Originally Posted by Leterface
This about sums what I meant:
" Where damage and other age-related issues of wear and tear make their presence felt, they do so without any untoward level of distraction.
Ironically, there are instances of vertical lines appearing on the frame, conjuring-up thoughts of the effect seeing these would have upon Peck's character if he caught sight of them.*"
I'm not looking for general comments - I'm looking for specific instances of what you consider "vagaries." Because I have to tell you, there really aren't any. This film looks as good as it's ever looked, and I've seen it many times, from original 35mm release prints to 16mm - I believe the "vagaries" you speak of are inherent to the source material and not a transfer issue. There are a lot of opticals in this film - those look exactly like opticals. There is work with diffusion filters and that looks like it should. There is no wear and tear other than some very light scratches during the first few minutes.
What I'm trying to do here is point out a rather flawless transfer. Transfers get blamed all the time for what turns out to be the way the film was made, photographed, etc. Those are not transfer issues. Spellbound looks great on Blu-ray, but the only people who'd really know that for sure are people who are well acquainted with the look of the film from seeing it ON film, not home video.