anamorphic lenses + aspect ratios

[Erman_94]

Ok I have been reading up on projectors lately and I had a few questions.

I am aware that you would need an anamorphic lens (like the Panamorph models) to get 2:35:1 content to fill your projector screen if your screen is 1:78:1 but...

1) Would you need an anamorphic lens if your screen was 2:35:1? If yes, would you need it because the projector is 1:78:1? Do they make projectors that are 2:35:1?

2) What if you have a screen that is 2:35:1 and you watch content that is 1:78:1? Im assuming you would get the black bars...but would an anamorphic lens fix this? Or do they only work in going to 2:35:1 and not the other way?

3) some projectors (like the panny ae4000u) have that feature where it basically does the job of the anamorphic lens so you dont need one...in this case why would you need one? are there benefits in having an anamorphic lens over a projector that would do the same thing?


thanks in advance guys. just jump-starting my research for my future dedicated HT room

[jibucha]

Hello

Content that is 2.40:1 will fit vertically, meaning side to side on a 1.78:1 screen, having black bars on both the top and bottom.

Constant Height l It is for a constant height that you would use an anamorphic lens, resulting in a constant picture height, irrespective of aspect ratio of programming.

It is this constant height issue, eliminating the horizontal bars of 2.40:1 on a 1.78:1 screen that is the concern of those that dislike black bars.

Needed? l Absolutely not.

An 2.40:1 screen would be required for an anamorphic lens system; not if the screen is 1:78:1 as you indicated in your post, and a non-anamorphic playback system were used.

Cost of an Anamorphic Lens System? l An anamorphic lens is typically $3,000.00 to $6,000.00. Additionally, the cost of a screen masking system would be around $5,000.00. If black bars bother you so much that this solution matter; it's an easy choice.

Aspect Ratios l As many aspect ratios have been used by Hollywood for decades, no single aspect ratio display, or display system, will be without issues of one sort or another. Black Bars are actually fantastic, maintaining the proper original geometry of the original picture; whatever is is, or was.By having different aspect ratios accommodated on our display systems today, we are able to enjoy the originals as they originally were filmed, instead of pan and scan or whatever, seriously changing movies in the past.

Thank You

[Oddiophile]

VIDEO
Tutorial: What is anamorphic projection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZBd9Ohblk

If you can't afford an anamorphic lens you can do the poor man's method to fill a 2:35 screen by zooming the projector out to get the 2:35 video to fill the screen. with this method the black bars are still there they just spill off the screen. This is the same method Panasonic is using with the AE3000 & AE4000 they are just using a motorized lens with a memory feature to simplify it.

[Erman_94]

thanks for the replies guys

does using an anamorphic lens distort the picture quality at all since it is essentially a pan and scan so to speak? (i would assume it doesnt since they cost so much, but you never know)

so basically in order to fill your screen with 2:35:1 content (whether your screen is 1:78:1 or 2:35:1) you would need an anamorphic lens?

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by jibucha

Hello

Content that is 2:40:1 will fit vertically, meaning side to side on a 1:78:1 screen, having black bars on both the top and bottom.

Constant Height l It is for a constant height that you would use an anamorphic lens, resulting in a constant picture height, irrespective of aspect ratio of programming.

It is this constant height issue, eliminating the horizontal bars of 2:40:1 on a 1:78:1 screen that is the concern of those that dislike black bars.

Needed? l Absolutely not.

An 2:40:1 screen would be required for an anamorphic lens system; not if the screen is 1:78:1 as you indicated in your post, and a non-anamorphic playback system were used.

Cost of an Anamorphic Lens System? l An anamorphic lens is typically $3,000.00 to $6,000.00. Additionally, the cost of a screen masking system would be around $5,000.00. If black bars bother you so much that this solution matter; it's an easy choice.

Aspect Ratios l As many aspect ratios have been used by Hollywood for decades, no single aspect ratio display, or display system, will be without issues of one sort or another. Black Bars are actually fantastic, maintaining the proper original geometry of the original picture; whatever is is, or was.By having different aspect ratios accommodated on our display systems today, we are able to enjoy the originals as they originally were filmed, instead of pan and scan or whatever, seriously changing movies in the past.

Thank You

Great post jibucha...this explains it a lot better for me now. I have to admit I was not grasping the screen size differences very well, until now. Thanks!

[vega2K]

This is the thread that helped me immensly to understand the concept of the Anamorphic lense and why you would want it. Good Luck!

