Here's the ACTUAL quote
Originally Posted by Ideal AV
I actually borrowed a friends ISCO lll large, it wasn`t on a sled, just an ISCO mount on a velvet flat panel bed which slid under the JVC X30-70 and Sony 95.
It was shown to several visitors to be honest and it wasn`t clear which one was preferred, lens or no lens.
All agreed that they could see no loss of brightness though just with zooming and the zoomed image still remained sharp.
with the advent of lens memory i`m not sure anamorphic lenses have the appeal as they used to but we all have our preferences and i`d never knock them.
FWIW the lens/mount was sold on, for I believe £2k to get rid of it
Regarding the brightness issue - without a direct side-by-side comparison, the difference in brightness between an anamorphic lens setup and a zoom setup may not be readily apparent, depending upon the aggressiveness of the iris that's engaged when the projector's zoom is used. However I have yet to see a single report of a projector with an iris so aggressive that one would get equal or more lumens by zooming as compared to using an anamorphic lens.
The poster didn't really comment on any of the other myriad of variables that can make the difference between a lens and zooming apparent (or not): screen texture, quality of the material being watched, viewing distance, visual acuity, image brightness, etc. Lump on top of that that the effect of all of these variables may be readily apparent to an enthusiast but not a casual observer...and what we can conclude from the above quote is of little to no use.
Understand that I'm not for or against one CIH method or another; different budgets, personal preferences, design constraints, and other variables can drive an individual to favor one method over another. However the quote above is anything but definitive as to which method is "better" - not that such a black and white statement could be made in the first place.