MichaelB wrote:The Reckoning had never previously had a video release on any format in its native country, so it was absolutely worth doing. Yes, it's not exactly a 4K restoration, but on its own terms it's perfectly watchable.
I understand the difficulties of having to deal with this kind of pragmatism, but I suppose many people buying Indicator's DFs releases certainly are doing so for the BD disc (as Indicator themselves said when switching to BD-only releases) and this certainly comes with certain technical expectations (and one could argue “perfectly watchable” could be insufficient). Why then not releasing the movie just on DVD if it’s to otherwise release a mediocre-at-best BD ?
That's the consumer nuance I wanted to provide. It's not so much a question of obsessively prioritise PQ, but rather a question of making sure that if you're selling a movie on a superior video format, the capacities of this superior format are adequately used. With some dated HD masters, it just isn't the case.
Regarding The Reckoning specifically, if I had to give it a grade, I’d probably give it something like 5.5 out of 10. That’s not what I expect of a BD. I’m OK with something going down to, say, 7 out of 10 (which doesn’t need a brand new 4K OCN restoration to reach), I'd still believe my money is well spent, but otherwise, it might not feel so, hence my concern. For instance, I’m OK with some old HD masters like Day of the Jackal, Le samourai, Mickey One, Brute Force or others, they feel OK enough to warrant a BD release. But Dark Water, The Reckoning, Sword of Doom ?
I'm not saying it's an easy decision to make for the labels and I don't want to belittle some of these decisions (though I'm certain some labels just don't care at all, and those should be pointed ou). I'm just saying that, from a BD-buyer point of view, using such type of material might dilute the will to purchase the release because in the majority of the cases, I could have just got the DVD for cheaper.
