<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[It started off at 2.35:1 as listed on IMDB .Then, after a few minutes of intro, it went into a 16x9 image embedded in a]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Good Neighbor</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>saneman1</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 31, 2017 07:24 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It started off at 2.35:1 as listed on IMDB .Then, after a few minutes of intro, it went into a 16x9 image embedded in a 4x3 frame.Kind of like when you watch a widescreen movie on your SD channels on your HDTV.  I thought maybe it was meant to signify the fact that they were taping, but it seemed like even the non taping scenes stayed that way. So I ended up doing a zoom to fill my TV screen while maintaing the same proportion and not sacrificing any of the image.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/257550/it-started-off-at-2-35-1-as-listed-on-imdb-then-after-a-few-minutes-of-intro-it-went-into-a-16x9-image-embedded-in-a</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 18:11:08 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/257550.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 04:39:12 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>