5 ms·
Maybe. It's possible the 2.39 one is a crop of the 1.78. So which one is "better" might be a bit academic i.e. there might be more picture on the 1.78 one but
by smackeyacky 4y ago
Maybe. It's possible the 2.39 one is a crop of the 1.78. So which one is "better" might be a bit academic i.e. there might be more picture on the 1.78 one but its strips of stuff top and bottom the director didnt really want anybody to see.
- dylan604 4y agoDid it hurt when you stretched that far to try to prove a point that's not even valid. did you read the words coming off your fingertips? Does "that the director didn't really want anybody to see" sounds exactly like what the director is going to go back in to allow people to see on an anniversary release? Here's a quote never said by James Cameron: "yeah, you know, when we exposed for 2.35 aspect so we allowed all of the film gak to be in frame for a smaller aspect ratios, we should release that to the public since it will definitely enhance the experience of the viewer. that was such a mistake to not do that 25 years ago"
- smackeyacky 4y agoI was merely pointing out that it happens that 2.35:1 prints are sometimes produced from narrower masters.