Originally Posted by CAVX
And the reason for this thread.
Obviously, the quality of a 16:9 image that uses all the pixels of display would be superior to one that doesn't. You can't possibly deny that this is so.
After all, the whole argument for the superiority of anamorphic lenses is that it allows all of the pixel structure of a display to be used when displaying a 2.35:1 image. When you are viewing 16:9 images, the argument has to be the same. Use ALL the pixels of a display.
This "pixel density" concept of yours sounds to me to be a smoke screen argument to justify keeping a lens in place. A better argument would be that keeping a lens in place simplifies the CIH process. You sacrifice quality in the 16:9 image for ease of use with the lens.
I'm not saying you shouldn't keep your lens in place if you want to. All I'm saying is that if you're totally concerned with displaying an image in the best possible representation, you have to take the lens out of the way if you're viewing 16:9 material so that all the pixels are utilized. If you want to simplify the process, then keep it in place and rescale the image, sacrificing pixels to make the process easier.
You can't be saying that 16:9 material looks better with the lens than without. It simply can't be so, otherwise your whole argument for using a lens with 2.35:1 material falls apart by the same reasoning.