2.35:1 fixed height for 16:9

[FNG212]

Maybe I searched the wrong thing but I didn't find much on specifically this:

How much of a penalty is there for getting a 2.35:1 screen for watching movies in that format and just dealing with the pillar-boxing of 16:9 formats? Is it the same 33% penalty as a 16:9 screen trying to display a 2.35:1 image?

By keeping height constant, and with a 1080p projector, I would assume that there is no resolution penalty for pillar boxing vs letter boxing. Thanks.

 

[jostenmeat]

IMO, the main knock on CIH is cost. Proportionately, relatively speaking. Sure, if you are using some +20k PJ, maybe some Sim2 Lumis/1080, the anamorphic lens will be a drop in the bucket. OTOH, if you are using an Epson 6500, that lens + VP becomes a very big investment.

You will see curved screens that help reduce pincushioning with anamorphic.

IMO, the best benefit of CIH is maximizing screen size with a better placement of center speaker (not too low or too high). Of course, with AT, that's a non issue.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I'm not a huge fan of 2.35:1 setups unless you are happy to invest significant cash, or willing to live with some downsides, such as the Panasonic implementation.

I think, on the lower end of things, the Panasonic implementation is easily the best. It auto zooms/focusses between two different images and you get a proper 16:9 fill on your 2.35 screen with full resolution intact. But, with 2.35:1 it zooms in, fills the space, and you get a drop off in resolution and brightness a bit, but proper fill of the screen.

If you are going 2.35:1 with a lens, then you MUST move that lens out of the way if you want the best image quality. Flat out, it is the most absurd thing I ever hear when people LEAVE the lens in place for all viewing.

Basically, 2.35:1 screen setups bug me because you take NATIVE 2.35:1 material, then stretch it to fill a 16:9 projector (1080p) then stretch it AGAIN with a lens to fill your screen. You do NOT get extra resolution, because they are not anamorphic Blu-ray titles. You may get a bit more from DVD, but not Blu-ray.

Likewise, if you don't remove the lens, then instead of the full, native 16:9 panel being used comletely, you then are using 33% less of the resolution than what is available to you and losing out on brightness.

If I had the money, I would think a far better investment would be a good AT screen. Or even going to a better projector.

If you have the money to do 2.35:1 correctly, then go ahead and get a masking system and motorized sled as well.

But, my biggest peeve is that people seem to want to do 2.35:1 because they think it sounds cool, without realizing that all they are doing is messing around with the native image and distoring it - which always makes things worse.

2.35:1 will make sense when you can buy a 2.35:1 projector... Not until then.