I posted the above in the feature request list thread but was wondering if anyone can help me with this? I'm currently on FW v6.3.75 on the Z1000 Pro. The image below if from my Z9S FW v2.3.88.
Unfortunately, unlike the 1296 boxes, this seems to be a restriction in the 1619 SOC. The SDK doesn't allow for zooming if the SAR (Storage Aspect Ratio) is 16:9. If the SAR is 1.35:1 (for example 3840x1600) then "Full" will stretch vertically to fill the frame and that can then be anamorphically squeezed back. However if the SAR is 16:9 (eg 3840x2160) but the presentation is letter-boxed to 1.35:1 in the 16:9 frame then my understanding is the SDK doesn't allow stretching back. The Dunes are more flexible in that they allow incremental zooming of 1.35:1 SAR files, but they still don't allow a 16:9 SAR file to be stretched like the Z9S does.
The thing is, I know stretching and then anamorhically restoring to scope means more nits on the screen, but in reality it's counter productive because you're introducing scaling artifacts when you zoom and optical artifacts in the lens when you "unzoom" - so regardless of how good the lens is, it'll always be a lossy process. The only way to truly benefit is if the file is properly (ie professionally) encoded anamorphically in the first place, and unlike DVDs which used to be encoded anamorphically because of their SAR restriction, current content isn't encoded like that. That's one of several reasons I chose to go CIW rather than CIH.
Many thanks for your response Mark. That's very disappointing. I stupidly assumed that the upgraded model would maintain the same feature set as the previous model. I recently upgraded my set-up with Atmos ceuling speakers and had been using Apple TV with Infuse which handles the aspect ratio issue flawlessly however it doesn't decode Atmos TrueHD. I was notticing some issues with black levels and blue casts in dark scenes on the Z9S which I hoped the Z1000 would solve. Unfortunately, it look like I'll have to stick with the Z9S for the moment (or update my projector as the next prject).
In all honestly I'd set the projector to zoom the native 2.35 letter boxed image to the 2.35 screen - I honestly think that's a better solution than digitally stretching and then optically unstretching the image. That's essentially what I do although being a multi aspect CIW screen there's no need to have any zoom settings in the projector - the 2.35 image just fits the screen when it masks to 2.35 - the images are stunning with no digital zooming and no need for any optical messing about, so the resolution is native from source to screen (with the compromise in my case that the PJ is pixel shifting for 4K).
