Shari, A very thoughtful response. It seems, at second glance, we're barking up the same tree. I'm not trying to twist anyone's arm to support pan-and-scan video over letterbox. But the practice of building in throw-away content, to me, compromises the filmmaker's "art," as you call it, and eliminates the existence of a singular "original vision." In short, both formats can be valid. One designed specifically for theatre. The other designed specifically for TV. One is not always compatable with the other. I wouldn't, for example, suggest that many "multiplicity" films be projected in theatres in the pan-and-scan process. Though -- as with letterbox on video -- the results can be more dynamic on occasion. The suggestion that the widescreen image is "the artist's original vision" (you use the phrase a number of times) and that filmmakers "continue to have as their first choice the widescreen perspective" is further challenged when we have confirmation from our resident expert that "very few cinemas can show anything except 1:1.85 and scope" (which is why the theatrical version of Eyes Wide Shut is NOT Kubrick's "original vision"). It also explains why we don't see the old Academy standard (1.66:1) very much anymore (i.e Taxi Driver). In short, most filmmakers have been forced into a compromising position. So what do they do? Most opt to take the easy way out: multiplicity. Few dare to keep their vision singular. John Woo, for example, is one such risk-taker -- and its paying off. I was recently dragged to a second screening of M: I 2 and I was amazed to discover how much better the visuals are from the back row. The whole canvas is acknowledged. At one point you ask "that the ratio the filmmaker chooses be respected-- at least by those who claim to respect filmmaking as an art." Well, not too many in Hollywood would they call it "art," but there are certainly widescreen masters. To me, Cimino is the most obvious contemporary. All I'm trying to caution is people paying $20-30 to buy yet another video copy of a film they already own -- just because it's in "widescreen" -- and making the rude discovery that the "original vision" was "multiplicity": a factor which started this thread in the first place. The "original vision" phrase -- specifically, and only, attributed to widescreen -- is often a marketing phrase to sucker film enthusiasts (usually high-income earners, which is why laserdiscs were so pricey) to open their wallets once more. Sometimes it isn't. Therein lies the problem: figuring out where the differences are. dw ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html