Comment text appears below:
"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."

While it may be obvious to you, it is not at all obvious to the average forum reader or to those first getting involved in front projection. The actual requirements necessary to properly implement CIH screens is not straightforward at all.

"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."

Disagree as you wish, but the numbers are a bit off. You have a 33% reduction in light output by running 16:9 in 4:3 mode through the anamorphic lens. Also, instead of running your NATIVE 16:9 content natively to your 16:9 projector, you are using 33% less of the pixel space allocated and rescaling everything to fit in a 4:3 box.

That is: Once again, if the setup allows for 16:9 HD material to be rescaled to a 4:3 box in the first place. Yes, I consider throwing away 33% of my HD image a very bad thing. So the lens MUST be shifted out of the way for optimal system performance.

"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."

Yes, and simply zooming a 2.35:1 film in to fit a native 2.35:1 screen is going to look pretty darn good (but 33% less bright than possible).

"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.)"

But, is the future of video DVD or HDTV? I would daresay that someone spending thousands of dollars just to go 2.35:1 is likely to go with HD discs (HD DVD/Blu-ray) and with HD television broadcasts for the majority of their viewings. But, I'm sure there are several good products on the market that can accomplish this.

In the end, I would love a list of all the possible anamorphic lenses out there that would work with front projection setups. I have only heard of a few that have been spoken of and if I'm going to spend as much adding accessory lenses to my setup, I sure would like to know what my options are.