I actually think you two may be closer than you realize. Michael did say (I think) a couple of times that 2.35 works only if and when you have sufficent height.
Thank you for noticing. That is exactly what I said.
When picking a screen, start with the height. Figure out the maximum screen height that you can “comfortably” watch at your main seating position. Don’t even worry about width at this point. The best way to do this is to wait on the screen until you have your projector mounted, hang a sheet on the wall and zoom the image to an image size that you can watch without eye strain. Because you will not have an HE lens, you will be looking at a 1.78 image. If the 1.78 image is large as you can go and not feel eye strain, going wider will not bother you one bit. Going too high however will. But don’t believe me, ask your ophthalmologist. After you figure this out, you just do the math and if the room can accommodate a 2.35 width, then it’s just a decision that will be based on personal preference and finances. If you have the room for the 2.35 width, there really is nothing to loose by going with that AR. Black bars on the sides can be an irritant if the display does not have good native contrast, but curtains from Home Depot can fix that easily enough.
There’s a lot more to this AR discussion. I would prefer to discuss, debate, argue or whatever in a more orderly manner instead of an OT discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with it. If I can find some spare time, I’ll start an AR discussion thread where all the pro’s / con's can be discussed (as there are a few of each).
This OT derailment was started because I expressed my displeasure that this movie was not “native” 2.35, although I failed to state “native” because as Craig stated, cropped a 1.78 image to get a 2.35 AR would loose a ton of pixel content. I just said the same thing that all CIH owners are saying. I did not intend to bat the ball back and forth over the merits of CIH or personal preference of screen AR.
