Has the meaning of "landscape orientation" changed?

Like "wiretapping," "VCR" is a generic term. Nobody taps into wires to listen to conversations but it is still a valid and understandable term as is VCR.
 
8B4E84FC-767C-4CFF-85F7-23A25EC4D91C.jpeg
Rich - I ran across this picture on FBook and immediately thought of this thread.
Maybe a picture will help make the point!
 
Jim_CAK said:
View attachment 59316
Rich - I ran across this picture on FBook and immediately thought of this thread.
Maybe a picture will help make the point!
Click to expand...

In fairness, that picture does not show a correct tradeoff between vertical and horizontal. This is more like it - by switching to vertical, you will lose some detail in the top of the frame.

upload_2018-1-15_16-2-58.png


Unless the person who is taking the shot also has an intuitive eye for composition, they're going to think that certain shots looks better if done vertical. And sometimes this is true for pictures of course. But in video you can move the camera to compose the scene, so there should really never be a reason for vertical. But the person taking the video needs to take that into account - and few people do.
 
Last edited:
I still have one stubborn tech who refuses to shoot videos in landscape. Perhaps not surprisingly, he's the youngest member of the crew. I've started rejecting his submissions with a single-line reason: "Video not acceptable due to vertical orientation." We'll see how that works.

Rich
 
Tantalum said:
...
I once printed off a blank piece of paper that said "do not discard this sheet" just to see how long it would sit in the printer
Click to expand...

Which was it ... blank piece of paper or a piece of paper that said "do not discard this sheet" ??? :D
 
Not video, but just a picture. I recently discovered that a "portrait" panorama included more of my subject matter than a "landscape" panorama.
 
gkainz said:
Which was it ... blank piece of paper or a piece of paper that said "do not discard this sheet" ??? :D
Click to expand...
I love the pages in manuals that say, "This page intentionally left blank". Occasionally I'll write, "No, it wasn't" and put the manual back on the shelf just to be argumentative.
 
DaleB said:
This page intentionally left blank
Click to expand...
The Piper POHs are the kings of that.. sometimes I think they added it just for pizzaz

Incidentally, as much as I love low wings and prefer just about everything in an Archer to that of a Skyhawk the Piper manuals are notoriously "low rent".. why does my Archer II manual look like it's been faxed, scanned, copied, faxed, etc., a hundred times? And I'm not talking some online version someone posted.. I mean the actual manual you can buy at a pilot shop for a mid 70s Archer II looks like total garbage

And... mini rant here... but can we just have simple tables like what Cirrus and Cessna gives? I get the graph paper tricks from the POH are perhaps the trigonometrically "correct" way to extrapolate an exact landing distance... but when the graph is barely legible thanks to the whole scan-copy-fax-scan-copy thing I think you're almost better off looking at a table and getting your fuel flow from there then by taking out a ruler and graph paper

AND.. (almost done here) but if we have the graphed out data to give you the exact figures then how hard would it be to write a freaking APP for it? Yes, we should all know how to calculate these things, fine, but wouldn't it be nicer to just have a Piper, or Cessna, or Cirrus sanctioned verified app that you just plug some crap into and out it spits your performance figures? (I know there are apps out there that do this, by point is, why not have legit ones from the actual aircraft manufacturers)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top