Premium Member Gus Sacks Posted October 30, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 30, 2009 And now that we have the meaning of the word anthropomorphic cleared up the root definition of the word anamorphic means change such as anamorphic evolution. Please go away. This thread's been hijacked by your incredibly idiotic commentary. Someone could have actually learned something instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Vogt Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Nobody disputed the definition of the word, just rather its existence. Also anamorphic lenses do not affect the sensor, they do not change the shape of a pixel, it squeezes the projected image. If you were to use spherical lenses with a sensor that has rectangular shaped pixels it would not yield an anamorphic look, it would look blotchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted October 30, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think some are confusing the terms anamorphic and anthropomorphic. The only one confused is you Thomas. Please just stop posting your new age digital wankery. I prefer truth instead of idiotic wet dreams. You have no clue about anamorphic photography and LIE to create posts to support your fanciful notions, such as your absurd inventions about Jessie James. This films processes have been discussed many times on this very forum and you choose to ignore this easily accessible information yet you use it incorrectly as evidence to support mis-informed comment about a topic you have no direct experience in or even as evidenced by your answer, the most basic comprehension of. Even when it was pointed out that you had totally got it wrong you charged ahead with more irrelevant crap instead of doing what most people would do and apologise ! Just start your own thread if you want to discuss this issue rather than contributing to the original poster's question. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 About this accusation of being a new ager which may have some truth but seems to imply that I am involved in magic and witchcraft. Why not rather think that that any advanced state of technology is indistinguishable from magic? And to address your search for truth. Isn't truth all about being open to at least the consideration of other ideas even if you do not agree with those ideas? And even if the ideas are totally absurd and come from a madman did not the philosopher Rene Descartes teach about the concept of "reducto ad absurdum" which means that even absurd ideas are valid as long as they are pared down? And about this accusation of me being a liar which seems to imply that I am an imposter or a faker, simply reminds me of this movie called "Catch Me if you Can" about a man who faked being a Doctor, Lawyer, Pilot, and a Banker. It is indeed true that with the explosion of knowledge on the internet and with readily available computerized flight simulator programs that it would be possible to fake the job of a copilot. However in reality even people with verifiable credentials commit gross acts of fraud such as doctors who perform unneeded surgeries, pilots who fly while drunk and bankers who charge excessive interest and create fiat currency. And one interesting fact that was mentioned in the movie was the fact that man who was portrayed as a faker was not an idiot but actually passed the bar exam in order to become a Lawyer and did not cheat on the test and the reason why he passed it was because he was extremely intellligent. And this constant accusation about me hijacking threads I would like to say that there is a difference from veering off course by a few degrees and hijacking an airplane by turning it around 180 degrees with an intended destination of Havana Cuba. Now if you feel the thread needs to get back on course with real examples of anamorphic workflows I can accept that because even minor deviations can eventually cause the target to get missed if not corrected in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Thank goodness for that !! now and go get yourself sorted out !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted October 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 31, 2009 Please just stop posting your new age digital wankery. I prefer truth instead of idiotic wet dreams. Actually, I think that marginally plausible nonsense is far more potentially harmful than this obviously goofy fluff. Better to look at it as the amusing background noise of the internet, and skip silently over it. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted October 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 31, 2009 If you were to use spherical lenses with a sensor that has rectangular shaped pixels it would not yield an anamorphic look, it would look blotchy. Cameras with non-square pixels exist in SD. In order to use the same horizontal frequency and pixel count for both NTSC and PAL, they ended up with pixel aspect ratios of about 0.9:1 and 1.1:1. Genesis and F-35 both use non-square photosites. A three wide by two high group of photosites is a square on those chips. Of course, they're color masked like this: RGB RGB Viper uses photosites that are four times wider than they are high, and does a clever combination of three or four vertically to create either 16:9 or 4:3. None of them look blotchy. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted October 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 31, 2009 About this accusation of being a new ager which may have some truth but seems to imply that I am involved in magic and witchcraft. Why not rather think that that any advanced state of technology is indistinguishable from magic? I never said magic or witchcraft. And to address your search for truth. Isn't truth all about being open to at least the consideration of other ideas even if you do not agree with those ideas? Well you're avoiding the point. You make stuff up to support what you are saying are new ideas. And you're doing it in a thread that has NOTHING to do with your new ideas. Go start another thread for your new ideas, where you WON"T invent facts to support your ideas. And about this accusation of me being a liar which seems to imply that I am an imposter or a faker, You have lied in this thread and others. I never called you a fake or impostor. You just lie to support your theories on image making. Just stop it. And this constant accusation about me hijacking threads I would like to say that there is a difference from veering off course by a few degrees and hijacking an airplane by turning it around 180 degrees with an intended destination of Havana Cuba. You have acknowledged then that there is a "constant accusation about you hijacking threads". Yet you argue that somehow you're only doing it a little bit. Your posts are largely irrelevant to the topic being discussed and cause confusion, especially amongst the less experienced readers of these forums. Why don't you just go and start your own threads if you have a burning issue you want to discuss. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts