I think it's interesting how we went from 4:3 to 16:9, and are now back to something very close to 4:3 again. And both changes were sold as "you can now see even more of the movie".

There is more than the AR though, there's framing.

In 4:3 the framing is quite tight, and actors mostly fill the vertical space and the width feels somewhat constrained.

Widescreen movies are framed about the same height as 4:3, but with more space on the sides.

IMAX is filmed with the same width as widescreen movies, but with more space added to the top and bottom.

You can typically crop IMAX to widescreen without cutting off actors heads, but you cannot really do that with old 4:3 aspect shows or movies.

Most of that discussion is less about any advantages inherent to either aspect ratio and more about just viewing the film as the director originally intended.

The cinematographer would have composed shots for the main 1.43:1 aspect ratio first while taking into consideration the other aspect ratios (the viewfinder will overlay the different framelines to help make those decisions). The DP then gets to go back in during post and recompose each shot for the different formats as needed, tweaking what was originally shot to do their best to maintain a cohesive feel and emphasis across each crop. With five different formats for The Odyssey[0], I'm sure that was a fun experience.

It's not that one format is inherently better. The frame is a storytelling tool, and you can use different aspect ratios to influence how audiences perceive the film.[1] It's when you start changing it afterwards with little regard for the director's original intentions that we see problems. The old pan-and-scan movie releases for VHS or cheap 16:9 conversions are frustrating examples.

0. https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/

1. https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-...

I'm a videography hobbyist, there is so much discussion about aspect ratios, particularly around anamorphic lenses. In those circles, wider aspect ratio is almost always considered better (there's more to anamorphics than just aspect ratio but that's separate from this discussion). I have felt the "wider is better" idea is not so much fundamental but more learned through seeing the widescreen in movie theaters which have massive screens with a crazy sound systems. But yea, seeing the opposite argued as seeing more of the movie is pretty funny. Feels pretty arbitrary but there probably is an idea aspect ratio. Probably 16x9. haha.

If the angular image size (which is determined by the aspect ratio, screen size, and viewing distance) increases each time, it's accurate to say "you can now see even more of the movie."

And that is typically what happened. Typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs at home offer a larger angular image size than the typical 4:3 CRTs did. And typical 1.43 IMAX viewings offer a larger angular image size than typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs.

The sibling comments are spot on, but also worth noting IMAX is not something you're going to get at a regular multiplex, and definitely not at home. The screens are like 10 storeys high and designed to completely immerse you. While it's much better than 3D, for example, it's not supposed to be the new thing for all films.

It went much farther - CinemaScope 2.35 to 2.75, or even Polyvision 4.0.

To me, the big wide screen Hollywood titles are 2.35:1.

To me IMAX 70 is cropped on the left and right compared to CinemaScope. Watching an IMAX 70 film in a normal theatre at wide screen aspect ratio crops the film again, so it’s effectively cropped on all four sides.