Originally Posted by adidino
I wasn't sure how it works but I have been debating going this route. How about movies like batman where the aspect changes in certain scenes?
To be fair this is where the lens option can fall down, but TBH as the resulting image simply remains at 2.35:1 (the top and bottom of the Imax scenes would be cropped by the vertical stretch) you might not be too bothered. I'm not a Batman fan myself (I know that's considered a hanging offence here, but never mind
) nor the other animated film that was produced this way. I did once watch 'Valkerie' (1.85:1 AR) with the stretch mode engaged (so I viewed it in 2.35:1) and was non the wiser until after the event.
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler
I appreciate your post. I did not mean to imply by my emphatic "never will" comment that I do not think they offer useful options for folks. I'm just weighing it in the context of me being more biased to the sound side of the equation than the picture. The room is used 90% for music, 10% for movies. So I went with the RS-10 vs the RS-20, for example. But I think the results are superb nonetheless.
Is brightness the main benefit of adding the lens?
No worries Roger, we all have different priorities on here: I recently 'downgraded' to an older (but quality) Arcam AV9 processor to get better stereo results and gave up full HD sound (though 'core' DTS actually sounds better than my old 'full HD' receiver did, so go figure). Some might think I was daft for doing this, but it works for me. At your % viewing/listening I can understand your priorities, I actually home demo'd a HD750 against the HD350 (= RS20 against RS10) I bought and found that my room (at the time) limited the differences making the extra cost unjustifiable to me. Ironically, now my room is further improved I'd have got more benefit from the dearer model, so I plan to buy a used/end of line HD950 one day...
Brightness is one benefit, but with the HDxxx models you can reduce the iris and retain the same brightness overall, but gain extra contrast: Less iris gives more contrast. Also you tend to get more contrast at the minimum zoom end compared to the zoom required if 'zooming', so if the image is bright enough with a lens you might get more contrast due to these two factors. I used to find that I got a 'ring' of light on my ceiling above my head from some kind of overspill in the light engine which the lens removed, but more as a side effect caused by the housing masking it. The final side effect being that the black bars aren't there at all (which may not really matter if your screen wall is surrounded by very black material), which makes my screen surround completely black. More into the realm of placebo effect perhaps, but even though I couldn't 'see' the pixels before I bought the lens, the image just seems to be more 'solid' rather like when you see a smaller TV as the image is more dense. The biggest tell is when I remove the lens and go back to zooming...it just doesn't seem as good, which is the important bit for me.
There are pages of threads discussing this in the CIH section and they can get really
heated, so probably best to leave it there.