Every one of Soderbergh's films (that I can think of) is framed at 1.85:1 (Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Out of Sight, The Limey etc.), or something very close to it. It's clearly what he's most comfortable working with. Given his adventurous and experimental reputation, maybe he wanted to try something new on O11. Still, it surprised me greatly when I saw the film, framed at the greater width of 2.35:1. I still think it looks magnificent. The color palette is awe inspiring, and very close to Out of Sight. But there were a number of key scenes that seemed kinda off. Unusually for a film framed at that ratio, the image felt constricted. To my amazement, while watching the main documentary on the DVD, the same key scenes I noticed in the cinema, came up, framed at 1.85:1, and they seemed much more natural, and open. (Also, bizarrely, they seemed clearer and sharper than the same scenes in the actual movie) Specifically, the opening parole board scene, and the "why do this" speech scene. Did anybody else notice this? Why did Soderbergh choose to present his movie like this? Could it have been a contractual obligation? I have no idea why it would have been, but it still seems like an unusual choice. What other observations about the film's framing, or the differences/similarities between how the film has been shot compared with his other movies do you guys have? For an in-depth look at the cinemtography of (IMO) Soderbergh's best film Out of Sight, check out Seth Paxton's Analysis. It's got some great caps, which perfectly demonstrate the framing style I refer to above. If anyone has screencap capabilities and a copy of Ocean's 11, plus a little time to spare, caps of the above two scenes, in the documentary, and then in the film itself, would greatly add to the above observations.