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=104914

[jibucha]

Hello Again

Yes; regardless of your apparent confusion; as good as they are, and as expensive as they are; image distortion occurs, especially as the retail price decreases. This distortion, for those fixated on an anamorphic lens system, will not matter, as the constant height and loss of the black bar fixation, will certainly be the overriding concern.

An Insight for You l It appears, that you are referring to the commonly thought of features of zooming an image or changing of aspect ratios from a 4:3 aspect ratio to a 16:9 aspect ratio; if so, then certainly, geometrical distortion is a certainty, as it always is. Any time that the original geometry is changed to another; this is a definite.

It is your reference to Pan & Scan that makes me think that you are very confused regarding the use of anamorphic lens in front projection. Please understand that no criticism is intended; many are confused regarding the use of anamorphic lens, whether they know it or not.

Having said this, the issues are not really that difficult to comprehend, it is simply that they are not commonly clearly indicated.

Originally Posted by Erman_94

thanks for the replies guys

does using an anamorphic lens distort the picture quality at all since it is essentially a pan and scan so to speak? (i would assume it doesnt since they cost so much, but you never know)

No; this is entirely incorrect.

Use of an anamorphic lens is for a uniform constant height front projection experience, devoid of having black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

This is requires, implementation of a movable masking screen system, for the sides, which will change automatically whenever the aspect ratio changes from 4:3 to 16:9 or any of the aspect ratios commonly referred to as 2.40:1 or 2.35:1, including 2.39:1 and more.

This really is a rather simple matter, but as the general focus is not on the basic technical issues; is seriously misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Erman_94

thanks for the replies guys
so basically in order to fill your screen with 2.35:1 content (whether your screen is 1.78:1 or 2.35:1) you would need an anamorphic lens?

If it helps you; please email me directly, with specific questions, and I will do my best to explain further.

Thinking about it; I may, as time permits, create a complete Primer on Anamorphic Lens that will hit on the basic issues.

Regardless, anamorphic lens systems are for those that really do not want the appearance, or perception of black bars; and most certainly, are both willing and able to afford this very expensive solution.

Personally, I have a 30-inch CRT Reference Monitor, and daily enjoy all of the varying aspect ratios, without any concerns for either the horizontal or vertical black bars. It is only when in broadcast television, that I become outraged, when there are black bars, both horizontal and vertical at the same time; this is known in broadcasting as Postage Stamp, and it really is bad.

And guess what; the 2.40:1 aspect is my preferred, and I have no problem with the smaller image or black bars; this on a 30-inch monitor; certainly, the smallest of anyone with a profound interest in Blu-ray Presentation.

Please accept my apology if I have mis-intrepreted any of your idesa regarding anamorphic lens; certainly, this is not my intent, rather to help clarify details.

In closing; I am hopeful that no-one interprets that I am anti-anamorphic lens systems. It is only my intention, to clearly detail issues that seem mis-understood or ignored regarding anamorphic lens systems. They are expensive after all, and it appears that many are perceiving them as essential, which they certainly are not.

Thank You

[Erman_94]

thanks jibucha...im still a little confused so let me write this out and see if i understand...

1) there is essentially no point in having a 2.35:1 screen if you dont have an anamorphic lens or projector capable of a similar result. because the image will not cover your entire screen, so you might as well get a 16:9 screen right?

2) on a 2.35:1 screen, a capable projector will take care of the vertical stretch...but the sides will still have the gray bars, and this is where the anamorphic lens comes into play where it will help stretch the image horizontally as well so the entire screen has picture on it

3) essentially if the bars on the side and top dont bother you, there is no need for this lens.

4) you can get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom with just the projector's v-stretch, but this will only distort the image because there is no horiztonal compensation from the anamorphic lens


please feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions (even if all are incorrect) ...i wont be offended...im here to learn

thanks

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by Erman_94

thanks jibucha...im still a little confused so let me write this out and see if i understand...

I'll take a crack at answering.

1) there is essentially no point in having a 2.35:1 screen if you dont have an anamorphic lens or projector capable of a similar result. because the image will not cover your entire screen, so you might as well get a 16:9 screen right?
Correct, unless you are planning for a future upgrade to a PJ with 2.35:1 capability.

