Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
|
|||||||
A question I have is weather or not vertical stretching and projection thru an anamorphic lens is really that much better than just simply zooming the size of the 16:9 picture. This is a different situation from Anamorphic film projection where the full 4:3 35mm frame is horizontally optically expanded to 2.35: 1 CinemaScope. If you stretch the 16:9 DVD picture vertically, and then expand it horizontally, you will not have any a better picture than just zooming out with the regular projector lens because you still have the same amount of information on the screen! In fact you could argue that the introduction of additional lens components has to degrade the image quality over simple zooming. The only advantage that I can see with using an anamorphic lens on a video projector (with vertical stretching) is the elimination of the top and bottom black bars. But you can do this with moveable black velvet masking panels a heck of a lot cheaper than a $5000.00 lens! What is really needed are true dedicated anamorphic DVD prints that occupy the full height of the 16:9 array, so you then just horizontally expand to 2.35:1 using the anamorphic lens - without any need for vertical stretching. Then, and only then, will you have improved the picture quality over simple zooming. Has any body done some comparison testing of anamorphic lens versus zooming to the same size 2.35:1 picture width?