 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Actually... posted by Carl Eber on December 19, 2001 at 04:39:03:
Why 2.35:1 (or wider) vs. 1.85:1? A wider image has more visual impact.If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range.
Your specific complaint about TPM is a preference and Lucas' preference doesn't align with yours.
You could get a DVD player such as the Panasonic RP-91 (or many others) others with scaling/zoom to expand the image to fit a 16:9 screen and get a similar effect to taken the 2.35:1 OAR into a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.
Regards,
Follow Ups:
The point was, that there is information missing in the 2.35:1 version on the DVD (from the top and bottom)."If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range."
Ah, but what is that range? Is it exactly 2.35:1, with squared borders? And, what does this have to do with anything anyway?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
