Eurovision sound and picture

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in message
om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an aspect
ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they used
it.

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an aspect
ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

It was little real evidence that it is "pleasing on the human eye"` it
certaintly
would not fit on the retina as well as a circle for example.
Apparently we only discovered we liked it a couple of hundred of
years ago and then all the pretensious art world magically loved it too.
(ass-lickers).
The cinemas are low wide buildings so a big screen is gonna be low and
wide.
It's not rocket science, its 'how the director intended' ;O)


When you are walking down the street or crossing a road how many times do
you move your head and eyes from side to side and how many up and down.
Cinema screens are wide because humans normally examine the view in front of
them from side to side. There is little treat of something coming out of the
ground or out of the air and grabbing them. If TV directors started framing
things properly instead of always using huge close ups and over the shoulder
shots you would realise the advantage of 16:9 over 4:3. With the current
constant close up faming used in most dramas, which is probably deliberate
in order to reduce the bit rate, 16:9 looks worse than 4:3.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1
approximately).

It was little real evidence that it is "pleasing on the human eye"` it
certaintly
would not fit on the retina as well as a circle for example.
Apparently we only discovered we liked it a couple of hundred of
years ago and then all the pretensious art world magically loved it too.
(ass-lickers).
The cinemas are low wide buildings so a big screen is gonna be low and
wide.
It's not rocket science, its 'how the director intended' ;O)


When you are walking down the street or crossing a road how many times do
you move your head and eyes from side to side and how many up and down.

When you are looking at some one you look more up and so down.
When walking you look ahead and up and dwon more not sideways.

Cinema screens are wide because humans normally examine the view in front
of them from side to side.
No evidence of that

There is little treat of something coming out of the ground or out of the
air and grabbing them. If TV directors started framing things properly
instead of always using huge close ups and over the shoulder shots you
would realise the advantage of 16:9 over 4:3. With the current constant
close up faming used in most dramas, which is probably deliberate in order
to reduce the bit rate, 16:9 looks worse than 4:3.

That because ita stupid ratio,

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an aspect
ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.
Can you descriibe the entire film to enliten me??

Agamemnon wrote:

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of
the eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle
so pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.

Thanks for all the replies. The 'Golden Mean' occurs in all things
natural; in music, plant-life (ratio of seeds around a sunflower head,
for example), and bodily dimensions. The Ancient Greeks used it in
their architecture, both vertically and horizontally. I did wonder if -
by using it as a photographic ratio (evolving into film, then TV) - it
would have any effect on our senses.

Perhaps not...

--
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b

"Jukka Aho" wrote in message
i.fi...
Agamemnon wrote:

I just read an article which mentioned that EBU's Danish director,
Bjørn Erichsen (who was apparently present at some ESC-related press
conference), pointed out to a Swiss reporter (who was upset and
fuming about DJ Bobo not qualifying for the final) that Switzerland
themselves gave 12 points to Serbia, 10 to Turkey, 8 points to
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 7 to Albania, and so on. The question he posed
was that if Eastern European songs are supposedly no good, why on
Earth do the Swiss vote for them?

Because they think they will not win so its safe to vote for them.
The Swiss hate the French and Germans and all their other neighbours
so they don't want any of them to win either. It's like the Scots not
wanting England to win the world cup or at any sport.

I find it strange that so many countries, including Switzerland, whine
about Eastern countries, but still decided themselves that Serbia is the
"safe choice". Only five countries (out of 41) didn't give Serbia any
points.

And no, I didn't personally like Serbia's song, but it's just Eurovision.
To put things in some perspective, we Finns had to wait for 40 years to
win the damn thing, and our highest position before that was 6th. We also
came in the last position 6 times (and the second from last 3 times.) You
guys have won it 5 times and come in the second place 15 times. Serbia has
won it never before in its current form, and once before as a part of
Yugoslavia - 17 years ago.

Now if I remember right this was when Yugoslavia had the last vote and made
sure it didn't give any marks whatsoever to the UK which only needed 2
points to win.


Perhaps it's time to let the Eastern side win as the West can't come up
with good enough acts. For instance, Georgia's song was modern ethno pop:
like a fusion of Björk and Madonna, and it went to the 12th position.
Hungary sent growling blues and got 9th (the accent was a bit thick but
the voice of the singer was great, and you don't often hear blues in
Eurovision, so points for that.) You guys sent a ****-take gayish airline
joke song with lots of sexual innuendo, but why vote for that when there
was that totally insane Ukraine, if you like ****-takes. We sent a
mediocre darkish goth-influenced rock piece with somewhat silly negative
lyrics, delivered by a singer that made angry faces. Belgium and Sweden
went retro. Denmark had a bland draq queen. Most of the rock songs -
expect perhaps for Andorra's punk rock attempt - lacked spark.
Mediterranean countries sent something that mediterranean countries nearly
always do. Switzerland's song started good (movie soundtrack-alike) but
the chorus was unremarkable, and the whole vampire concept was a bit
silly. Ireland came up with a folk song that was like any other Irish folk
song ever made, etc. etc.

