Originally Posted by mo949
Seems you are the one making an assumption. The width of the aspect ratio in LoA was used very well to show the expansiveness of the settings and create a separation between the main characters. It would not have been the same experience or presentation had the top or bottom been 'filled in'.
I think a run through on your projector is called for
yeah, I've never seen the movie, so take this for what it's worth.
I just don't understand how 2.35:1 aspect ratio can show 'more info' than 16:9, and then at the same time imax shows 'more info' than 2.35:1...
I get with the film being used, there's a difference, but at the end of the tunnel when it comes into your display at home, it's always going to show the 'most' detail and picture info if shot in 16:9.
I just don't see how wider is more. it's only more if the 16:9 version is cropped. but if the movie was originally shot in 16:9, nothing is cropped, nothing is lost, and like the 'imax' films it's 'showing more detail'.
this still leads me to the conclusion that what format is used is a choice of the director. there isn't a superior format, and neither one actually shows more detail. but since the dominant format at home is 16:9, it makes sense that anything intended to be shown at home be done in 16:9.