I've been out of the projector market for a while, and shortly (hopefully) going to be jumping right back in once I get my dedicated room sorted. The last time I had a dedicated room (many many years ago when I had a Sanyo Z1 ), I was constantly irritated by the grey bars on scope material, and made some bodgit masking out of curtain poles and some black curtain material. I always loved the look of properly framed scope images (the cinema feel is somewhat diluted without it), but since those days scope screens have become widely available, along with anamorphic lenses, masking systems and zoom memory functions. However, there's something quite basic which I've never got. I understand the thinking of maximising the resolution with an anamorphic lense and also the replication of the cinema experience where the curtains draw back and keep on going, but going down this route in the home leaves you with a much smaller 16:9 image. Given that most dedicated rooms are driven by the ultimate room width, and therefore regardless of screen ratio, the width of that screen is fixed, I don't quite understand why people wouldn't get a 16:9 screen and mask horizontally rather than vertically? This surely also gives you the flexibility for movies where the subtitles sometimes appear in the black bars, whilst maximising the screen size for 1.78:1 presentations, HDTV, gaming etc? I know you get that "wow" factor with the masking drawing back, but that wow only lasts as long as it takes for the masking to do it's job. Am I missing something obvious here?