Search results

RickER I never said I was in favour of watching pan and scan versions of WS films,I just believe it would have been better off filming them in 4:3 in the first place. Regarding Ben Hur if you watch that in 2.35 even on a 16:9 screen you are still losing a whole lot of resolution anyway...

Well I think I have the arguement, I am not sure why some people are so afraid of the truth through, you can still watch widescreen on a widescreen set so they aint worthless although I am not sure if a movie over a few months old actually has any worth anyway. Another interesting fact is...

"Isn't that an oxymoron? Back under your bridge now, little guy. " Bit rich to be mocking pan and scan since thats how all your beloved movies are made!!!!!! The camera pans and scans the real world to make a film and when you are watching the film your eyes pan and scan the screen, so...

"Are you watching 3-D movies? Otherwise, that is a faulty syllogism. " Well know I am not I was just taking up the issue of the requirement for the screen to be the shape of our field of vision and that the expression 'field of vision' can be interpruted in many ways. As it happens is...

Oh, even though I said the field of vision thing might be a bit of a red herring maybe there is something in it because from the FOV angles I suplied (180 horizontal, 130 vertical) we have a ratio of 180/130 which is 1:1.38 which is surprisingly close to 4:3 which is...1:1.33 ;)

All a movie camera does is mimic the eye and the pupil of our eyes is round, as is the area of the retina we use for detailed vision. I think the field of vision thing is a bit of a red herring anyway as the screen usually only occupies a small fraction of our FOV, probably about 5% for...

"The total amount of the environment that can be seen by both eyes is called monocular field of vision and extends over a 180° horizontal field of view and a 130° vertical field of view (cf. figure 2.21). The portion of this visual field shared by both eyes is known as binocular field of...

No they wouldn't they would go for a sensible format closer to the the round camera of our eye, maybe even make it a little wider to give it a bit of a shape, 4:3 would be a good candidate. Then it would also be compatible with 50 years of television, which is what most people watch.

The main reason you don't see tall formats is that you can't have a very big picture without a tall cimema to show it in and itis cheaper to build low wide cinemas. It not correct to say there are more wide images you have just chosen a particular subkect matter. People, who kind of appear...

ChrisWiggles ?????? A 4:3 'lens' is far more efficient then 16:9 as you don't know what shaped image you will be filming then the closer to a circle you get you achieve the bect comprimise between tall and wide shapes. 16:9 is geat for wide images but utterly useless for tall inages...

Gralen, if that film had been panned and scanned properly for 4:3 it would have been blindly obvious who was in the room, thats just pure idleness on behalf of the person who produced the 4:3 image. It's just like a camera man pointing his camera in the wrong place and the incorrect shot...

Your field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide because of your nose, the angle you can see with both eyes is quite narrow because of this, however up and down there is nothing to block your vision. Hence your field of 3D vision is taller than it is wide, much of what people call...

Having your eyes side by side does not give you wider vision it just gives you depth of vision as the two *circular* images from each eye are combined into one '3D' image. It's a common misconception that your two eyes give you 'wide' vision.

Actuallly Brits are probably keaner on widescreen than you yanks unfortunately, I put it down to brainwashing by the cinema industry. Widescreen was only introduced because it would not transfer well to 4:3 televisions which were taking the cinemas audiances away, why pay to go to the...

The human field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide, and the 'camera' of the human eye is actually round because this is the most efficient shape to pan and scan with, the eye cannot afford to waste billions of cells. What matters is we use the best shape to present the image to...

I am not against the OAR I just think it would be better for all if it was 4:3. its just more efficient which means better films which take up less space on a DVD (less wastage) and similarly waste less bandwidth when broadcast, which means you can have more channels and hence more choice...

Well oviously they want to watch the film in format in which it was filmed, but that doesn't mean the format it was filmed in was a sensible format in the first place. That the arguement based on a false premise I refered to. Now we (in the UK) are in the horrible situation where 4:3...

Believe me I know all the benefits of WS, it has none., it's a silly format as anyone who looks at a TV twice as wide as it is tall instantly notices. Then they require a lenghty explaination of why widescreen is best which is basically a false explainatuion because it starts out from the...

I will probably be about a popular as a pig in a Synagogue for saying this but I think it's time the Widescreen format was dropped. Widescreen was only introduced as a format because you couldn't really display it on a TV (to boost cinema audiances) now however, many people have Widescreen...