2) on a 2.35:1 screen, a capable projector will take care of the vertical stretch...but the sides will still have the gray bars, and this is where the anamorphic lens comes into play where it will help stretch the image horizontally as well so the entire screen has picture on it
Correct, the AL stretches the "skinny" image back to normal horizontally.

3) essentially if the bars on the side and top dont bother you, there is no need for this lens.

Correct - if you don't mind bars on the sides of a 2.35 screen or bars on top/bottom of 16:9 screen.

4) you can get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom with just the projector's v-stretch, but this will only distort the image because there is no horiztonal compensation from the anamorphic lens
Correct - the v-stretch makes the image skinny (stretches vertically) and fills the 16:9 screen, the anamorphic lens would then stretch the skinny image back to normal in the horizontal directions (left and right) beyond the 16:9 screen, hence the need for a 2.35:1 screen.

please feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions (even if all are incorrect) ...i wont be offended...im here to learn

thanks

Looks like you got it!

[vega2K]

This is the post by Brain Sturgeon that really nails this:

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Well, there's not a lot to it actually. For the most common type of anamorphic lens currently (horizontal expansion lens), you would need:

• A projector that has a v-stretch function (vertically stretches the image 33% to exclude the black bars from the imaging panel), or a projector and an outboard VP (video processor) that can do the v-stretch function, or a projector and a BD player that will do the v-stretch function (the Oppo BDP-83 has this function).
• The anamorphic lens.

When the v-stretch function is engaged, you simply place the anamorphic lens into your projector's light path to reconstitute the correct proportions to the image, and voila, you have a scope image that is the same height as your 16:9 image, but 33% wider. Here are a couple of pics to show this in action (hotlinked from ScottJ0007 @ AVS):







Now, the lens should be placed as close to the projector's lens as possible, and should be orthogonal to the light beam. For a ceiling mounted projector, this usually requires tilting the lens downward to account for the lens shift-- you want the light beam to pass straight through the lens to minimize geometric anomalies. You can use a geometric pattern that is found on most video setup discs (Spear & Munsil, Joe Kane's Video essentials, AVIA, AVCHD, etc) to help "dial in" the lens.

All anamorphic lenses will introduce a bit of pincushion to the image (the center of the image will look a bit shorter than the edges). This is usually reduced by using a longer throw ratio. Throw ratios above 2 will minimize this. The effect will be more prominent with throws 1.5 or less. You can also use light absorbent edging (velvet, etc) with your screen to hide this effect by spilling a bit of the image on the edging.

Now, when you disengage the v-stretch function, you will need to remove the lens from the light path. A manual or motorized lens sled is frequently used for this purpose. The other way of doing it is to leave the lens permanently in the light path and use a horizontal squeeze function with the lens to get back your normal 16:9 image (your projector or VP or player will have to have this function, of course). Prismasonic also makes a lens that you just flip a switch (manually or with a remote) between modes (it shifts the prisms in the lens) so that you can leave the lens in the light path permanently.

As far as your screen: Most people using anamorphic lenses have a scope screen and then find some way to mask off the unused portion when watching non-scope material. Curtains and velvet/black panels are commonly used. There are screens that have this masking system built in, but these are typically quite expensive. Either that, or live with the "white bars" on the sides of 16:9 material.



Well, you can't really use an anamorphic lens with a 16:9 screen. It's either live with the "black bars" for scope material, or get a scope screen and then either set up a lens or use the "zoom" method to exclude the black bars from your screen.

Hope this helps!

[jibucha]

Hello

1 l This is correct; you got it!

2 l Actually, the vertical height is not a stretch; it is the constant height for all aspect ratios. For 2.40:1, there is an optical stretch horizontally, which will entirely fill the 2.40:1 screen that you would be using. It is only for the 2.40:1 image, that an anamorphic lens system is in use.

For other aspect ratios, such as 4:3 and 16:9, the anamorphic lens will either move to side from in front of the projector lens, manually or electronically for the playback of these aspect ratios.

The sides will have black bars, only if a screen masking system is not in use. If a screen masking system is used with the anamorphic lens system, then the image aspect ratio changes will be transparent to the viewer, as they are in all movie theaters, which use screen masking systems for presentation. In movie theaters, the set up is taken care of before we enter the theater, so we are generally unaware of their existence and use.

To be clear here; only the 2.40:1 aspect ratio engages the use of the anamorphic lens system to optically fill the entire screen of 2.40:1 images.

