[winchell]

Would anyone recommend a 2.35 if 4:3 viewing is minimal or zero? I'm considering (favoring) it but nobody seems to go this direction. I'm wondering if 1.85 and 1.78 scaled to 2.35 is acceptable (possible?), which would take care of HDTV (I don't currently use but may in the future) and other 16x9 material. Or do most with a 2.35 screen just mask the sides?


I'm also wondering realistically how much the width increase would effect the tube wear and image degradation on a borderline-too-large screen (130" diagonal 2.35), since I want to preserve as much screen for 16x9 material as well. This is for a Sony G70. Thanks in advance for any comments!

 

[winchell]

Maybe I should make certain that "Widescreen anamorphic format" (such as in a DVD description on Amazon) is synonymous with 2.35. Do I have this straight?

 

[Jim Ferguson]

Quote:

Maybe I should make certain that "Widescreen anamorphic format" (such as in a DVD description on Amazon) is synonymous with 2.35. Do I have this straight?

Not quite. 2.35:1 refers to the ratio of the movie itself (2.35 times wider than it is tall.) A 2.35:1 movie could be anamorphic or not. "Anamorphic" refers to the method used to encode the image onto the disk, not the visible aspect ratio of the image itself. An anamorphic transfer could be done of any aspect ratio film from about 1.66:1 on up.

 

[Phat Phreddy]

But does an anamorphic transfer only come in 16x9 image ?? Any other narrower format (2.35, etc, etc) would be letterboxed inside the 16x9 panel...


I would consider a 2.35 screen unusual in this regard and would consider a masking system for 16x9 for more flexibilty unless you are a real Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia type of Guy http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif ... Also Aspect ratio control of other sources (pillarboxing 16x9 - 4:3) inside a 2.35 screen would be more complex (but possible if using HTPC YxY combo)...


PP