This is why I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the high def audience. When I first got DVD, I had a 13 inch TV (I was only 14 or so). I'd never buy a fullscreen version of a movie, but I would watch the open matte stuff on discs like Freddy Vs. Jason to which I was made fun of by everyone because I didn't watch it "as the director intended". Then no one on this planet would stop saying FOOLSCREEN in regards to full screen releases and people shat upon those who bought full frame DVDs to fill up their TV. The DVD audience wanted the films as close as to theatrical as possible. Now, hardcore HD fans are stretching shot in 4:3 to 16 x 9 ("you just gotta get used to it" they tell me) to fill up their screens, they don't mind F13 being zoomed in because it looks clear, and suddenly everything the hardcore DVD crowd fought for goes moot because so many people simply want to jack off to improved clarity, even if the DNR is off the fucking charts (not that it's an issue here). As far as I recall from my experience, people sided with Kubrick's open matte policy until screen size became 16 x 9, and now it's bring on the theatrical format because it's filling up their TVs. Funny how things change. But, like others have said, the 1.85:1 isn't always presented properly on the 1.78:1 screen either. But, I just can't buy that a transfer zoomed in, more focused on the people (center?) is going to look better than it ever has, from a photography standpoint.