| Post 16 made on Tuesday October 31, 2017 at 13:19 |
Ernie Gilman Yes, That Ernie! |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2001
30,104 |
|
|
An important point is that screen height, not width, should be the basis of your choices. The following may be obvious but I present it anyway.
Your images look the largest if you make the image as high (tall) as possible in the given room.
People appear at exactly the same size in a 16:9 image and in a 2.35 image if the screens are the same height. The difference is how much stuff you see off to the sides. Which is more important to the client -- how huge that thing in the middle is, or whether you can see the extras way out on the edges?
BUT if you go from a 16:9 of any width to a 2.35 of the same width, everything on the screen will be shorter in height, that is to say, smaller.
AND if you use diagonal to talk about the differences between 16:9 and 2.35 images, the width thing comes into play, since the width of the image is a factor in calculating the diagonal measurement.
|
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw |
|
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our
Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product
click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
