Well yes the pixels are still square. And yes you'd lose horizontal resolution. My idea is based around the prefered solution for widescreen in low-end DV cameras that do not have true 16:9 but a kludge that looks good enough for the home user. Here the wisdom is you use an anamorphic adapter on the taking lense and record 4:3. Playback on widescreen looks correct with less resolution loss than using the cameras widescreen feature. But I like the sound of rendering to a widescreen frame and compensating for the pixels aspect ratio. As this should give you the best resolution possible, restoring the horizontal ratio lost in my previous kludge. I'd love to test it. Its the sort of thing I'm interested in but as yet don't have access to widescreen moniters. What I tend to do is either full screen or letterboxed. As a side issue for botti. Will a viewer without widescreen be able to see your production in a letterbox? I have one DVD myself (Ghost in the Shell) that's anamorphic widescreen and won't letterbox in 3:4 so on my computer I have to play with the moniter display to get a more true rendition of it. Bear in mind that most people in a potential audience are probably still using 3:4 TV sets. (Although thats changing ) Mind you I've seen people watching 3;4 programmes stretched out to 16:9 (everyone short and fat) and a video store playing back a DVD letterboxed but stretched on a widescreen moniter (very thin band of picture!). Sometimes I wonder what the punter really notices. (My day job is camera and lighting so I suppose I tend to overlook the possibilities of postproduction in favour of physical solutions on set. That's my story and I'm sticking to it ;-)