|
|
Posted by Fake Name on 06/02/07 05:20
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:41:13 -0700, elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>On May 31, 8:52 pm, JackShephard
>> Your perception as well as your assertion is fucking bent.
>
>2.35:1 used to be the exception not the rule. Now it's actually rare
>for me to even see a 1.87:1 film. In the last few years, it seems even
>independent and low-budget films have gone to 2.35:1. Of the wide
>spectrum of films I've rented over the last year (a good mix of indy
>and studio films), I'd say over 85% of them were 2.35:1, even when it
>made no damn sense. That most definitely WOULD NOT have been the case
>ten years ago.
>
>-Eric
I think it's because of editing. I don't think many edit in film
stock anymore. Because of the cheap and widely available digital
editing systems make it less practical to use a ratio that's out of
favor.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|