|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:01:41 +0200, andrel <byt### [at] gmail com>
did spake thusly:
> On 26-4-2010 14:49, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>>>> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
>>>> At risk of entirely misunderstanding the question, all cinemas have
>>>> shown all
>>>> films in 16:9 or wider for almost a hundred years.
>>
>>> Really?
>>
>>> Huh, well, you learn something every day. The picture always looked
>>> fairly square to me...
>> I'm beginning to suspect that this is not Andrew, and instead some
>> troll
>> is posting using his nickname.
>> If even TV is not square (it's 4:3), how in the world could you ever
>> think that movies are square? I don't get it.
>> The narrowest aspect ratio used in movies for the past 20+ years has
>> usually been 1.85:1. The most common aspect ratios for big movies today
>> is 2.25:1 and even 2.35:1 (that's well over twice as wide as tall).
>>
> a few days ago I heard a talk that might provide an explanation. Someone
> set up an experiment with 180 degrees view and figured out how wide they
> perceived it. You get a camel distribution with one hump at 180 and
> another, larger! one at 90. Experiment was reproducable per person.
>
> Hard to believe but apparently true. Something fishy in our brain. Jan
> Koenderink, who was giving the talk, is trying to figure out why.
Perhaps something similar to line perception where we overestimate acute
angles and underestimate obtuse ones.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |