damn good. Once again someone makes a criticism without knowledge of what the director or cinematographer intended. But what really surprises me is that he commented on Excalibur being a bad transfer a couple of days ago in a different thread. So he rented tonight to confirm what he already knew?


In the Blu-ray Forum Thread "Sony Pictures Blu-Ray Problems??" He wrote the following on 1-17-07:

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


It is not new news that Sony's launch of Blu-ray was poor. So for Sony to be re-releasing the Fifth Element I feel shows another step in the right direction. It shows that they are now concentrating on quality vs. quantity. I also feel this will be a nice customer satisfaction gesture. I can only hope HD-DVD does this with some of their botched releases (Field of Dreams, Excalibur, The Breakfast Club, etc.).


I think what Sony is doing with its releases is releasing them strategically. As you can see right now there is a large amount of BD discs scheduled over the next 60 to 90 days. I think they will save many of their releases to fill in weeks where there may be a bit of a lull in releases from the other studios. I also think they will save the Spiderman Franchise for this upcoming Fall.

They do not want to make the mistake Universal made with HD-DVD and release a large amount of their best titles immediately. Essentially Universal has releases most of its modern hits already. Sure they still have Jurassic Park, Jaws, BTTF, etc., but I doubt we will see those anytime soon. By doing what Universal has done, you have the problem you have now with HD-DVD, essentially no new releases. They blew through their catalog quickly and now have to wait to put out other titles. Sony's/BDA's strategy is to have a constant flow of quality movies coming out week over week.


This war is like a marathon in a way. HD-DVD sprinted out of the gate and is now low on energy and Blu-ray limped out of the gate, reached a nice pace and is maintaining that pace. It's the classic tortoise and the hare situation. It's all a strategy.


~Josh

Is there anything objective about this guy? Someone truly neutral without an agenda would never have written the passage above. Yes, Beatboy77 could have been reporting what he read or heard but it supports a track record of trolling the HD DVD threads. If his behavior isn't trolling I don't know what is.


DVDTown's review of Excalibur:

Quote:
Reviewed by John J. Puccio:


Now, we have the HD-DVD in 1080 resolution, and again one can see noticeable improvement in sharpness and color, although perhaps not so great an improvement as in other HD-DVD releases, and certainly not the improvement one saw in the SD DVD over videotape. The HD-DVD's widescreen picture commendably fills a 1.78:1 television screen, and, yes, the colors are even more natural than before. Indeed, on direct comparison, the regular SD edition's hues seem more blurred and more garish, faces, for instance, appearing too orangish. However, even though the HD color is better, its greater definition makes the film's original print grain more noticeable than before, and given that most of the film's scenes are quite dark, visible print grain is inevitable. I must also add that there were a couple of brief moments when the image appeared to jitter a tad. It was almost indiscernible, but I'd swear it was present and repeatable. Fortunately, it should not be a concern to any viewer who isn't looking for it, and it passes so quickly it is not worth fretting over.


Understand, Boorman set out to make a dark and gritty film (these were the Dark Ages, after all). He sets most of his picture at night or inside dark castles or dark forests. Boorman meant "Excalibur" as a kind of medieval film noir. He was not after a pristine, crystal-clear look. So, as a result of the director's intent and perhaps the effects of time, "Excalibur" does not display the best-looking HD-DVD picture quality on disc, not by a long shot, but, as I've said, it probably comes pretty close to representing the film's original print, and that's what any good video reproduction should do.

 

[ricwhite]

You mean as often as you frequent this board and research high definition media, you DIDN'T know that Excalibur was a sub-par PQ disc? Hmm. . .

Okay . . . I'll choose a link for you. Let's see. . . Okay, this one . . .

Excalibur Review


If you like movies with horses running around with good PQ, I would recommend maybe. . . Seabiscuit.

 

[beatboy77]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ricwhite /forum/post/0


You mean as often as you frequent this board and research high definition media, you DIDN'T know that Excalibur was a sub-par PQ disc? Hmm. . .

Okay . . . I'll choose a link for you. Let's see. . . Okay, this one . . .

Excalibur Review

Thanks for the link!! No, I have never seen this one discussed on AVS. We rented it by chance anyway. My friend who lives in Reno, Nevada called last night and he had mentioned that we should rent it if it was in any of the HD formats.


I however thought it was the worst I have seen in PQ in HD. I thought the audio was fine for a movie of its age though. I also thought the storyline was quite boring. Oh well. Next week we will rent The Sting if it is available.


~Josh

 

[ricwhite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


Thanks for the link!! No, I have never seen this one discussed on AVS. We rented it by chance anyway. My friend who lives in Reno, Nevada called last night and he had mentioned that we should rent it if it was in any of the HD formats.


I however thought it was the worst I have seen in PQ in HD. I thought the audio was fine for a movie of its age though. I also thought the storyline was quite boring. Oh well. Next week we will rent The Sting if it is available.


~Josh

Do NOT go to Vegas. Just a tip.

