|
|
Posted by Fake Name on 06/03/07 03:52
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:42:41 -0700, JackShephard
<SomewhereOnTheLOSTIsland@Sumplaceintime.org> wrote:
>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?
Why are you calling me an idiot? You didn't disagree with what I
said. You resorted to name calling.
To answer your rudely asked question, Polyvision, MGM Camera 65,
Cinerama, and Movietone come to mind. Unless you are suggesting that
those standards are in favor.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|