Comment text appears below:
AV_Integrated makes some reasonable and interesting points, well worth discussing. So forgive this long post.

Setting up: ---------- True, "[t]he actual requirements necessary to properly implement CIH screens is not straightforward at all." But I'm not arguing that 2.35CH is appropriate for everyone, especially newbies to front projection. In choosing my projectors (Panasonic models) over the past few years I've made sure that they have suitable zoom functionality for 2.35. It's kinda the same as buying a car. If you want a car for a family of five, there's no point buying a Honda Civic. You have to do the research. Once done, that part of the exercise can be ruled off.

Light output: ------------ When watching a 2.35 movie through an anamorphic lens you actually achieve a comparative light *gain*. In considering comparative brightness you have to compare the anamorphic method against the alternative method. Pre-zooming the picture for anamorphic projection means you start off with a smaller height than with the "traditional" technique (as only the width will be expanded). This results in an immediate brightening of the (now smaller) image, by a theoretical factor of 78% (4/3-squared under the inverse square rule). The digital zoom you then need to do does not alter this (as it's digital, not optical). The subsequent optical anamorphic expansion loses some of this, of course (a theoretical 25% - see next paragraph), but not all of it, as the expansion is in only one dimension. The theoretical starting point is a 133% brighter picture compared to the traditional technique. A few per cent drop off for internal reflections inside the anamorphic lens, and some f/stop loss due to inefficient zoom lens design as you reduce the image dimensions (most projector zoom lenses are like this). The end result is about 120% brighter, using more pixels, hence less "granularity" in the image.

16:9 - Anamorphed or Direct?: ---------------------------- As you correctly point out a 16:9 image formed for 4/3 and then optically expanded to 16:9 through the anamorph is dimmer, but not by 33%. The actual difference is 25% (at least theoretically), as the new picture is 1.33 units wide compared to the old picture being 1 units wide (whatever the units are). That is a ratio of 1/1.33 (original/expanded),3/4, 75%, or a 25% drop. The image size is increased by one-third, but the *ratio between the areas* of original and new sizes is 3/4, and that is what determines brightness. Add in light loss through the anamorphic lens and you reach about -28%. Then add a light *increase* by using the high power light setting of +20% and you have my figure of "<25%" light loss.

But there's a more salient point to be made about this. The anamorphed 16:9 picture is *just as bright* as the anamorphed 2.35:1 picture. So, if you're prepared to go with the brightness level of the 2.35 picture, what's wrong with the brightness level of the 16:9 picture (expanded from 4/3), which is *exactly the same* (and optically - not digitally - expanded)? Once again, it comes down to projector choice: getting set up properly.

I know these figures are sort of mind boggling. I've had to put them in text-based form. The equations for comparison are actually much neater, but less intuitive to go over for your average projector user. Suffice it to say that anamorphic lens manufacturers commonly claim that their 2.35 expanded image is brighter than a 2.35 zoomed image. They're absolutely correct in asserting this, though it's less due to their "brilliant" designs than it is to simple optical theory. Measurement with a light meter confirms these calculations.

Cropping: -------- I concede that cropping a 16:9 to 2.35:1 is a matter of taste. The director's input is finished after the premiere. If I buy a movie and like it cropped to 2.35:1 that's entirely my business, isn't it? After all, who owns a piece of art: the artist or the mug who buys it? It's a philosophical question that we're not going to solve here.

I often zoom to a compromise position, anyway. The Panasonic range have a middle zoom setting of "14:9", which preserves all subtitles and credits, in my experience. Seeing as many cinemas crop for this approximate aspect ratio (so they can run both 16:9 and Cinemascope without having to swap screen heights too radically), the directors must make their movies watchable in it. Therefore it's arguable about just exactly what the director intends. He has to make a living too and must make allowances for different crops between exhibition venues. If he "intends" to provide for his family, then he makes the adjustment.

HD: -- A vexed question. If I had my way, 2.35 HD movies - in fact ALL movies - would be recorded "squeezed", so as to occupy the full 16:9 frame size and height, and the player could crop, squeeze or letterbox as necessary, depending on display device. 2.35CH would get a terrific boost if this was done, but it's not, sadly (or if it is, they're not telling us).

Once again, the newer models in the Panasonic range (AX100 and AE1000) allow for height adjustment of HDMI signals, suitable for 2.35CH operation. No scalers required. I don't know about other units as I've made my choice of brand (so far, anyway!).

General: ------- I like 2.35CH because I can run my movies - standard DVD or HD - right out to their full widths and full heights without having to change screens or adjust the projector. It *is* a matter of getting set-up properly. All my screen size adjustments (except 4/3 classics) are done with my remote control, not by sliding lenses or refocusing and re-zooming the projector. True couch-potato stuff.

I enjoy the films more than the equipment, which is only there to enhance my appreciation of the films, after all. I guess you'd say I'm not a perfection junkie. The truly excellent quality pictures I see on my screen, in my own home (with all the convenience and savings that provides) far outweigh the relatively (sometimes outright) non-observeable departures from absolute perfection that my viewing preferences may entail. I use sub-$5,000 projectors because they're good enough for my purposes and provide all the zoom settings and offset adjustments necessary for my situation. If I wanted perfection I'd sell the kids and spend $50,000 on the new SIM 3-chip 1080i unit coming soon. But I'd probably be less than $45,000 happier.

Absolute image quality to me is unattainable, and unnecessary. It's a myth that the manufacturers have to promote so they can sell new gear and upgrades. Sure, there are improvements to be had, and some models are better than others, but as to whether they're worth all the expense, the envy, the worry and the angst involved is another question.

A Schneider lens for USD$6,000? You've got to be kidding! 30 seconds into a half-decent movie you couldn't tell the difference, and wouldn't care anyway.