"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.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:49:51 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"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.

No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
view than the old 4:3 sets.

( 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.

We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
we are looking at.

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.

But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
wrong.



--
Bob.

Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:49:51 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"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.

No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
view than the old 4:3 sets.

Completely wrong. Prove it. You can't

( 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.

We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
we are looking at.

Wrong.

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.

But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
wrong.
yes it is.

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