Comment text appears below:
I would have like to have seen some test conditions.

For example, what projector, throw length and ratio, format (DLP/LCD/1080/720). Just saying "Wow!" isn't all that helpful.

Of course a $6000 adapter will be good (it had better be!), but until we see some concrete specifications (I looked, couldn't find any) and test conditions how can any kind of proper evaluation be made?

Having said that, I find some of the objections in the last post a bit picky.

Comments 1/2. Obviously you'd have to have a vertically re-sizeable projector. This isn't a real objection to someone who wants to use 2.35 CH. They have to make sure they have the right equipment.

Comment 3. I disagree that you need, as a practical measure, to slide the lens in and out of the optical path all the time.

I use an anamorphic lens of my own design, optimized for 1080 resolution, and most of the time I leave it in place. I run 16:9 movies in the projector's 4:3 mode and they optically expand out to 16:9 nicely. Often I run a 16:9 movie in 2.35 anyway (as many of them seem to be framed for that). The difference between the optical expansion and a digital expansion is very, very slight, if anything at all (depending on lens quality, of course). The image is only slightly dimmer (<25%). It's no big deal.

I can understand a purist wanting to go for absolute top quality image every time, but in practice, the image quality through a decent anamorphic adapter with good contrast is pretty transparent, even at 1080.

With standard resolution DVDs, even my old original prototype adapter (NOT suitable for 1080) is hard to distinguish from the 1080 version, due to DVD's inherent low resolution. You really only see the difference with test patterns (grids, etc.)

General comment: the real advantage of expensive lenses like the Schneider is their lack of distortion. To get this you need to either add elements, or (as Schneider do) add aspherical surface radii to one or more elements. These require machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that perform all NC grinding and polishing with a diamond tipped tool, and the results are really hard to QC, hence the extra expense (plus, of course, anything German, you can double the price).

But is the difference between a spherical and an aspherical lens all that important? True, my lens adds about 12mm of pincushion over a 120 inch screen (less than half an inch). There is some distortion, 8mm, between the ideal and actual position of a pixel halfway between the centre and edges of the screen. But in reality this is a tiny amount on a 120 inch screen (< 0.6% of the width of the screen). Unless you have a fixed grid to compare it with it is unremarkable to the viewer.

I guess what I'm saying is that, at $6000 the advantages of a Schneider or an ISCO over a less ambitious, conventional design are there, but in the realm of hair-splitting - as long as the sharpness and aspect ratios of the cheaper lens are adequate. Getting the image sharp is easy, and is the rest of the problem worth paying so much more for, or agonising over when it's essentially invisible to the naked eye?