Posted by SuperM on 04/25/07 08:58

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:08:15 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> Gave us:

>"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

scope

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

[Reply to this message]