I hope no one here wrote this because it's pretty terrible IMO, just an uninformed blog post from someone who thinks zooming is better than a lens. It's definitely not a "review"
When the projector is asked to vertically stretch an image to remove the black bars on the top and bottom, this requires the projector to process the picture and processing always degrades the image (for more information on this, read the article on 1080p resolution elsewhere on this site). The vertical stretch process degrades visible detail in the image by effectively 50%. Two million pixels of detail become one million pixels of detail. With only 1.56 million pixels of real detail to begin with on a 2.39 film, the stretching process degrades the image detail to roughly 780,000 pixels of detail. It’s 720p quality now and the image is noticeably softer than when it started out.
Where the heck did they get that? They provide no tests/data to back it up and the premise is just flawed from the get go.
Then there's this:
As for light output, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The extra light coming out of the projector lens is spread out over a larger screen surface. This light is also sent through an additional piece of glass that further reduces light output.
Well yeah, that's the point,
This may be top it though:
Anamorphic lenses have their own color properties and will require a separate white balance setting to be done.
I have never seen this claim made anywhere else. If this were true, I think you'd see lots of talk here from those who have their lens's on sleds.
Anamorphic lenses that move in and out of position may need alignment over time. They may also affect the alignment of the projector image as well.
Seems pretty thin, "may need", "may also affect", really? I think Scott would take issue with that comment.
And then they go on with the section talking about "issues" with zooming but it's really all positives about why it's better, then they quote some tests and don't provide any data or where the info came from...