And just be sure I'm clear on this -- the whole thing with the use of an external anamorphic lens or in this case an anamorphic mode on the projector itself -- is that you eliminate the black bars when watching a movie or other material filmed in 2.35 or 2.4:1 ratios??
I would agree with the Industry above that these are features that are much more useful and exciting than this whole 3D crazy which is still beyond me it's usefulness...
Well, sort of, depends on how one words it. There are still black bars with a 2.35 screen because 1.78 has the bars on the sides now.
Anamorphic glass is a two-part distortion. Vertical stretch processing pulls your 2.35 vertically to fit the height that the 1.78 does. Then the lens pulls it apart to stretch if back out again to fill the whole screen. One of the main benefits here is that 100% of your lumens are always used for either AR. For everyone else, whether with 1.78 or a 2.35 by way of zoom, we are wasting 25% of both of our lumens, and of our pixels too.
The best way to do this is definitely with the lens. Not a few videophiles frown upon using the zoom method, although the cost savings can be compelling. But, is a 2.35 inherently better than 1.78? Hm? I find the best attribute of a 2.35 screen is better center speaker placement or accommodation. Otherwise, with an AT screen, then even that doesn't matter anymore.
If you do the zoom method, you will have to decide which AR to calibrate for, or perhaps do double the calibrations every 200 hours. I have presented the idea of doing an in between sized calibration as a compromise between the differing ARs. Also, some people (though admittedly nutty videophiles) will say that the electronic gradations of zoom/focus can make it impossible to get it just right when going between memory presets. However, I personally wouldn't worry much about this point.