The other, generally used aspect ratios of 4:3 and 16:9, do not use the anamorphic lens system, and the image is not stretched in either of these aspect ratios.

This results in a constant height for all of the aspect ratios, with the image fill changing accordingly for aspect ratios from 4:3 to 27:9, with any appearance of black bars being vertical black bars, which would be on the sides, if a masking system is not in use.

If a masking system is in use, the image will be constant height for all aspect ratios, with the image width changing accordingly.

3 l Yes; this is correct. Well done!

4 l Confusing!

Here's how it works:

If you have an aspect ratio of, say 2.40: on a 16:9 display; you will have black bars horizontally, which will manifest across the entire top and bottom, with an image in the middle.

If you wish to eliminate the black bars horizontally, on a 16:9 display; you have two options.

Stretching the image vertically, to fill the top to bottom, with an image, with accomplish this presentation, with a very negative geometrical distortion of the entire image.

If this really is a concern; simply use the zoom control, common to almost all displays, having many different names, and fill the screen without any negative geometrical distortions. This approach, will cut off part of the sides of the image to compensate for the sizing differences.

You should be aware, that both of these options, in my experience, seriously degrade the overall image quality, and compromise the intended presentation of the movie.

Your closing reference 'no horiztonal compensation from the anamorphic lens' indicates a mis-understanding of the basics of an anamorphic lens system.

Anamorphic Lens System l Basics

The image in this mode of use, is an electronically horizontally compressed image; this, before being projected through the projector lens.

It seems that many believe this is a stretch of the standard 16:9 aspect ratio. While this is certainly possible, it is not the intent of using an anamorphic lens; constant height of all aspect ratios and a screen masking image system, to present movies without the black bars issue as movie theater presentations have always done.

When this mode is in use, and the anamorphic lens system, whether manual or electronic, moves the lens in front of the projector lens and does a optical stretch of the electronically compressed horizontally 2.40:1 image.

So; using an anamorphic lens system, involves an electronic horizontal compression of the image, and an optical processing in playback. Thus, the image is processed, negatively twice; electronically and optically, each with their respective issues.

There are more elements to this system, but to keep it simple, this about covers it.

In closing, as I cannot help myself; I never use or recommend stretching an image, due to the serious compromise of resolution, due to the very low cost processing circuity, and the geometrical distortions.

If you allow yourself, about ten weeks, of simply viewing the different aspect ratios on your HDTV or projection system; the whole black bar issue with simply go away.

In doing this; your overall movie picture quality will be the best possible, and you will see the entire image as intended.

The result, will be far greater satisfaction, and an disregard entirely of the black bars issue. The consequence, will be that watching on other system, will as well improve.

I sincerely hope that this is getting clear, and not more confusing.

The point: just enjoy watching movies, without a preoccupation with black bars, and you will love them as director's and watcher's do.

ps l The images in the prior post, #10, while accurate, do present the information favoring an anamorphic conclusion.

The important information here, is that image one and image three, are both correct. The difference is in size, perceived screen usage, and ...... I will have to follow up; I simply am losing my focus here.

Thank You

[Erman_94]

ok so essentially (and very simply) i can either have grey bars on the sides and top/bottom of my screen (if i have a 2.35:1 screen) or grey bars just on the top and bottom (with a 16:9 screen) or i can shell out thousands of dollars for an AL and get the image to take up my entire 2.35:1 screen?

if this is correct, then my question is this...would using an anamorphic lens result in a decrease in picture quality, increase in picture quality or the same picture quality, just bigger? or is this open to interpretation?


thanks

[Swede]

Originally Posted by Erman_94

ok so essentially (and very simply) i can either have grey bars on the sides and top/bottom of my screen (if i have a 2.35:1 screen) or grey bars just on the top and bottom (with a 16:9 screen) or i can shell out thousands of dollars for an AL and get the image to take up my entire 2.35:1 screen?

if this is correct, then my question is this...would using an anamorphic lens result in a decrease in picture quality, increase in picture quality or the same picture quality, just bigger? or is this open to interpretation?


thanks

Well, the question you should ask yourself is do you watch mostly 2.35:1 content (large percentage of blu-ray movies), if so you may want to get a 2.35 screen, if you watch mostly 16:9 content (most tv-shows, some dvds & blu-ray's, video games etc) you will probably want to get a standard 16:9 screen.

The benefit of going with a 2.35:1 screen is you get the largest image when watching most blu-ray movies, with no borders. Disadvantage: borders on sides when watching 16:9 content.

