Posted by moviePig on 12/03/06 00:01

Calvin wrote:
> 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.

Sorry to disappoint your weasel fetish... but no, it merely reflects a
very long-standing erroneous assumption I'd made about some arithmetic
I've never bothered to check.

I amend my remarks to say that 4:3 is given short, but not zero, shrift
by the compromise raster... and that any still-present bias towards the
wider formats remains relatively inconsequential, for the reasons
earlier stated.

--

/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/

[Back to original message]