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.
|
|||||||
 Popular Projectors:Where to Buy:Research: | |||||||
I realised that while more presets would be good for resolution such as 2.40:1, it probably won't mean much for 4:3 content, as I'm guessing whenever it happens on 1080p material, it has black boxes on either side, so only side-masking is necessary anyway.
On a follow-up to the whole "loss of resolution" topic, the actual resolution of 2.35:1 material would be 1920x817. True, that is a loss from 1080 lines, but it is for instance still better than 720p (plus it has many more pixels per line as well). True that anamorphic lenses could together with scaling make sure all pixels in the projector is used, but it is not a drastic increase in pixels, and these are only calculated pixels anyway. The pixel structure may in extreme cases (if you have very large screen and very short distance) be less of a problem. Part of what is gained in light output will be lost in different needed zoom setting. On top of that, adding more optics in the light-path can negatively affect the picture and/or be very expensive to aquire. I think the 3000 is a great step for the vast majority of users that have somewhat of a limit on budgets.