Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5
The projector or video processor stretches the image vertically. The A-lens stretches the image horizontally. If what you suggested was happening, people and objects would not look right. They would be out of per portion. That is not the case. An A-lens is the best method for 2.35, but it is also the most expensive. Cost is the reason why people use the zoom method.
how do you figure? I'm either really misunderstanding something, or there's some voodoo going on, haha.
so let's just assume that the native pixel structure is square(I honestly don't know if it is, but it makes it easier to describe what happens). ok, so those pixels are fixed right, they can not physically change shape, which means no matter what the IMAGE looks like, the physical pixel structure will be square when it leaves the projector. the anamorphic processing on the projector digitally stretches the image, which doesn't stretch the pixels. the a-lens then stretches the image horizontally, making that pixel structure rectangular, and the overall image 'normal'.
it's pretty simple math, the only way a 1920x1080 pixel structure ends up being anything other than 16:9 is if the pixels become rectangular.
so, i'm just wondering WHY an a-lens is still 'the best' if it doesn't technically add any native resolution. if the source doesn't have 1080lines, we're trading off extra pixels for extra processing. it reminds me of a few years back when 720p displays actually looked better playing 720p signals than similar 1080p displays. the 1080p looked 'smoother' because you saw less pixel structure, but the 720p looked much sharper and clearer. I guess processing has gotten better as well, but I still wonder if this is a numbers game not backed up by real worried results. would you really be able to pick out the difference? honest question, I've no experience with an a-lens