Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Oh, it goes without saying that the IMAX presentation will trump any other, and that the 1.78:1 BR version is a bit of a compromise from the original 1.44:1 (as DVDfever pointed out).”
Yes, but just to underline, digital IMAXes only have a ratio of about 1.9:1, so there's not that much difference (except scale!) between that and TV. Grand theatres are a different beast.
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“But given that even the best home video version can never even approximate the theatrical experience (at least until 8K resolution on home video becomes a reality), the current compromise just seems to fit really well.”
Well, we're obviously speculating here, but I wonder whether a 65mm native IMAX image would look very different from a digitally captured image at these resolutions and viewing angles. At least, it would of course look like the image had been cropped at the sides if there is a constant display height. Would there be extra res to punch through? Who knows what a wall sized TV will look like...
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Viewed objectively, I'm sure the top and bottom sections of the IMAX frame would appear superfluous. It's just that when you're sitting in front of a C-O-L-O-S-S-A-L screen, you're so overwhelmed by the sheer size and scale of it, you don't notice what's superfluous and what isn't, if you see what I mean.”
I certainly do!

It's the sheer extravagance of headroom and legroom (or whatever you call it), along with the massive amount of detail (and of course the scale) that makes it a unique experience bordering on a God's eye view.