Lord of the Rings was shot in Super35, digitally scanned and edited with the CGI rendered at 1.78:1 and projected theatrically at 2.35.
I repeat again, shooting format is not the important, is the COMPOSITION, FINAL COMPOSITION was doing for the exhibition. The production format is choose for economic reason. Many people do scope films using a Super35, is bad but is cheapest, but they shooting thinking in scope exhibition. Some people, specially alternative, amateurs or similar, shoot in 16mm for made a 35mm film.

Think the are films for 35mm, that has material shooting in deiferent films format. Usually 70 for special effects cam be edited in the best cuality, 8mm or 16 for extremal condition shootings (like Everest climbing), 35mm for studio, 70mm for exteriors takes... The OAR is not determinated in shooting format, is determinated in shooting composition for all only OAR.




It could have been hard-matted to the same ratio as 70mm, or it could have been hard-matted to Cinemascope ratio, which while close, it was not.
But they decided use the third way.

Do in 35mm the aspect ratio of 70mm is a lost of resolution of print, and lost size of proyection (is made with scope optics). Do cinemascope ratio is lost more of lateral information, posible critical. They do more near they can do to scope, but just only no cutting critical information.

They find a way intermate in to the two extremals. Not why these, the 35mm is an original aspect ratio.

THE ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO IS ONLY ONE AND FOREVER.





Many of these films are on DVD using the full 16x9 anamorphic frame without even the very small black bars necessary for a proper 1.85 presentation.
Because dvd standar resolution aspect ratio in anamorfic configuration is very near, the bars are very small, and they put, FOR RESPECT THE ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO.




Is that then "close enough" to OAR?
Some films are edited in 1:78 not original format, using these idea. For many people, that is ok. Other thinks is nearley, but a little bars is not problem, and they prefer the original aspect ratio. But one is a personal election for adaptation for use all tv size (in 16x9), and other is the original aspect ratio. In most case is not critital cut.

But in others yes. In Jungle Book, originally 1:66 and edited in 1:75 (non standar is), is some takes you can see a little image cuts. See comparative in http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=757
The firts image you can see in down is cut a hand, that in 1:66 will no cut. In the four, Mogli's foot is cut, also for the same reason.

Is not edited with original aspect ratio, but now more near and very near of.





Hell, overscan on CRTs covers up differences between 1.66, 1.78 and 1.85 to make them indistinguishable.
These is other problem that not has relation with the OAR.

The exhibition concrets problem no determitate the ORIGINAL aspect ratio. Is not one cinema in the wold that has the formats exact to the last decimal. Is shooting with one original aspect ratio, with some security information for posible minimun adaptation in cinemas.

Think that all cinemas allwais cut a very, very litle or cut very little less than exact, for technical limitations in bilding of cinema.

Old tv-s cut, but new tv-s the cut is minor or is not.

But I repeat, that condition that you see, not be relationed with the OAR.





Just like P&S vs Matted
Forgot, all P&S and oppen matte, are not OAR. Is easy know P&S or matted, is you search and find diferent editions of one film.



That is, of course, just my opinion.  For all I know there is a repository of this information somewhere and I just haven't found it yet.
Usually good companies respect original aspect ratio. Usually in dvd forums detects the films not respect aspect ratio. If in the edition are two formats, think 1:33 is in 99%case a not original format.