On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:05:37 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:50:03 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

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



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.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC.

Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.

Your the only zero here.

Still well above you.

The human field of vision is about 200 degrees by the way.


It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.

Ideally the picture should be far wider.

Hence our eyes in the back of our heads.

Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more
misleading and inaccurate garbage.

Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.

You are stupid.

Looking in the mirror again dumbo.


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.

Fact

No it isn't.

Don't argue with better educated people.

I'm not - I'm arguing with a moron like you.



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

Why not?

Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.

Not been to an Imax cinema have you?

No I don't flush my money down the loo either.


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

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.