|
 |
A. Jans-Beken <jan### [at] wxs nl> wrote in message
news:3A6763EB.FE4B0B75@wxs.nl...
> Just a tip :-)
>
> My experience is that rendering pictures in 16:9 format can add to the
> "impact" a picture makes. This can be simply done by changing the camera
> object where the aspect ratio is normaly 5/4. Just change it to 16/9 and
> change the rendering size to 16:9 or a multiple of that: 160:90,
> 320:180, 640:360, etc.
>
> Between words: widescreen motion pictures use 2.35:1 I never used it
> however. Maybe someone can posts some examples here.
>
>
Some of my posts are 2.35:1.
If you want an interesting read about Widescreen Cinema, a bloke named John
Belton wrote a book of that name, full of tales of odd film formats with
even odder names - Magnascope, Veriscope, Anamorphoscope, Cinerama,
CinemaScope, CinemaScope 55, Todd-AO, Viventoscope, Polyvision, Grandeur,
Natural Vision, Realife, Imax, Omnimax, Circarama, Ultra Panavision,
VistaVision, Panavision, and WarnerSuperScope (which never got past the
drawing board - which is a shame as it's such a great name!).
And then there's letterboxing, pan-and-scan (or pan-and-scandal), anamorphic
lenses/projection, curved screens...
I feel a headache coming on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
