Roy Orbison - BLACK & WHITE NIGHT [HD-DVD]

[JonUrban]

Please post your thoughts and comments on this HD-DVD with a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. :thumbsdow

(For the DTS DVD, the DTS DVD w/SACD or the DTS DVD w/DVD-Audio, see the thread in the DVD music poll)

[JonUrban]

OK. We bought this on DTS DVD, then we bought it for the DVD-Audio, then the SACD. Should we buy it again???

(Link to SACD/DVD-A HiRez Poll Thread)

Well, I did. But I'm not sure why. It's great, no doubt. But if you already have the above versions, you may want to stick with them.

First off, it's Black & White (DUH! - See title ), secondly, it's a bit on the grainy side, so the "HD" is not a "hit you over the head" HD. It's 16x9, it looks great, but it can't be described as an HD demo disc.

The sound, as you would expect, is of course a 10. The surround mix is very aggressive, and anyone with the DTS DVD, SACD, or DVD-A knows this. You have to suspend reality when listening. There's a raging debate over at the AVS forum where some members are aghast that a guitar will burst out at them from the rears when it's clearly in front of them on the screen!!!

Aside from that, it's great to see the interaction of the band during the songs. Especially the jam on "Pretty Woman". T Bone Brunett and Bruce Springsteen have a great guitar duel while the rest of them strum on, all with smiles the size of your sub woofer. Very cool.

So, if HD-DVD is to "go away", you may want to grab this one while you can, especially if you don't have the earlier DVD versions. If you do, you can probably live without it. The SACD and DVD-A both come with the DTS DVD, and right there you have the video AND the HiRez.

So any way you do it, you're covered!

Surround: 10; Audio: 10; Content: 9 MY VOTE: 10

[uffeolby]

First off, it's Black & White (DUH! - See title ), secondly, it's a bit on the grainy side, so the "HD" is not a "hit you over the head" HD. It's 16x9, it looks great, but it can't be described as an HD demo disc.

16x9 you say, do you mean anamorphfic 16:9? If so this is new, my DVD is 4:3 or what you Americans like to call Full Frame...

//Uffe

[JonUrban]

16x9 you say, do you mean anamorphfic 16:9? If so this is new, my DVD is 4:3 or what you Americans like to call Full Frame...

//Uffe

This is an HD-DVD, not the standard DVD. It's 16x9, anamorphic does not apply to High Definition discs. Actually, I haven't A/B'd it, but it may be cropped at the top and bottom. I would have to compare the images from the DVD to the HD-DVD to be sure.

However, just watching it without "thinking", it looks pretty natural at 16x9.

[Ed Bishop]

This is an HD-DVD, not the standard DVD. It's 16x9, anamorphic does not apply to High Definition discs. Actually, I haven't A/B'd it, but it may be cropped at the top and bottom. I would have to compare the images from the DVD to the HD-DVD to be sure.

However, just watching it without "thinking", it looks pretty natural at 16x9.

It would, if you don't check the original source...

Haven't seen it, but I suspect it's probably matted. A fullframe image, by logic, should be 'windowboxed' for 16x9, but if the McCartney video comp is the wave of the future, expect the top and/or bottom of the image to be chopped off to make it more rectangular. The irony, of course, is that for years we championed the companies putting out letterboxed transfers on LD, which has now become the norm on DVD. But no one asked anyone to take fullframe and remove video information just because the monitor format is changing, or to make a non-anamorphic image look 'cinematic.'

The philistines still have their moments of ignominy; I fear they will prevail.

ED

[atrocity]

This is an HD-DVD, not the standard DVD. It's 16x9, anamorphic does not apply to High Definition discs. Actually, I haven't A/B'd it, but it may be cropped at the top and bottom. I would have to compare the images from the DVD to the HD-DVD to be sure.

However, just watching it without "thinking", it looks pretty natural at 16x9.

I haven't seen the HD-DVD so I'm just speculating here, but it isn't uncommon to shoot a 4:3 frame with nothing unwanted intruding into the top or bottom of that space while keeping the action centered within 16:9 or 1.85:1. It would probably be a bit unusual to have done that for a 1980s cable TV special, but maybe they were considering theatrical exhibition at the time.

[deepsky4565]

It is definitely cropped, but as Jon said, it looks uncramped, and very natural. I'm lovin' it.