The benefit of using an anamorphic lens with a 2.35:1 screen is that you won't get any lightspill above and below the screen, and a theoretical picture quality advantage from using all of the available pixels and full brightness of your projector, which is debatable. Disadvantage: very expensive, and usually not worth it unless you go with a $4000+ projector

You can still get the benefit of using a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens if you A: can live with manually zooming the picture between 16:9 and 2.35:1 content (may be more or less annoying depending on how often you watch 16:9 content) or B: get a projector that offer an "anamorphic lens emulation feature" such as the Panasonic AE3000 and AE4000, which uses the zoom method, but does it automatically with the touch of a button. Advantage: cheap way to get the benefit of a 2.35:1 screen. Disadvantage: You may get some lightspill above and below the screen, depending on the black level capability of your projector. Cheap solution: Get a masking system.

Hope that helps

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Erman_94

ok so essentially (and very simply) i can either have grey bars on the sides and top/bottom of my screen (if i have a 2.35:1 screen) or grey bars just on the top and bottom (with a 16:9 screen) or i can shell out thousands of dollars for an AL and get the image to take up my entire 2.35:1 screen?

if this is correct, then my question is this...would using an anamorphic lens result in a decrease in picture quality, increase in picture quality or the same picture quality, just bigger? or is this open to interpretation?


thanks

It will result in a brighter image, but otherwise more or less the same as if you just manually zoomed. Having black borders entirly around the image is where the real benefit comes from (makes for better contrast and a more 3d appearance in the image).

[Erman_94]

Originally Posted by Swede

Well, the question you should ask yourself is do you watch mostly 2.35:1 content (large percentage of blu-ray movies), if so you may want to get a 2.35 screen, if you watch mostly 16:9 content (most tv-shows, some dvds & blu-ray's, video games etc) you will probably want to get a standard 16:9 screen.

The benefit of going with a 2.35:1 screen is you get the largest image when watching most blu-ray movies, with no borders. Disadvantage: borders on sides when watching 16:9 content.

The benefit of using an anamorphic lens with a 2.35:1 screen is that you won't get any lightspill above and below the screen, and a theoretical picture quality advantage from using all of the available pixels and full brightness of your projector, which is debatable. Disadvantage: very expensive, and usually not worth it unless you go with a $4000+ projector

You can still get the benefit of using a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens if you A: can live with manually zooming the picture between 16:9 and 2.35:1 content (may be more or less annoying depending on how often you watch 16:9 content) or B: get a projector that offer an "anamorphic lens emulation feature" such as the Panasonic AE3000 and AE4000, which uses the zoom method, but does it automatically with the touch of a button. Advantage: cheap way to get the benefit of a 2.35:1 screen. Disadvantage: You may get some lightspill above and below the screen, depending on the black level capability of your projector. Cheap solution: Get a masking system.

Hope that helps

this screen/projector would be in a very dedicated HT room (so 95% movies/blu-ray and 5% games and NO TV watching...but id rather have the bars for 16:9 content and mask it than the 2.35:1 content since im using that for the majority of it). it would also be fully blacked out in the front for increased contrast etc etc


so a few questions

1)is the quality of the "anamorphic lens emulation feature" or "manual zoom" on the projector comparable to an AL? if so, why would people spend money on an AL?

2) could you go into detail on what "lightspill" is...is it just that some content will be "cut-off" above and below the screen and will "spill" on the top and bottom?

EDIT: for example, looking at Farout777's HT gallery i see he is filling the entire content onto his screen and he has a panny projector with no AL that i can see...is he using the lens emulation feature?

[jibucha]

Hello Again

Here we go. The answer is no.

Screen l 16:9 l Black bars on the sides; if 4:3 aspect ratio content. For 16:9 content; a perfect fit. For 27:9 aspect ratio, which is 2.40:1, including other similar aspect ratios, black bars on both the top and bottom.

Screen l 27:9 or 2.40:1 l Here, with constant height, you will have black bars on the sides. This configuration is with an anamorphic lens system.

Regarding Picture Quality l With an anamorphic lens system, you will basically have a significantly larger picture, with a uniform constant height, devoid of black bars issues.

As has been already pointed out, and I have been intentionally leaving out of the posts, the perception is that the picture quality would improve, given that the image sensor is more completely used, due to the electronic squeeze of the original image, and the optical anamorphic lens decompression of the image for projection. Additionally, the light output is improved.

