On 02/02/2012 02:38 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
P.s. I also think 4:3 is better than 16:9 as a square fits a round pupil better, if the media fit such as some of the footage in Imax Cinemas. I think that's more down to making hollywoods job easier over better, same as IBM ;-).
4:3 is a poor canvas for a film maker though. I prefer 16:9 or even better 21:9. No one is really sure why Edison's engineer chose 4:3 though they think it had something to do with the sprocket hole placement. The Lumiere Brothers chose the 5:3 aspect ratio perhaps because their film was set up for postcard pictures. And believe the actual argument goes our eyes see more like 21:9 than a square canvas (unless you're myopic). There was a good article the other day on why 4K HDTV for the home didn't make sense though they do for theaters. We get 16:9 displays on devices probably because the LCD market went that direction and the desire for users to play videos on them. 16:9 portrait is better than 4:3 for text (remember the Mac text monitors on the 1980s).
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
