"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)




Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller than
wide)
is great for showing just that, a portrait of one person, or a full
document, but since our eyes are side by side, not one over the other,
when


Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image.
( Unless you are ****ed out of your mind and have double vision)

you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's little
of
interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the popularity of panoramic
photos for showing a scene.

Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you
are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems
to
the be all and end all of their exiatance.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
assuming
a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside from having to try
harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture and needing to be zoomed
out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes, but the fact of the matter is
that's not the case, and movies are filmed wider than they are tall.
That's
the way it's been for a long time and it's unlikely for that to change.
Are
you a troll or what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam
the round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone else.

I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have
to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.

Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is
best.