Re: native 16:9 programming
- From: cjdaytonjrnospam@xxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Feb 2006 22:15:21 GMT
"gordon shumway" <shumway@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<cjdaytonjrnospam@xxxxxxx> wrote in messageSorry, I did not mean to imply that it was. I meant that movies that are
news:20060228120658.961$fM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Terence" <auriga_m38@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From my perspective... professional sports and nature documentariesseem to take the most advantage out of the wider viewing screen.
I guess the reason I had asked was I was curious to know if
directors/post-production crews would start making different decisions
with regards to how a scene is framed, knowing that the majority of
their intended audience would be watching the program in SD or in 16:9
HD.
I think most use 16:9 as the reference. That is why pan and scan was
invented.
I do not think pan and scan is used for TV. That is a guess, so if
someone has a source I will stand corrected.
originally shot in 16:9 and then edited to 4:3 are at least sometimes shown
in pan and scan.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
.
- References:
- native 16:9 programming
- From: Terence
- Re: native 16:9 programming
- From: leaky
- Re: native 16:9 programming
- From: Terence
- Re: native 16:9 programming
- From: cjdaytonjrnospam
- Re: native 16:9 programming
- From: gordon shumway
- native 16:9 programming
- Prev by Date: Re: native 16:9 programming
- Previous by thread: Re: native 16:9 programming
- Next by thread: Re: BAd News!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|