|
|
Posted by Bill's News on 12/03/06 00:18
moviePig wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3
>>> movies.
>>> For the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise
>>> (between
>>> 1.85:1 and 2:35:1)...
>>
>> 16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1
>>
>> moviePig wrote: (in a later post)
>>
>>> By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the
>>> raster
>>> field.
>>
>> If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no
>> sense.
>
> Sorry to disappoint your weasel fetish... but no, it merely
> reflects a
> very long-standing erroneous assumption I'd made about some
> arithmetic
> I've never bothered to check.
>
> I amend my remarks to say that 4:3 is given short, but not
> zero,
> shrift by the compromise raster... and that any still-present
> bias
> towards the wider formats remains relatively inconsequential,
> for the
> reasons earlier stated.
>
You'd probably benefit from this:
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/simp.txt ;-0)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|