Originally Posted by RobAnt:
“Actually, that too, is a cludge. The resulting image is a zoomed 16:9 transmission, so the picture quality is going to be poor quality in relation to a 16:9 transmission of the same film.”
To be fair, it would benefit Blu-ray movies framed at 2.35:1, since there's more information in the image. It's still a compromise, and 21:9 TV's really need material 'anamorphosized' for that ratio, but until that happens (probably around the introduction of Ultra HD in, say, 10 years time), it will always be second-best to current 16:9 sets.
Originally Posted by RobAnt:
“Plus 21:9 isn't the only film aspect ratio. There are many more. There is, in fact, no de-facto film aspect ratio, whereas 16:9 is a standard for all high definition "straight to TV" broadcast.”
True enough, but at least 21:9 retains a 'common height' for most images, rather than shrinking the image whenever it goes wider than 1.85:1. That way, you get the full effect of what CinemaScope was meant to do in the first place - provide a bigger, wider image. Of course, you'd need a pretty big 21:9 TV to get a decent-sized 4:3 image (for 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 movies), and some people have complained that the side bars would be 'too big' for Academy ratio films (gawd give me strength!), but 21:9 is the Next Big Thing, believe me.
Besides, most films can be contained within the 21:9 frame without shrinkage. A tiny handful of movies (such as those shot in Ultra Panavision 70 at 2.76:1 ratio, or the final scene in Abel Gance's NAPOLΙON, a widescreen triptych framed at 4.00:1) would have to be letterboxed, but the central image would be so big, no one would notice.