Front projection or not?

I was leaning more towards a 4:3 native aspect ratio, I notice now that there are some projectors out on the market with dual nativity.

There are a couple of problems with 4:3 screens.

1. Source quality

Most 4:3 sources (DBS satellite, bad cable, VHS tapes) are extremely low quality. Most widescreen sources (DVD, HD) are high quality.

If you use a 4:3 screen small enough to keep the bad 4:3 sources watchable the good wide screen sources are too small. If you select the screen for the better wide screen sources the soft picture and compression artifacts from bad 4:3 sources become objectionable.

A wider screen is smaller for your bad 4:3 sources, and bigger for high quality wide screen - the best of both worlds. And the 4:3 image is still a lot bigger than an RPTV on "modest" front projection setups (81" diagonal on an 87x49" 100" diagonal 16:9 screen).

2. Space limits from the room and speaker placement

Disregarding the above if you wanted an 8' wide screen for good scope movie performance a 4:3 screen would be 6' high versus 40" for a 2.35:1 screen. You'd have a hard time getting a good center channel placement on the 4:3 screen without going to a perforated setup.

Wouldn't the projected 2.35:1, 1.78:1 etc image occupy the same amount of space whether it's on a 16:9 or 4:3 screen? However, a 4:3 image on a 16:9 screen occupies only the middle.

The only use for this projector setup is to watch movies; DVD mainly but also the occasional VHS (older stuff). Very very rarely cable (I have no satellite), that's done on the living room tv set.

Wider movies (mostly 2.35 and 1.85) use the same ammount of space on lower apsect screens (16:9 or 4:3) the same width as a wider screen. Narrower ones only occupt the middle. This is a feature.

You don't want to watch 4:3 VHS tapes and wide screen DVDs at the same width.

front projection all the way. once you have it you won't let it go. next time you're looking at tv's ask them why they never show hockey on their display models.