But, thanks to all who added to this discussion! Kev
From: ed___...@hotmail.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:07:28 +
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3
yeah you're right brook - i was being at least a little flippant, which is a
stupid idea
wrote:
From: Gawthrop, Rob rob.gawth...@falmouth.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Date: Friday, October 21, 2011, 4:35 PM
What frame ratio do people think is best for a painting and should it be
cropped later
to make up for all the lost time in their lives.
I might start trying it myself! :)
love
Freya
--- On Thu, 10/20/11, Tom Whiteside tom.whites...@duke.edu wrote:
From: Tom Whiteside tom.whites...@duke.edu
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks
In a message dated 10/21/2011 10:26:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
on-on...@hotmail.com writes:
What frame ratio do people think is best for a painting and should it be
cropped later to fit the ready-made picture-frame?
Rob
Funny. That's about it,
For anyone over, say, 21, and under 50, I'd bet 4:3 means first and foremost
'TV' and widescreen means 'movies.' So I'd guess what's going on is that people
like things that remind them of movies and dislike things that remind them of
TV. ?
On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Kevin Timmins
I suspect they grew up with 16:9 tv's that did the horrible stretch
thing with 4:3 footage. My students definitely have no pro/con bias
for 4:3 or any other aspect ratio. If anything, some are annoyed that
16:9 is becoming such a standard - not because they dislike the ratio,
but because of the