 

[beatboy77]



Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronSCH /forum/post/0


Did I watch the same disc? Mine looked pretty damn good. Once again someone makes a criticism without knowledge of what the director or cinematographer intended. But what really surprises me is that he commented on Excalibur being a bad transfer a couple of days ago in a different thread. So he rented tonight to confirm what he already knew? DVDTown's review of Excalibur:




Yes, Beatboy could have been reporting what he read or heard but it supports a track record of trolling the HD DVD threads. He spends his time trashing HD DVD and praises even the most flawed Blu-ray titles. I don't recall reading anything negative about Blu-ray coming from him. If his behavior isn't trolling I don't know what is.

That is not true. I have seen a few Blu-ray's as well which I did not care for, such as Rocky and House of the Flying Daggers. I was just surprised at the PQ of this release. This has absolutely nothing to do with trolling. Anyway the person who placed the link to the hidefdigest review kind of confirmed my experience. That reviewer gave it a 2/5 for PQ and a 2/5 for AQ. I disagree with the AQ score though.


I had seen bits and pieces of this film before at a local Bestbuy as they were playing it as a demo. It has since been replaced with Field of Dreams.


~Josh

 

[beatboy77]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ricwhite /forum/post/0


Do NOT go to Vegas. Just a tip.

Sorry Ric, we go two or three times a year. Always stay at The Flamingo. I think my Wife and I are addicted to Las Vegas

~Josh

 

[Forceflow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


That is not true. I have seen a few Blu-ray's as well which I did not care for, such as Rocky and House of the Flying Daggers. I was just surprised at the PQ of this release. This has absolutely nothing to do with trolling. Anyway the person who placed the link to the hidefdigest review kind of confirmed my experience. That reviewer gave it a 2/5 for PQ and a 2/5 for AQ. I disagree with the AQ score though.


I had seen bits and pieces of this film before at a local Bestbuy as they were playing it as a demo. It has since been replaced with Field of Dreams.


~Josh

didn't you like Field of Dreams?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ield+of+Dreams


Your only criticisms are that it had grain (which shouldn't be a complaint, but a compliment).

 

[ricwhite]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


Sorry Ric, we go two or three times a year. Always stay at The Flamingo. I think my Wife and I are addicted to Las Vegas

~Josh

So, your luck's better there, eh? Of all the HD DVDs to pick off the shelf, you choose the worst one. Well, okay. . . second to worst one. I'd give the nod to Guitarscape Planet

I sent my copy to Jack Bauer. I think he can find a better use for it.

 

[beatboy77]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceflow /forum/post/0


didn't you like Field of Dreams?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ield+of+Dreams


Your only criticisms are that it had grain (which shouldn't be a complaint, but a compliment).

Yeah, I didn't mind Field of Dreams as it is in my Top 10 favorite movies ever. Why would you think I disliked it?


~Josh

 

[beatboy77]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ricwhite /forum/post/0


So, your luck's better there, eh? Of all the HD DVDs to pick off the shelf, you choose the worst one. Well, okay. . . second to worst one. I'd give the nod to Guitarscape Planet

I sent my copy to Jack Bauer. I think he can find a better use for it.

Well the only reason we rented it was on the recommendation that the story was good. I have never seen the Guitarscape Planet disc, so I will avoid that one. I was just very surprised by Excalibur because it has a lot of scenes which could be breathtaking if restored/transfered properly. Out of an HD30/VC-1 disc I just expected a lot more. When this comes to Blu-ray I will be sure to avoid it.


~Josh

 

[Forceflow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


Yeah, I didn't mind Field of Dreams as it is in my Top 10 favorite movies ever. Why would you think I disliked it?


~Josh

Originally Posted by beatboy77

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 /forum/post/0


It is not new news that Sony's launch of Blu-ray was poor. So for Sony to be re-releasing the Fifth Element I feel shows another step in the right direction. It shows that they are now concentrating on quality vs. quantity. I also feel this will be a nice customer satisfaction gesture. I can only hope HD-DVD does this with some of their botched releases (Field of Dreams, Excalibur, The Breakfast Club, etc.).

This was a quote from above in this thread. I haven't seen The Breakfast Club, but Field of Dreams was not a bad transfer (nothing like TFE and HOFD).

 

[maverick0716]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luismanrara /forum/post/0


I rented it on netflix and watched it yesterday, parts of it anyway. besides not looking too hot, something is wrong with this movie. It's a slow, slow movie, as slow as life itself. What a weird flick.

You have to be very interested in the King Arthur tales to like this movie. I happen to like it.

 

[alfbinet]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceflow /forum/post/0


Originally Posted by beatboy77



This was a quote from above in this thread. I haven't seen The Breakfast Club, but Field of Dreams was not a bad transfer (nothing like TFE and HOFD).

Evidently from your above post with quotes beatboy 77 thought Field of Dreams was a botched job.

 

[Cornflakeguy]

Excaliber is an awesome movie. It's not slow at all. It's 'focused'.

But it IS weird. I like my Arthurian legends weird.