I still like standard Academy Ratio over the widescreen ratios.

In the cinema 2.35:1 anamorphic is looking quite good. At home I actually like the widescreen versions over the anamorphic ones. Less hassle with lenses

Vidar I think that the normal non-anamorphic prints are always sharper than the scope ones no matter how good the print quality.

All my prints but one are academy ratio; I have one from DCR films that was a widescreen print printed flat, so no need for an anamorphic lens. That makes the image much smaller. Widescreen came in because of falling attendances due to the increase in TV. Why do we have to have so many different formats in widescreen. To answer your question, I prefer academy ratio, fortunately, I like older movies.

I agree Robert to much blinking WideScreen Ratios . Waste of time and money.

When we bought a Widescreen TV I thought the days of watching films with a black band top and bottom was over, but we still get it now and then.

I love the scope ratio to me it is real cinema. To bad the new Digital scope format in cinema is letterboxed resulting in the least resolution of the two ratio formats.

Hi alangouger.
I can understand you liking the scope ratio but it has little to do with being "real cinema".
A film is cinema in any aspect ratio. Unless you are meaning that the overall experience of being in
a Cinema watching a scope movie is more rewarding for you. I am a bit confused though. Don't you watch and enjoy flat ratio movies ?
I don't want to talk about Digital so I wont.

How does the size of the screen today compare with screens of the 60s.Cinemas only had one screen, and I am sure that when I saw 'Jason' and 'Zulu' it was on a much bigger screen than now. The cinema have been to in Oxford in the last few years is three screens in one, hardly any seats, and hardly more than a glorified garden shed.