Page 1 of If widescreen is 16:9 or 1.77777:1, why do we get 1.85:1 or 2.35:1?

Why the hell can`t these damned film companies just release films in 16:9, as the director envisaged? Are films available in 1.85:1 AND 2.35:1?What IS the point in 2.35;1 anyway? It`s as far from widescreen as 4:3( well, almost!).
Widescreen?Anamorphic?Letterbox? PAH! Gimme 16:9 or nowt, I say!

Are you having a laugh?

Why should he be having a laugh?!

I agree, he;s having a laugh.

A little history lesson for you all :

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

I can see his point...
It`s confusing when Widescreen can mean several different things.

As long as I get an anamorphic transfer on my DVD, I`m happy with either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, the latter looking `wow! in a cinema of course. Both are valid for being called `widescreen`. As long as it`s bigger than the Academy ratio (4:3). It`s all a creative/cost choice.

As for manufacturers making 16:9 tellys, it`s the best compromise for the two main framing ratios and I have no issues with it so far.

<<A little history lesson for you all>>

Thanks for that, Clayts - I found it really informative. I`ve been confused about the variety of diffferent screen sizes and aspects ever since I bought a Phillips 28`` widescreen TV about 3 years back, and never really knew whether I was supposed to be watching any given programme in 4:3, 16:9, Super Zoom mode, Wide Screen mode or Subtitle mode!

I settled on Super Zoom for most 4:3 TV broadcasts, but have been exploring the joys of Wide Screen since I converted to the DVD format last year.

Interestingly, the TV sometimes seems able to detect automatically that a certain aspect is required - most often it seems to be on Channel 4, when it automatically switches to 16:9 format when certain programmes (ER, for instance) are showing.

Yes, you can probably tell just how easily impressed I am! :)