Skip to main content
Movies & TV

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 1
    Slightly related... many films are "cropped in"... trimming some chunk off of the frame in all directions but not changing the aspect ratio... this is often done to crop out stuff like lights, booms, etc... and often it's simply because the frame is bigger than the "safe zone"... but I don't think this is what you're asking about. Commented Jan 20, 2016 at 19:46
  • Might have been shot on standard [non-anamorphic, if that's a word… you can tell I'm not a camerman] 35mm, which would give a frame size sufficient to crop all 3 ratios out of - 2.35:1 16:9 & 4:3. It was made at a time when many people still had 4:3 TVs, so might have been a consideration right from the start. [I've no evidence to back this up, it's just speculation, so cannot be an answer] Commented Jan 20, 2016 at 20:39
  • 1
    Yes, some are. TV sometimes is too, hence the HD release of Friends in 16:9 despite being originally broadcast in 4:3. Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 9:45
  • @BCdotWEB but was that merely wide screen cropped to 4:3, or did they use entirely different vertical croppings and actually film at a much larger frame than both 4:3 and 16:9 combined? Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 14:39
  • ah! Just saw the diagram linked to in that answer. Yes! That does appear it was filmed in a much larger frame and cropped separately for each release. Is there a standard for that particular frame size? (That's make a great answer, BTW!) Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 14:41