Posted by Calvin on 12/02/06 23:04

moviePig wrote:
> Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
> the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
> and 2:35:1)...

16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1

moviePig wrote: (in a later post)

> By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.

If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no sense.

[Back to original message]