Re: [photo-3d] Re: screen shapes

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please do not take my comments out of context.  Go back and read my original
posting, and you will see that this very point was covered for both 2D and
3D.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: <JNorman805@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:33 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: screen shapes


> John writes:
>
> << Arguments have gone on for decades (centuries?) about the merits of the
>  aesthetics of different screen shapes.  I like a horizontal shape as this
>  approximates closer the human field of vision, and with large screens has
>  some advantages in terms of apparent depth enhancement as a result of
>  peripheral vision effects, but that is just a personal preference. >>
>
> With all due respect, I disagree.  The reason consumer screens are square
is
> because it accommodates both horizontally and vertically oriented full
frame
> 35 mm slides (in 2D), without having to compromise on the projected size
or
> content of either orientation.  Because I shoot a mix of horizontal and
> vertical slides in 3D as well, I appreciate the flexibility afforded by
the
> square screen.  Commercial movie screens are horizontally oriented because
> they are dedicated to a use that is always presented that way, rendering
the
> flexibility unnecessary (and unnecessarily expensive).  For personal and
club
> work, square is the way to go, unless you want to exclude, truncate or
> diminish the projected size of vertical shots.  I also question whether
human
> vision is any better equipped to see more horizontally than vertically.
> Seems about the same to me, although I've never tested it scientifically.
>
> Jim Norman
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/