|
|
Posted by Fake Name on 06/03/07 03:54
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?
Are you just SuperM operating under a new name? You seem a lot like
that jack-ass.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|