VHS?

Not open matte on this. Same height, sides cropped.

START AT 3:55

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SNzgi3pqwDw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Josh Z

In that video, the 16:9 version only has a smidge more picture on the sides, whereas the 4:3 version has decidedly more height on the top and bottom. The 16:9 was created from a combination of both cropping the height and opening mattes off the sides.

whotony

Ive seen These in the Walmart 7.88

VHS?

Smidge!? c'mon dude that's way more than a smidge. A smidge is the difference between 1.85:1 and 16:9
And where are you seeing more height? Did you hear him say screen grabs were not exact spot so some images appear zoomed a little. Watch from the 4:30 mark.

Josh Z

Literally every single shot comparison from 16:9 to 4:3 jumps backwards like the image is zoomed out because there's more height.

Compare 2:05 to 2:15. Lots more height above the boy's head in 4:3. The width is only slightly wider in 16:9. On screen left, the frame cuts off right after the girl's elbow in 4:3, but has a small buffer after that in 16:9. If this were strictly an open-matte job where the height remained constant, there'd be a lot more room past her elbow.

At 5:05, the top of the frame is flush with Harry Anderson's head in 16:9. At 5:30, there's a bunch of space above him in 4:3. The right side of the frame is virtually unchanged. Both stop right after Anderson's arm. The left is hard to see because the shot is so dark there, but I don't see much extra width in 16:9.

As I said, the 16:9 version was created from a combination of cropping the height and opening the mattes off the width. Realistically, this is probably a good compromise and I doubt the 16:9 version will often look "wrong" (if ever). Nonetheless, the miniseries was composed for 4:3 with the expectation of airing that way on television.