This is the conclusion I've come to as well, especially when the screen in question is 16x9. Nonetheless, this thread has been a wonderful education on the topic for me and I want to thank all of the experts who chimed in to distill it down to my level. :)
Thanks guys. I think I get it now. This topic is much easier to understand from the perspective of a 2.35:1 screen, which I don't have. I'm a visual learner and this helped tie it all together for me...
Thanks to everyone who jumped in to help me better understand this topic. I'm using this particular post to continue the discussion only because it addresses all of my remaining areas of confusion.
So in my case the image processor referred to is my Epson 6050, right? When I select the...
Great explanation. Thank you. Personally, I also have to agree with @Sam Posten on this one. My 16x9 screen is a "compromise" I'm happy to make, all things considered. As stated in a previous thread, I've given up on the notion of worthwhile HDR from a projector, at least in my price range.
OK - maybe I'm getting it. You're basically saying the anamorphic lens will make the image displayed by the Epson's Anamorphic setting look natural while still filling my 16x9 screen?
Exactly, and why is that? Is it because they aren't sold in sufficient quantity to drive the price down?
I'm happy to learn I am not the only one confused by this topic. My projector has the anamorphic function but I do not posses the requisite add-on lens. When I select Anamorphic for 2.35:1 source material the vertical stretch is nice but appears somewhat unnatural.
...But this is the part of...
Fascinating read, Martin. I'm one of those enthusiasts who is woefully under educated on aspect ratios as they apply to film. I use an Elite Screens borderless 16x9 screen. My projector has excellent lens memory features. Sometimes I bother with it but most of the time I just sit back and...