Originally Posted by coolrda
At the last two CES they had a display set up to answer that very question. Overwhelmingly 1080 sources/2160 display was night and day difference over a pixel mapped 1080/1080. It goes beyond pixel fill and differences. Having viewed several 2160 displays, both 2160x3840'and 2160x4096, one thing stood. The complete transparency of the picture. The term organic is often used. The best analogy I can thing of is its like viewing a studio quality 16x20 photo, annabsolute facsimile without playback degradation. Until you've experience this you have know idea. My point is simply this. Until a native 2.35 projector based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%, the lens will always be equal too or superior to a native 2.35.
Sounds like a 'Monster Cable' type demo!!
I think we should agree to disagree.
There is no way image integrity can be maintained as image perfect as the original image displayed at it's original native capture ie 1920 x 1080 capture displayed at 1920 x 1080. Viewed at the appropriate distance for ones visual acuity.
I'm not saying that scaling cannot look good, it can, but it won't be as good as the original. Sure, if the resultant image is not large enough for the viewer and the size produced by zooming makes the pixel structure interfere with the desired quality of the projected image, scaling and using more pixels and an A-Lens will produce a better result under those circumstances.
But to say an A-Lens will under all circumstances produce a superior image is false, zooming at times can be superior to scaling and using an A-Lens and vise versa. Think MTF & ANSI etc. Think of UMR's observations.
If image size is not the deciding factor, viewed from the appropriate distance based on ones visual acuity, a masked 2.35:1 CIW will produce the best image quality, better than both zooming or scaling and using an A-Lens.
My next spend is to buy another motorised 16:9 screen, slightly larger than the current, mount it a bit closer to the viewing area, both screens will have horizontal masking, the larger screen masked to 2.35:1 will have the same area and vertical viewing angle as the non masked smaller screen(16:9), essentially will be a CIA, however as it's mounted closer, the setup will also be CVIA (Constant Vertical Image Angle) between both screens (larger screen masked to 2.35:1 and the smaller screen displaying 16:9). The plan is 17.5 degrees vertical for both.
The larger screen image will be dimmer, but that is a plus as it will reduce unwanted artifacts from being seen due to the image being bigger. If the encode is far from optimum, I can watch it on the smaller screen be it 16:9 or 2.35:1 masked...zero black bars on either screen, irrespective of the AR, 1.78:1 or larger that is.
Should be interesting.