those pictures are interesting, but don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
i get the difference between scope and imax. they are totally different 'shapes' and something has to be cut off. what i'm saying is that there really shouldn't be THAT much cut off from a 1.9:1 ratio to make it fit a 1.85 or 16:9 ratio. in the pics you sent, to go to 16:9 they first trimmed it down to 2.35:1, then they chopped the sides off to make it 16:9. maybe there's some other technical or philosophical reason behind it, but if they went straight from IMAX to 16:9, very little would need to get trimmed, and that is my point.
i think it's BS marketing to claim IMAX is vastly different than the standard 1.85:1. in the past, on film, there was a difference. the IMAX was technically higher resolution, using larger film, but in the digital world, I don't see how a IMAX screen is any different than sitting closer to a 1.85:1 screen. and when presented at home, there is CERTAINLY no advantage to IMAX format over 16:9, unless they needlessly trim from BOTH the vertical and horizontal directions.
i don't understand why 16:9 is 'small' and imax is 'big' when they could contain almost exactly the same image
Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One