However, this is more involved that this simple information indicates, as having a significantly larger image, has factors of image quality that are commonly ignored, which I will put aside at this time for convenience.

Conclusion l Anamorphic Lens Quality l Whatever the differences in picture quality, the perception will be an improved image quality; the technical issues aside; this is what most would conclude.

Thank You

Originally Posted by Erman_94

ok so essentially (and very simply) i can either have grey bars on the sides and top/bottom of my screen (if i have a 2.35:1 screen) or grey bars just on the top and bottom (with a 16:9 screen) or i can shell out thousands of dollars for an AL and get the image to take up my entire 2.35:1 screen?

if this is correct, then my question is this...would using an anamorphic lens result in a decrease in picture quality, increase in picture quality or the same picture quality, just bigger? or is this open to interpretation?


thanks

[Erman_94]

thanks for the detailed and well-thought out responses jibucha

do you think you could also refer to my latest post (#15) regarding the 2 questions i pose (mainly can artificial lens emulation stack up to an AL and the concept of "lightspill")

thanks

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by jibucha

[B]
Cost of an Anamorphic Lens System? l An anamorphic lens is typically $3,000.00 to $6,000.00. Additionally, the cost of a screen masking system would be around $5,000.00. If black bars bother you so much that this solution matter; it's an easy choice.

It is worth mentioning you can make an anamorphic lens by hand for as little as $100-$200 just by buying a couple of prisms, hardware and knowing how to build it. I have not built my anamorphic lens yet, but I'm currently using the prisms to watch cinemascope movies on a 12 foot wide screen, and while not perfect, I could never go back to black bars on cinemascope movie.

[jibucha]

Hello Again

Nice to hear from you; thank you.

Manual Masking l As you have indicated that you would mostly, over 87%, be watching 2.40:1 aspect ratio movies; perhaps consideration of manual masking might be a consideration?

If you simply wish to rid yourself of Black Bars; this would be an extremely cost effective solution, simply requiring your time and patience changing the masking manually.

This simple solution, could be used with either a normal 16:9 or 27:9 screen, entirely eliminating Black Bar Issues, entirely eliminating the fundamental anamorphic lens issue, unless the other more technical issues are engaged.

Certainly, if convenience is a high priority, and cost not a consideration; and anamorphic lens system with an electronic masking system would be both desirable and preferred.

Regarding Light Spill & Artificial Electronic Anamorphic Lens System l It is late, has been a long and demanding few days; I will have to follow up on these issues later, possibly a few days; ok?

Thank You

Originally Posted by Erman_94

thanks for the detailed and well-thought out responses jibucha

do you think you could also refer to my latest post (#15) regarding the 2 questions i pose (mainly can artificial lens emulation stack up to an AL and the concept of "lightspill")

thanks

[Swede]

Originally Posted by Erman_94

this screen/projector would be in a very dedicated HT room (so 95% movies/blu-ray and 5% games and NO TV watching...but id rather have the bars for 16:9 content and mask it than the 2.35:1 content since im using that for the majority of it). it would also be fully blacked out in the front for increased contrast etc etc


so a few questions

1)is the quality of the "anamorphic lens emulation feature" or "manual zoom" on the projector comparable to an AL? if so, why would people spend money on an AL?

2) could you go into detail on what "lightspill" is...is it just that some content will be "cut-off" above and below the screen and will "spill" on the top and bottom?

EDIT: for example, looking at Farout777's HT gallery i see he is filling the entire content onto his screen and he has a panny projector with no AL that i can see...is he using the lens emulation feature?

1) See my previous post on the respective advantages/disadvantages, but simply put, the anamorphic lens is the most elegant, clean solution if money is not an issue.

2) When I'm talking about lightspill I'm referring to the "black bars" (which unless you're using a CRT projector will never be truly 100% black) that you get with 2.35:1 content using a 16:9 display. When using the manual zoom method (or the panny emulation feature) those black bars will be displayed above and below the frame of your 2.35:1 screen. Now like I said, the cheap solution to this is to use some type of masking system, which could just be a black velvet strip on each side, effectively absorbing any lightspill coming from the projector.

Of course like jibucha said, if you only want to get rid of the "black bars", and don't care if 2.35:1 content is displayed in a smaller frame than 16:9 content, then you can just as well use a masking system with a 16:9 screen...

It's all about your priorities