And Then There Were None (1945) Blu-ray - July 16th (1 Viewer)

[JoHud]

Well, I'll be sticking to by Image DVD. It appears to have a better greyscale compared to VCI's overly dark and murkey edition in addition to some unwelcome cropping. Detail might be better but it doesn't look like something I'd go out of my way to find out anytime soon.

 

[Will Krupp]

Detail might be better but it doesn't look like something I'd got out of my way to find out anytime soon.

It's really not. Any gain in detail is wiped out by the fact that the picture is so dark you can't actually see it. Is it possible that the blu-ray was mastered from a 16mm source?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I'll be sticking to by Image DVD. It appears to have a better greyscale compared to VCI's overly dark and murkey edition in addition to some unwelcome cropping. Detail might be better but it doesn't look like something I'd got out of my way to find out anytime soon.

I looked at both the BD and the Image DVD again. IMO, they're both pretty bad as some scenes with the lighter picture I prefer on the Image DVD and then there were some scenes I prefer on the BD. Either way, both aren't good and I spent enough time on these lackluster presentations. I won't recommend this BD to anybody and if you have the Image DVD then keep it with your already sunken cost.

 

[kevin_y]

I got the VCI Blu-ray today. I see fine grains that indicate a high-def transfer, such as in this screenshot. But for those with smaller screen, where grains may not be as obvious, the lack of sharpness may make this BD look like DVD, frankly. Will Krupp may be right that this may be from a 16mm print.

Robert, at first you said the VCI Blu-ray was a "definite improvement" over the Image DVD. In your last post, you seem to reverse course somewhat and said both prints were just as bad. I hope you reverse a little further and say what is obvious to me and Will, that the VCI print is simply not in the same league as the Image print, both visually and aurally. Not to mention, you compared the BD with the Image DVD, where the BD's higher resolution has an advantage. Do what I did, and compare the VCI *DVD* with the Image DVD instead. You'll see the clarity of the Image DVD blows its counterpart out of the water.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I got the VCI Blu-ray today. I see fine grains that indicate a high-def transfer, such as in this screenshot. But for those with smaller screen, where grains may not be as obvious, the lack of sharpness may make this BD look like DVD, frankly. Will Krupp may be right that this may be from a 16mm print.

Robert, at first you said the VCI Blu-ray was a "definite improvement" over the Image DVD. In your last post, you seem to reverse course somewhat and said both prints were just as bad. I hope you reverse a little further and say what is obvious to me and Will, that the VCI print is simply not in the same league as the Image print, both visually and aurally. Not to mention, you compared the BD with the Image DVD, where the BD's higher resolution has an advantage. Do what I did, and compare the VCI *DVD* with the Image DVD instead. You'll see the clarity of the Image DVD blows its counterpart out of the water.

Sorry Kevin, I spent more time than I wanted on this bad BD as I move onto other titles to view in the coming days.

 

[kevin_y]

VCI Blu-ray screen captures for your viewing (dis)pleasure.

Direct comparison of the VCI Blu-ray and the Image DVD. Note how little difference between the two in terms of details and sharpness.

I forgot what a Blu-ray should look like after watching the VCI BD for 90min! Just to remind myself (and others), here is a comparison of the "Laura" BD and DVD. There should be significant improvement in all aspects of the picture quality going from SD to HD, the kind of improvement that is definitely not present on the VCI BD..