Ackshilly, contemporary films are predominantly 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.
1.78:1 (16:9) is not common for film but rather video, or film cropped for video so as to pander to hatah's of unused area on their "new fangled" TV's. This is no doubt the same crowd that loved Pan & Scan cropping and now love 1.33:1 content stretched out to fill their widescreen. Ooh, can you imagine their delight at a 2.39:1 film cropped to 1.33:1 and then stretched to fill 1.78:1! Maybe add a PIP, ticker and a station ID bug too. Woo woo! :disgust:
Personally, I don't get the queer fetish for filling a given display area just for the sake of it or even the illusion of a larger picture when the reality is cropping of the director's artistic framing, if not distortion of natural dimensions themselves. Maybe if watching a news report with any substance the images hardly matter but with film they do (or certainly should), otherwise you may as well listen to an old timey radio play.
Movie theaters actually do sometimes have the responsibility to soft matte a film so as to create a widescreen display according to the director's vision, where they actually filmed in open matte. But in any case, a screen could potentially be 20m wide but 30m high (think of a building exterior) or friggin' round for that matter. It would be rather idiotic to distort the image to fill the available space, n'est ce pas?
I feel better now that I've vented
