Posted by moviePig on 12/03/06 00:26

Bill's News wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You'd probably benefit from this:
> http://www.textfiles.com/humor/simp.txt ;-0)

I plead duress. Calvin was eyeing me for a weasel scarf...

--

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

[Back to original message]