http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

“VistaVision could be shown at any widescreen aspect ratio from 1.66 to 2:00:1.”

..oh…and and a “nuts to you” goes to crapamount for NOT restoring the F13 films to their uncut form. With so many DVDs unrated these days….there’s no excuse. Since i own the original releases anyway, i will not be buying the Deluxe Versions…given that i own a PC and have a Video Store down the street from me

I think you need to go back and re-read his link. It doesn’t say that directors like Spielberg and Allen balked at open-matte transfers – they balked at Pan & Scan. Here’s the quote:

“Some directors still balk at the use of “pan and scan” versions of their movies because they feel it compromises the directorial vision with which their movies were created. For instance, Steven Spielberg initially refused to release a pan-and-scan version of Raiders of the Lost Ark but eventually gave in; Woody Allen refused altogether to release one of Manhattan, the letterbox version is therefore the only version available on VHS and DVD. Any tampering with the original image of a film, particularly to crop it to fit a television screen, implies a compromise of the original image, and the cropping of a widescreen image to a full screen image for standard televisions requires skill by a film editor to prevent undue loss of elements of the composition.”

Then, a few short paragraphs later, they describe open-matte transfers as THE REVERSE of Pan & Scan:

“In other example therein, film directors reverse this process, creating a negative with information that extends above and below the widescreen theatrical image, called “open matte”.”

Translation: Pan & Scan CROPS up to 40% of widescreen images (directors don’t like); open-matte transfers open up the image area giving you more image than was intended for theaters (directors favor this).

I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand in such simple terms.

Only films shot anamorphically (squeezed) or on Super 35mm are shown at a 2.35:1 ratio. Super 35 can also be matted to 1.85, but films not shot in Super 35 or anamorphically are never formatted to 2.35. Period. If you can show me an example of a film shown in 2.35 that wasn’t shot anamorphically or on Super 35, I’ll happily retract.

As far as transferring to home video, I think what you mean by “soft matte technique in formatting to a fullscreen” is what’s called an “open matte transfer”. And it’s exactly what I described before regarding Super 35mm… as a rebuttal to your comment that “the aspect ratio of the original negative depends on what the movie was intended for, theatre or straight to video.” So I’m glad you now agree with me.

This process is widely used. James Cameron shot all his movies starting with “The Abyss” on Super 35 (in 1.37), then soft matted for theaters (to 2.35), and then did open matte transfers to home video (removing the matte and showing more image on the top and bottom than was showin the theaters). It’s described here, with a very helpful illustration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

Here’s another great example using “Air Force One”:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

Open matte transfers can even be performed on films that were made before the advent of home video. When “The Shining” was released on DVD in 2001, the full-frame version was an open matte transfer in accordance with Stanley Kubrick’s wishes.
http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/shining_2k.shtml

Tom, you say: “On low budget films like slashers it would be way too expensive and time-consuming to put the same amount of care in both wide and full screen versions at the time of filming.” The idea that even a semi-professional Director of Photography wouldn’t have the brain power at the time of shooting to frame shots for widescreen matting and an open matte transfer is absolutely laughable. Visual guides for each are even built into the camera’s viewfinder. If a boom mike shows up on VHS after an open matte transfer, then that’s the sign of a pretty crappy DP.

Tom, your claims that this technique is “rarely used,” “too expensive and time consuming” are completely backwards. Open matte transfers are used all the time, as they make converting films to full-frame much much easier. You simply widen the matte and avoid Pan & Scan completely. Now that widescreen TVs are becoming the norm, the need to do open matte transfers is declining, but that certainly has nothing to do with expense or time consumption. In fact, it would be MUCH more time-consuming to meticulously go through a film and determine where and when to Pan & Scan!

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, Tom, but anyone with a cursory knowledge of Google can find the correct information in under 5 minutes.

Hope that helps!