Well at least western Europe sent a variety of different songs whereas the
Former Soviet states apart from Russia which copied the Suggarbabes all sent
in exactly the same thing, none of which would be commercially viable in the
west.


An Eurovision entry needs to have some spark in it to get noticed. Instead
of going 70s funk/disco with afros and rainbow colors - like Belgium did -
make it more modern, in the Jamiroquai style. Instead of

Oh right, and what makes you think the whole of Europe wants to listen to
Funk-Rock?

delivering an entirely ordinary folk song in entirely ordinary way, like
the Irish did, spice it up with some modern sounds and a hypnotic
performance, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keS5CgpBT0

And what makes you think that the whole of Europe wants to listen to Art
Music. Stop calling it folk because its a misleading term designed to make
you think its traditional. Its a specific branch of Art Music which
originated in Ireland in the 60's with the introduction of new (Bouzouki)
instruments and was taken up by the English New Age movement in the 70's and
80's and is completely artificial. Art Music was invented in Greece in the
50's by Oscar winning composers such as Mikis Theodorakis and Manolis
Xatzidakis. Chariots of Fire by Vangelis is part of the same genera. Its not
modern sounds which it is spiced up with, its classical music theory which
is being applied to its composition hence its name Entechno. The particular
example which you have linked to is based on modern(-classical) dissonance.
The pseudo-Operatic-Pop rubbish in this years competition is also part of
the genera. Is that what you want more of?



On EscToday.com, someone suggested that the ESC should be split into
wholly separate Eastern and Western contests. Perhaps so. But then at
least I'm going to take the same position as this writer:

So they seem to have already taken on my idea posted in rec.arts.drwho
yesterday then.


--- 8 ---

Darko S. [38353]
Sun 13 May 2007 17:41:14

The "Western" Eurovision, should it ever happen, will probably be the most
boring two hours I'd have to sit through. We'd get five different
Scooches, two tired disco tunes aimed at nobody, a 25 year old song from
Portugal and Malta and a habitually classy entry from Germany and maybe,
just maybe, Iceland. If Silvia enters again. It's not the death of
Eurovision, it's the death of Western pop (Netherlands anyone?)

The Easterners gave the contest the kiss of life and new blood. The

No. They ruined it. Up until a couple of years ago the majority of the songs
in Eurovision were improving year on year for once (though not necessarily
the winners), but then they allowed all the Slavs to vote on enmass even if
they were not in the final or the semi-final and what have they done. The
stopped Portugal and Norway which had the best songs in the semi from
qualifying and by voting for themselves that have ensured that no western
European nations apart from Greece were in the top 16.

The Slavs should be given their own final and Western Europe can have
another and the winner of each final should compete against each other for
votes from each block at the end for the position of unified champion, with
the votes equally weighted so the more numerous Slavs do not dominate the
vote.


Westerners still dream of days with orchestra and the j'aime-j'aime-la-vie
Schlager Grand Prix. If there's two Eurovisions, I know which one I'd
watch.

--- 8 ---

--
znark

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1
approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.
Can you descriibe the entire film to enliten me??

Starred Christopher Lee, Emma Samms and featured Peter Cushing. The title is
explanatory of the content of the film.

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in message
om...
Agamemnon wrote:

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1
approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.

Thanks for all the replies. The 'Golden Mean' occurs in all things
natural; in music, plant-life (ratio of seeds around a sunflower head, for
example), and bodily dimensions. The Ancient Greeks used it in their
architecture, both vertically and horizontally. I did wonder if - by
using it as a photographic ratio (evolving into film, then TV) - it would
have any effect on our senses.

They also used circles squares triangles and any number of other
shapes and sizes.
The evidence that they used it is also pretty duious anyway.
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal...nArt.html#arch

If you try hard enough you can find something roughly golden ration
shaped in a building if you draw your letter box in the right place.
The golden section in the first diagram in the link above is little more
than a joke.
It's just not there.Measure it yourself.
It's a laugh the main obvious rectangles are nowher near the ratio. They
have just take
a ratio of the hight at peak to the width and thats not the ratio its 1.77
not 1.62
It a complete con. Perhaps a bit of the building 'fell off' cos its not high
enough :O)



Perhaps not...

--
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle
so pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1
approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.
Can you descriibe the entire film to enliten me??

Starred Christopher Lee, Emma Samms and featured Peter Cushing. The title
is explanatory of the content of the film.

Plot dialogue etc........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in message
om...
Agamemnon wrote:

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in
message om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1
approximately).

They did in Arabian Adventure, and that is probably the only time they
used it.

Thanks for all the replies. The 'Golden Mean' occurs in all things
natural; in music, plant-life (ratio of seeds around a sunflower head, for
example), and bodily dimensions. The Ancient Greeks used it in their
architecture, both vertically and horizontally. I did wonder if - by
using it as a photographic ratio (evolving into film, then TV) - it would
have any effect on our senses.

Perhaps not...


It looks better then 16:9 ratio but then so does Panavision. 16:9 is a
horrid ratio. HDTV's should have been made to the dimensions of Panavision.