1080P with a 2.35:1 movie

[JeffKnob]

I was pondering something this evening that I hope someone can clarify. On a 16x9 TV with 1080P the resolution is 1920x1080. With a 2.35:1 movie would the resolution for the actual picture be 1920x817? Do the bars on the top and bottom actually use up some of the lines?

The reason I ask is with front projectors they make anamorphic lenses. The projector stretches the image to fill the whole 1920x1080 and then the lense stretches out wider to fill the 2.35:1 screen. As I understand the point in doing this is to utilize all of the pixels that the projector can offer but still get the 2.35:1 picture. By doing this are you effectively only interpolating the picture to fill those pixels? It is like making up data that isn't actually there. If this is the case then I question how much using an anamorphic actually adds versus just zooming the projector so that the bars on the top and bottom are just off of the 2.35:1 screen.

[02audionoob]

If a Blu-ray is putting out a 16:9 image to show a 2.35:1 movie, the bars would be part of the 16:9 picture coming from the Blu-ray. It's just that part of the 16:9 image is bars.

[pixelthis]

I was pondering something this evening that I hope someone can clarify. On a 16x9 TV with 1080P the resolution is 1920x1080. With a 2.35:1 movie would the resolution for the actual picture be 1920x817? Do the bars on the top and bottom actually use up some of the lines?

The reason I ask is with front projectors they make anamorphic lenses. The projector stretches the image to fill the whole 1920x1080 and then the lense stretches out wider to fill the 2.35:1 screen. As I understand the point in doing this is to utilize all of the pixels that the projector can offer but still get the 2.35:1 picture. By doing this are you effectively only interpolating the picture to fill those pixels? It is like making up data that isn't actually there. If this is the case then I question how much using an anamorphic actually adds versus just zooming the projector so that the bars on the top and bottom are just off of the 2.35:1 screen.

That 235:1 does fill up less real estate , lowering your resolution slightly.
Your anamorpic lens will use what evers there to make a full screen pic on your
235:1 screen.
However some discs are anamorpic(at least some DVDs) the picture is streched, your lens will revert it to a true 235:1, giving a full res picture.
Havent seen any Blu anamorpic discs tho.:1:

[02audionoob]

With anamorphic lenses...an optical technology...the widescreen movie is filmed so it is squeezed (horizontally) onto the film. An anamorphic lens at the movie house takes a 4:3 (approx.) image and projects it in its intended widescreen proportions. It avoids wasting the film and produces a better image than zooming.

With digital, I would think the concept will hold. Using an anamorphic lens to project a 4:3 image in widescreen should look better than zooming. I don't have any experience with projectors, but to benefit from the anamorphic lens with DVD, it would seem like you would need the anamorphic DVDs. Those are the ones that have a 16:9 image squeezed onto 4:3, so everything looks tall and narrow. An anamorphic lens could then use that image without inserting bars above and below it.