[atrocity]

The irony, of course, is that for years we championed the companies putting out letterboxed transfers on LD, which has now become the norm on DVD. But no one asked anyone to take fullframe and remove video information just because the monitor format is changing, or to make a non-anamorphic image look 'cinematic.'

The philistines still have their moments of ignominy; I fear they will prevail.

It's definitely a concern. But things get really fuzzy, sometimes: Even going back into the 1960s, a lot of dramatic TV shows were shot in a manner that made them look OK at 4:3 but with "loose" compositions that would survive matting to 1.85:1. This allowed the producers to create "feature films" for overseas showings that consisted of edited-together episodes of TV shows.

I've noticed this in the oddest places...several years back I was watching my laserdisc set of "Thriller" episodes (the old Boris Karloff-hosted series) in 4:3 on a 16:9 set and realized that there was a lot of headroom. I blew it up to 16:9 and (though with a few exceptions) the compositions looked a lot more natural.

This kind of confusion goes back to the mid-1950s when negatives shot at 4:3 might be projected at that ratio or 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. "Scope" movies were the only ones that the makers could generally be certain would be shown at a standard, predictable aspect ratio.

[JonUrban]

Without dragging up an old subject [] - - I can take cropping on the top and bottom better than I can take cropping on the sides, mostly because there is more stuff to be missed by losing the sides than losing the top/bottom.

Still, I have always supported the practice of keeping everything the way that it was originally done as one "option". It would be cool if the disc contained the 4:3 and the "new" 16x9, selectable from the main menu.

[dr8track]

OK. We bought this on DTS DVD, then we bought it for the DVD-Audio, then the SACD. Should we buy it again???

I originally bought this on VHS, which shows just how long this title has been reincarnated.

[PossumPete]

I just christened my new HD-DVD player with this. A special moment for me!

Aggressive isn't strong enough to describe the mix. It has to be the most rear-intensive mix I've ever heard. It's great!

I've got the Eagles on now and Roy blows them away!

I give it an "11".

[KingRT]

Reference quality.

[Chris Gerhard]

I have the SACD, DVD-V, CD, Blu-ray and HD DVD of this. I haven't even opened up the Blu-ray yet, I only purchased it because it was insanely low priced. I keep on almost buying the DVD-A when I see a deal on it but so far have been able to avoid the lunacy of redundancy redundancy redundancy redundancy. I know it was also available on VHS, but what about LaserDisc, Beta, and Cassette? This one is among my favorite concerts regardless of format and due to the fact the artists are often 5 or 6 wide, I think it looks fine to me cropped on the top and/or bottom, it should have been filmed widescreen. Jackson Browne and the others certainly aren't tall enough to have their hairdos cropped but I also prefer this not be done. I didn't want it down when I had 4:3 displays and now that I use 16x9 displays, I still don't want cropping. This one example doesn't really offend me other than it is no-no. When my children did something foolish without harm, I still explained why it was bad and this is no different.

I have only played the HD DVD since I purchased it none of the other versions have left their cases, it is definitely a concert to be viewed, even though it is Black and White and Bruce Sprinsteen hams it up a bit at times.

Chris

[oxenholme]

Spectacularly good on blu-ray.

[georgeshannon]

I almost purchased the blu-ray disc yesterday but couldn't find a description of the audio format. Can someone who has the blu-ray version of this show tell us what the audio format is please? The disc was for sale at $8 but the description of the audio put me off.

[Chris Gerhard]

I almost purchased the blu-ray disc yesterday but couldn't find a description of the audio format. Can someone who has the blu-ray version of this show tell us what the audio format is please? The disc was for sale at $8 but the description of the audio put me off.

No idea what description of the audio put you off but various audio formats are available from the Blu-ray disc including lossless DTS-HD MA 5.1.

[georgeshannon]

Thanks Chris. They had it listed as "Format: AC-3, Dolby, Widescreen."

[leevitalone1]

No idea what description of the audio put you off but various audio formats are available from the Blu-ray disc including lossless DTS-HD MA 5.1.

BD version is DTS master audio and a whopping!!!! 96k the 1st BD I have seen at 96k.
I'm sure there are others but, I am not aware of them yet.
I was wondering why it was so present and clear.