whoever started this thread was a genius! im having the same thoughts but over a year later. in the CE world that's like a century. anyway, a native 2.35:1 pj really is the solution. does anyone out there have an idea about what percentage of dvd's are 2.35:1? it seems to me like over 50%! ive noticed most animated movies are 16:9, and some not-so-action movies are as well, and also 1.85:1. but especially when you get into the action genre (which i love), it is saturated w/ 2.35:1.
so lets say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of movies are 2.35:1, then its a no brainer that that should be the native aspect ratio of your display. especially w/ my setup, the area that is available for a screen is much wider than tall. id even estimate the area (a wall at the end of a basement) as having an aspect ratio near 2.35:1. so when watching narrower content on my imaginary 2.35:1 pj & screen, i wouldnt be losing a thing to a setup dedicated to those aspect ratios! my image size would be just as big (tall) as it would have been with a 16:9 screen & pj!
yeah, i hear ya, "youd be losing brightness". sure, its true. also, unless elaborate masking were employed, the entire presentation would suffer. but we're talking about the minority of the time, and id be willing to put up with those two MINOR things. well, im in a basement, so ive got light control up the wazoo. maybe id be more obsessed w/ brightness if the pj were upstairs. but they are pretty darn bright these days, w/ a plethora of (pricy) screens available to brighten up the image and reduce reflection of ambient light.
also, if my screen area had a taller composition to it, i might be singing a different tune. in addition, i dont watch too much tv. for tv watchers, its all about 16:9 hd. i just think theres a huge market for native 2.35:1 pjs. i started a similar thread on eggxpert: http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/39790.aspx
one more thing, whoever was talking about having lenses on pjs back there is crazy. to support their point, people were comparing our home theaters to commercial theaters. ridiculous! i dont have that kind of cash! id never buy a lense for my pj, id live w/ the smaller 2.35:1 image first. those things are expensive! sure, movie theaters may always use them, but then again, movie theaters have customer expections to meet. no matter what aspect ratio they are presenting, it should be shown at its absolute best. in order to do that simply, theyd need a projector for each aspect ratio. absurd. instead they use lenses. now tell me, are any of you out there such perfectionists that you must have individual add-on lenses so that your pj always presents its content optimally, using every pixel and square mm of the chip? you people are crazy, and good luck when your kids need money for school.
instead, i move to develop a more practical method. pick a pj with a given aspect ratio, chosen b/c it represents the majority of content that you view, and stick with it. of course, the screen's AR matches the pj's native AR. now take the bad w/ the good, and the good will be great when your favorite aspect ratio comes along. for me, right now, im happiest when watching ice age, and i frown at lord of the rings, b/c the overall image is smaller.
the above method is what most pj users employ today, except they don't get to pick the aspect ratio, b/c the only (viable) option is freaking 16:9! and when observing dvds' ARs, 16:9 is far too rare! and 2.35:1 far to prevalent! i love the wide picture, except that it costs me 24% of my screen size! hey, i have fptv system for a reason! i want a huge picture! aahhhhh! cmon, infocus! focus on whats the best, most of the time! aaaahhhhhhh!