One thing that still troubles me is that, for example, if we have a 16mm film and a super 16mm film. I know we get more image from the super 16mm because it uses more of the film. But what I don't understand is: is the image that we get wider or taller (or both) than the image of a 16mm film. (width and height).
Because I know the bigger the sensor, the bigger the field of view. So is this field of view bigger in terms of the height or in terms of the width?
Also, in the diagram it show that 1.85 widescreen is shorter than 1.33. Does this mean that we lose some of the top and some of the bottom of the image when we use widescreen?
I'm so sorry if I'm being a pain. It's just this small part that's still bothering me. Apart from that I understand
Super-16 film uses 16mm stock with sprocket holes running down one side only, so it can expose a wider area almost out to the edge of the stock, the edge opposite the perf row. So it is the same height as a regular 16mm frame but a little bit wider horizontally. 16mm prints also only have sprocket holes on one side but the opposite edge is used up by the optical soundtrack stripe. So Super-16 exposes picture information in that soundtrack area, so you can't make a sound 16mm print from a Super-16 negative unless you want to chop off the edge of the picture because of the soundtrack, or reduce the image to fit within the width of the regular 16mm projected area. That's why Super-16 is really meant for blow-up to 35mm, or for transfer to 16x9 video.
A bigger sensor sees more of the lens' projected image so the field of view is larger, unless the image starts to vignette on the wider sensor (because the lens was only designed to cover a smaller sensor area.) Whether the field of view is bigger vertically, horizonally, or both just depends on if the bigger sensor is bigger vertically, horizontally, or both.
If you shoot with a square negative, then a widescreen shape involves not using the whole height of the negative (unless you use an anamorphic lens to squeeze a widescreen image onto a squarer negative.)
So yes, the 1.85 format wastes some of the 4-perf 35mm negative and print area since Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1 (4x3). The 2.39 anamorphic lens ("CinemaScope") process doesn't because it squeezes the image horizontally by 2X to fit onto a squarer shaped negative. But the 2.39 Super-35 spherical lens process wastes a lot of the 4-perf 35mm negative.