"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound
and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the
question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


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. Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

James Sweet wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , half_pint
writes

"Bob Brenchley." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound

and

audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the

question,

the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.


I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?



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....


Regardless of the reason,
this means that the director intended it to be viewed in a widescreen format
so with a 4:3 screen you miss things on the edges of the screen. If theaters
were all 4:3 then the shots would be made so as to not place things off the
edges. That said, I don't own a widescreen set, but I do have one large
enough that WS movies are of acceptable size. Many DVD's have both formats
on one disc so there's no compromise, and to me DVD is an amazing format,
it's the first to really catch on since VHS and side by side there's no
comparison. The picture and sound quality from DVD is amazing, the whole
movie fits on one side of one disc, there's random access, no rewinding, and
the discs themselves are compact and cheap, they don't wear out, it's the
only format I buy anymore.

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.

"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.
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. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.
Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)



--
---------------
regards half_pint

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.

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
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.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC. It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.
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.


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


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.

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

--
---------------
regards half_pint

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.

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

Ideally the picture should be far wider.

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.


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.


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?

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

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

half_pint wrote:


Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception,

Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.

depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow extermely
shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh vertical, at night.

Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180 vertically.
And precious little binocular.

We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.




do you think
your cinema proprietor knows better.
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. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.


Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So the
newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has been
around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show more
sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not featire a
single talking head, and things like car chases benefit from gerater
horizontal stuff.


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


Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema money.

Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow fashions

to help obosolete old kit.






--
---------------
regards half_pint

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
half_pint wrote:


Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception,

Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.

depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow
extermely shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh
vertical, at night.

Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180
vertically.
And precious little binocular.

We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.

Wrong our field of viable 20/20 vision is about 20 degrees IIRC, look it up.
You *cannot* effectively use peripheral vison to watch TV.




do you think
your cinema proprietor knows better.
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. With a taller screen you cannot seat people
in vertical space
required to show the film.


Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So
the newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has
been
around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show
more sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not
featire a single talking head, and things like car chases benefit
from gerater horizontal stuff.

Thats a bit garbled. It is a fact the the taller the picture the less people
you can seat per unit area, a 10 year old child could work that out.
( You may find tha maths a bit taxing presumably)


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


Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema
money.
And most are not even WS, I seem so many complaints about it from
pretentious 'purists'


Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow
fashions

to help obosolete old kit.

The fashion of economics and profit, not good picture making.






--
---------------
regards half_pint

--
---------------
regards half_pint