It shouldn’t look extremely wide since 2.20:1 is not as wide as your average 2.35:1 flick (very common aspect ratio and usually the widest things go). However, there should still be clearly noticeable black-bars top and bottom:
The first two images in my post 28 are in the correct aspect ratio of 2,2:1. According to the Al!ve website, the film is presented on BD in an aspect ratio of 16:9 (1,78:1).
Thanks. Will check again tonight and report. Just to make it clear: i think it looks amazing all things considered. The only weakness of the release seems to be lack of extras.
The T.V print I have with full english audio for a running time of 1hour and 50 mins starts off in 2,.35: 1 ratio and then drops down to 2,.2: 1 ratio:
Those pictures are definitely stretched. But they are in 2.20:1 … If you resize them to 1.85:1 they look ok, so my guess is the tv-print is a stretched 1.85:1 print.
I’m just wondering if maybe the 70mm print they are working with is actually an old 70mm “blow-up” of a 35mm print? Are we sure the film was originally shot on 70mm?
It is regularly listed on Wikipedia as European 65/70 mm film.
I think it is normal that original 70mm films photographed with spherical optics when a 35 mm projection print was used were shown in the aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (see for example movies we know for sure like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Hamlet), while for 1.25X anamorphic optics the 2.76:1 aspect ratio was cropped slightly to 2.55.
But the scanned 70mm positive print (see link above) should have a 2,20:1 AR, and in fact the image below is about 2,15:1 (550x257)