Behodar:

 

That's... helpful!

 

On the topic of movies (assuming that that's what it's from), movies that were presented at 2.39:1 theatrically but are at 1.78:1 for their home releases. I'm setting up a home theatre and I have a 2.39:1 screen, so I don't want pillarboxes! Some are easily salvageable (Interstellar) but others are a nightmare (Avatar, I'm looking at you!)

 

This isn't very common at all with modern movies, and I think you have picked two of the very few examples of this (unless you are talking about when they are broadcast on network TV). What other movies have been released like this?

Avatar was filmed with both aspect ratios in mind and was actually released to cinemas in both formats (depending on where you saw it). James Cameron decided in between the theatrical and video release that he preferred the 1:85.1 version and so mandated it as the only version for video release. I personally prefer 2.39:1 as it looks more cinematic, but in this instance 1.85:1 is still technically an intended aspect ratio from the beginning.

For its Blu-Ray release Chris Nolan did what he has done in his last few movies and released it in a variable aspect ratio. 2.39:1 for most of the feature and 1.78:1 for the IMAX sequences. The intention here is to add extra height to the IMAX scenes. However with a fixed 2.39:1 screen you will not get this benefit and will instead crop the top and bottom of the IMAX sequences (which is essentially how it was viewed in non-IMAX theatres originally).

I've also seen this a few times with 3D Blu-Rays, where the 3D version is 1.78:1 and the 2D version is 2.39:1. But I'm not counting those as 3D sucks anyway.