[quote=“ION BRITTON, post:16, topic:1627”]OK, got it. The database probably needs to be corrected, 1.66:1 seems more correct to me than 1.85:1 for this movie.
Any idea why the image is a bit cropped on top?[/quote]
Most films in 1,66:1 or 1,85:1 were in fact shot in 1,37:1, the normal 35 mm film format. The Widescreen is then done by masking it for a 1,66:1 aspect ratio while projecting it in the cinema.
This means there is always a lot more to see at top and bottom on the 35 mm negative than it was intended to be seen in the cinemas. But all this can be seen if these films are shown in a 4:3 open matte aspect ratio. Which mostly was the case for TV showings and VHS cassettes in the times when the 4:3 TV was the only TV standard.
But nowadays, in the times of 16:9 TVs, DVDs of films, originally intended for a 1,66:1 masking, are mostly released by DVD companies in a 1,78:1 or 1,85:1 aspect ratio. Which is simply done by masking the film slightly more than originally intended.
If you compare a 1,66:1 or 1,85:1 DVD with a fullscreen VHS of one particular film, then you can see that in most cases there is a lot more to see at top and bottom, while the sides are identical.
So a fullscreen VHS of a 2,35:1 film loses nearly half of the original image, while a fullscreen VHS of a 1,66:1 or 1,85:1 film shows instead more on top and bottom (if it is open matte fullscreen). But this “more” was not intended to be seen for the audience.