| That person's WS version DOES have 30% MORE info on the left & right of screen. Has to. No way it can't, when comparing it to a 1.33 version of a 2.35 AR. |
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
As others have tried to explain, there is a process called super 35, which shoots on a SQUARE NEGATIVE. In cases like that, the director COMPOSED for the wide 2.35 frame, but the ngative captures a 4:3 image. The intent is to simply use the middle section of what the camera captures.
In these cases, the widescreen version is MATTED top and bottom, cutting out this extra information: both versions (wide and full) offer the full width of the negative-- and the matting is simply removed in the fullscreen version, revealing this area boave and below.
So the person making the comparison is right, there was no infomation gained on the sides-- rather info was matted from the top and bottom for the widescreen version! (
The only exception would be in VFX shots, where they are usually rendered in the intended aspect, to save money, and thus the fullscreen versions will often be cropped just during effects shots).
| Therefore, from what you're saying, Ron Howard's original ratio for this film was not nearly as wide as 2.35. Must have been closer to 1.66:1. |
Don't get confused between original and camera ratio. The intended ratio for the film is 2.35:1. The actual ratio of the camera negative that gets exposed is closer to 4:3 (someone with a bit more film tech experience might be able to give you the exact aspect of shooting flat on 35mm).
So when they filmed, they shot for a 2.35:1 aspect, but made a "safe" area above and below -- for home video tis safe area was simply exposed.
In some cases on a fullscreen transfer from super 35-- they do a littl both (open the top and bottom a little, crop the sides a little)-- but in some cases they just open the mattes and transfer it 4:3 from the full exposed negative. This results in "more" picture for full frame, but not the intended picture.
