They claim in one of the commentaries I think on the bond movies that thunderball was shot in cinemascope, I was under the impression that was a 2:35:1 anamorphic process?
also the ultimate edition is 2:35:1 and they claim they are releasing all of the bond films in the correct aspect ratios for the first time. I believe all of the U.E. before thunderball are 1.66:1 though I have seen differing aspect ratios on different dvd releases on dr. no and from russia with love I have seen 1:77:1 , 1:78:1 or 2:35:1 .
I am relying on info from amazon u.k. and amazon.com as well as IMDB and so some of this could be incorrect.
I own only one of the U.E. releases and it is from russia with love and in pal. The picture sometimes is overly bright and a little too blue for my liking though not as bad as the job they did on star wars. I still think the closest in quality to the original cinema release is the criterion laser disc CAV release. i think they even added digital film grain after the clean up process on the U.E.
the cover art on the Ultimate editions are ugly and the menus are not as good as the special editions, but the supplements on most of them more than make up for that.
and the new bond film Casino royale i've seen a trailer or two of it and it looks o.k. but I simply cannot get past that the actor does not look like bond or even have the right cadence. It really should be called "an action film by any other name" not James Bond. I would have approved of the choice of the director if he did'nt produce a turkey with legend of zorro. His only good films are goldeneye and mask of zorro. I guess the producers thought they could bring in the director of goldeneye and dupe us into thinking it may be a good film. That would've only worked if it was a sequel to die another day and starred pierce brosnan and teamed up with martin campbell.