|
Posted by Fake Name on 04/28/07 03:22
> That's why he said UP TO 43%.
I never said otherwise. So why are you pointing this out?
> I do not agree that any cropped or P & S version has "more
>information".
I didn't claim that a pan and scan or a crop in 4:3 had more
information than a 16:9. Read the post again. I said that in some
cases the original film is in 4:3 so therefore no other version will
have as much information as the original. If the original film is 4:3
then there is no pan and scan nor is there a crop to present the work
in 4:3. If the original is 4:3 and then it is cropped to 16:9 then
the crop will have less information no matter to what you "agree". It
is much cheaper to film in 35mm 4:3 and transfer the images to digital
then edit than it is to use any other film. That is because much if
not all of TV that is still filmed is produced this way.
The only thing cheaper is to not use film at all but make the entire
process digital. I don't think we will see live action movies taped
digitally anytime soon.
>PERHAPS SOME have a bit "more above, and or below, but
>the total sum is LESS in every case as far as I am concerned, and that
>is not to mention that it is a sad aspect ration to view such works
>in.
16:9 is a superior aspect ratio. I'm not advocating that 4:3 is
better. My simple point that I think everyone else got was that there
are cases where 4:3 was used for the original work.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|