|
|
Posted by Rich Clark on 05/06/07 23:48
"The Great Attractor"
<SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote in message
news:9gps33p0fbm2ckmgerk0sr6fjcp8i65vj0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:00:20 -0400, "Rich Clark"
> <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"NRen2k5" <nomore@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:jMi%h.6432$PM5.14642@weber.videotron.net...
>>> Jonathan Brisby wrote:
>>>> O_o You paid to get a widescreen TV and now you wanna cut the sides
>>>> off? This boggles my mind.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me. The movie is 2.35:1. The screen is 1.78:1. There
>>> are black bars at the top and bottom. But maybe somehow by cutting the
>>> sides off of the movie it can be made to fit the 1.78:1 screen.
>>>
>>> Myself, I wouldn't mind too much. It wouldn't be as bad as watching the
>>> movie on a 1.33:1 screen.
>>
>>Un. Fucking. Believable.
>>
>>Cut of Mona Lisa's head because you happen to have a frame that's more
>>square than the painting. That makes so much sense.
>>
>>
> Nobody cut off anything idiot.
>
> That framing is what the director intended.
>
> For you to think that the movie was clipped to make it widescreen shows
> how little you know about film making.
>
> The is a BIG difference between a still PORTRAIT, and a FILM, which
> nearly ALWAYS depicts wider vista in the scope of their shots.
>
> Come back when you get a clue.
The guy wants to cut off the sides of the frame so the image fills his 16:9
monitor. He "wouldn't mind too much." How do you see that as "what the
director intended?"
Having a little trouble with the reading comprehension today, are we?
R
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|