Well, im a day late and a dollar short on this thread, but I couldnt resist not giving my 2¢. My opinion of changing AR is 2 fold. First, I HATE IT!!! I spent my entire life working hard to get a kickass home cinema to emulate the magic I experienced as a child and now some damn director wants to screw that up. Yeh, Im sure I could invest $10,000 upgrading to accomodate my current setup, but why?? I get it, I see why they might do it. But as director of a film, you should be able to convey what youre imagining in one damn format. Thats why you have lots of different lenses for your cameras. Personally, I think IMAX is a bogus AR. Sure, it fills your vision up vertically, but not horizontally.IMAX is too square for me. It should be more 2.2:1, or maybe 1.85:1 than 1.43:1. In order for an IMAX to fully emerse me in a movie (my left and right filled up), I have to sit a bit too close. Hell, outside ofsitting near the front, you cant even see the bottom of the screen, so why have the sides all of the sudden become so sacred??
I did say two fold. I do understand why directors do it. Hell, I never even noticed the DK had changing AR for the longest. Once I did, it bugged the hell out of me. But that was a small screen. I guess in a large theatre, it succeeds in conveying the affect the director wanted, especially if youre not concious of it like I was. But I will still stand my comment that a director should be able to succeed in conveying a ceratain mood or effect without changing AR’s by the use of lenses. Just me.