Like I said, I’ve read that they used different recording formats and not all of them were limited. I think you are right that some shots were limited to 1440x818, but others weren’t. But also, as you have pointed out, it was a hybrid format that was part 1440 and part 960. Mathematically when you put those two together, you end up with a 1920 image where every pixel is distinct. And when you have a film where nearly every shot is an FX shot which was done digitally at 2k, a few shots that look a little soft are not going to impact it. Look at ANH. A great many FX shots in that film are soft and lack the crispness we expect today. So overall I don’t think the film is as low quality as you are making it out to be. but it definitely isn’t a flaw in the camera. They have continued to use it for other films and I bet with the right recording equipment and lenses, it gives a nice HD picture. You are focusing on one instance where it wasn’t as high quality as they expected. Elsewhere I have read that they used a number of different recorders and some were very advanced and others were portable. And it’s not like people involved in making a film always tell the full story. Or that interviews are fully accurate. Unless you have talked to him in person, you can’t take what he is quoted as saying as 100% accurate in all instances. Other places have reported slightly different information and they can both be correct. I will admit that if one form of tape was inferior and only did 4:3 HD recordings that one of the team would let that stick in their memory and relate it. But the camera stats and reports of multiple types of recording equipment being used leads to the conclusion that some shots are compromised and others are not. I would guess all the location work is where you will find the lower quality recordings, such as Tatooine. Portable technology is always behind bulkier studio technology.