|
|
Posted by JackShephard on 06/02/07 08:42
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:20:00 -0500, Fake Name <fakename@fake.com> wrote:
>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.
What ratio is out of favor, idiot?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|