One thing that I've slowly been observing in watching widescreen versions of various films is that mere numbers and percentages of visual information can be irrelevant, especially concerning films shot from the 1980's and afterwards. Even if it is hard-matted 1.85:1 or anamorphic scope, many films had to be shot with a pan-and-scan VHS and TV print in mind- in other words, shot with "safe zones" so everything important can be seen in the 4x3 version. Evident in films as early as "Paris, Texas" and as recent as "Charlie Wilson's War". I've only seen Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors" on a fullscreen laserdisc and found nothing wrong with the framing, leading me to believe it was shot in a similar manner.

If you want to get an eye for this, you need only start with 16x9 television programming, like football games, and shows that weren't originally aired letterboxed like "Firefly" (every episode but the pilot) or "CSI" shows. USA is airing everything in 16x9 letterbox regardless of whether it was intended that way, so you also have "NCIS" reruns. It's like a horizontal open matte print.

Of course, that just makes this whole "OAR" and "intended framing" argument that much more confusing, and then you'd start entering more obscure territory like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" should actually be shown 1.85:1 and "El Mariachi" in 1.33:1. In terms of composition, the soft matte/Super 35 films really get it worse than the hard-matted ones when it comes to the differing versions.

Does anyone know what movie the picture is from. It looks a lot like Coruscant in Revenge of the Sith but it's not, plus any full screen Star Wars movie will always be pan/scan. I wish the image was bigger so I could better tell. But that's the kind of image that actually makes fullscreen look better. You actually see more of the people (ok just their legs) in the 4x3 version. And the extra space on the sides that contains nothing looks pointless, especially with those black bars on a standard tv. (truly dumb to use that example for a pro widescreen group)

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4458/n221764616035418gc8.jpg

Those proportions could be possible since Episodes II and III were shot on HDTV cameras, which are native 1.78:1 (and it could be possible that they rendered all the shots hard-matted, but the only way to know is to look at both versions side-by-side). And you're right- that's not the best example to convert people.