Originally Posted by Simon Rodgers:
“I tend to notice some films are better in widescreen, some are better as 4:3 and stretched by the TV.
How come it's not the same for all?”
Films come in different ratios. You can't be talking about a load of films that are all in the same original aspect ratio.
Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Can you give examples? I highly doubt anyone would find a 4:3 image streched horizontally to fill the screen would look better than a proper widescreen picture, or a 4:3 picture properly pillarboxed to maintain the aspect ratio.
I think your TV / set top box settings are wrong, you should look into fixing them if your getting 4:3 pictures filling the screen.”
Agreed that we need examples and, yes, no film looks better stretched. People's faces are distorted, for a start.
Originally Posted by
Libretio:
“I have to disagree, since 4:3 and 16:9 versions of Super 35 films require extensive reframing of the image throughout, leading to cropping in some shots and 'opening out' in others. The aesthetic is altered to a significant degree, and is all the more insidious because the telecine artist goes out of his/her way to make it look 'invisible' to most people. I understand what you're saying in that it seems better than the cropping of an anamorphic image, but it's actually no less ruinous. So there. 
”
How dare you make the assertion that films broadcast OAR are better?!