In what way would a video processor help improve my setup. For the last month or so I've been thinking about adding one to my setup but I'm just not sure if the added cost would improve my setup in any way. To see pics of my setup click the link below.

It all seems very nice so far , so why fix it if it's not broken?

Is there a specific area where you're not satisfied?

Or how the video sources are being sent to the display?

If you look at the pictures of RGrim's theater, you'll notice that he has a Sanyo Z4. HDMI is run to the projector.

Given your sources, I recommend that you look at the DVDO iScan VP50.

If you look at the pictures of RGrim's theater, you'll notice that he has a Sanyo Z4. HDMI is run to the projector.

Given your sources, I recommend that you look at the DVDO iScan VP50.

Have no idea what exactly a video scaler does so you may need to explain a little more in detail. When using a scaler, do you send all your signals at the minimum resolution and let the scaler do the scaling? When I mentioned a scaler to my wife, her first question is, will it get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom of a 2:35 movie format? These are the kind of questions I need answers too. What would be the benefit of going with the VP50 say over the VP30? Thanks.

Have no idea what exactly a video scaler does so you may need to explain a little more in detail. When using a scaler, do you send all your signals at the minimum resolution and let the scaler do the scaling? When I mentioned a scaler to my wife, her first question is, will it get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom of a 2:35 movie format? These are the kind of questions I need answers too. What would be the benefit of going with the VP50 say over the VP30? Thanks.

Although I am not well versed on the differences between the VP30 and VP50 I do know that they will both remove the blacks bars on 2.35:1 movies, albeit at the loss of horizontal detail.

... will it get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom of a 2:35 movie format?

A 2.35:1 movie format has the picture in a rectangle whose width to height ratio is 2.35. Call this "Shape A".

A 16:9 screen is a rectangle whose width to height ratio is 1.78 (=16/9). Call this "Shape B".

Clearly, "Shape A" is different from "Shape B". Specifically, "Shape A" is "shorter" and "wider" than "Shape B".

You cannot fit a rectangle of "Shape A" exactly atop a rectangle of "Shape B" ... for then the two shapes would not be different.

Specifically, if you were to make the two have the same width, then "Shape A" will have a smaller height than "Shape B". This is what causes the black bars (which fill in the difference between the heights).

If you were to "stretch" the height to make it fill the 16:9 screen, then the images would not appear "right" (people will look thin and tall, balls will look like eggs, etc.). I believe that both scalers can do this ... if that is what you want.

If you were to make the two have the same height, then "Shape A" will have a larger width than "Shape B". This excess width will need to be "trimmed" (since its beyond the sides of the screen). "Pan and Scan" does this by deciding what is important in the image and trimming the rest -- either way, you lose part of the image (its "panaroma"). Not sure which scalers can do this.