Search results

I don't expect any problems.

Unless the original transfer was problematic or had gone missing, a re-transfer should not be necessary for any purposes beyond archival.

It should resemble anything. Best to replicate a 35mm dye transfer reference print.

Why would it matter?

Many viewers don’t understand that actual picture content is more important that retaining a shape that was almost irrelevant to the image.

Perhaps I misspoke. An aspect ratio is always the aspect ratio it appears to be on screen. But two things come into play with VVLA. 1. The format was designed for multiple ratios, although fot TCaT 1.85 is suggested. 2. An aspect ratio is simply a shape, and has absolutely nothing to do with...

Moot.

From 1.78? Either is fine. As is 1.66. 2.35 might be pushing things, but it's certainly within the VVLA wheelhouse. I've never been offended by a film that purportedly ran theatrically in 1.85, being run in 1.78. Because the film would have hardly ever been seen at 1.85. It's all illusory.

What might be a “corrected aspect ratio?”

"On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells."

“You tread heavily … But you speak the truth.”

Unfair comment. I’d not be pointing a finger toward one individual. Studio politics and budgets come into play.