On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:08pIb.175235$8y1.531705@attbi_s52...


Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant, the
fact
is that it's the format of the future, virtually every movie in
existance
was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than 4:3.


Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot on
that format....




Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for newer
films
16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for WS.

Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I can't think
of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and a very occasional
show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's use is for wide material
then it would make sense to go with a wide set should I ever get a newer
one
than I have.

Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think
your cinema proprietor knows better.

Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
TV.

I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a
wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence
greater profits.

Rubbish.

With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.

Why not?

Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)

--
Bob.

If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.