Posted by Richard C. on 04/25/07 01:08

"SuperM" <SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote in
message news:gd8t23heaa9lem2qv7ba6vu105lgesgi3s@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:49:25 -0700, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> Gave us:
>
>>"SuperM" <SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote
>>in
>>message news:o6qq235fs5sca6vgo1j2kesi2hr9de4kid@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> And NO, it is NOT "called anamorphic".
>>
>>==========================
>>Actually, it is.
>
> No, it isn't.

====================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
http://www.htmarket.com/unpaanle.html
http://rafcamera.com/mcl/anamorphic.htm
etc, etc

• Next in forum: Killfile Update: SuperM (was: why 2.35:1 ?)
• Prev in forum: Re: why 2.35:1 ?
• Thread view: Re: why 2.35:1 ?

[Reply to this message]