[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: widescreen
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: widescreen
- From: "Phil Harris" <phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:42:30 -0000
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
You have a fixed maximum width though ... the NEC that I have is a 4:3
projector but I have it set up so that the scanned area is a 16:9 portion
of
the tubes. (OK, this will cause uneven wear of the phosphors but what the
hell.) I will use the 6ft Owl screen that I ordered yesterday as a 16:9
screen by physically painting out the top portion of the 4:3 area that I
won't use which will give me the additional "black border" that I
need at
the top of the screen to allow for the drop that I need. A 4:3 image just
won't fill the entire width of the screen.
A proper screen just usually gives a "cleaner" surface to project
onto ...
as your house is new and the plaster on the walls is probably very good
then
I can see why you're sticking with that ...
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark McCall [mailto:mark@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 November 2000 10:31
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] widescreen
> A proper screen would make a pretty big difference...
> I was suprised when I tried it.
So I've been told, however I have had a cine projector screen held beside
it
with no major difference - but this may not be as good as current screens.
My main problem with a screen is how to cope with the major difference
between 4:3 on one hand and up to 2.35:1 on the other.
M.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/2065/_/975580975/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|