Originally posted by: zombie84
Why do you think a movie shot on 35mm looks much better on your television than an episode of Days of Our Lives?

...

In terms of Star Wars I don't know why you seem to think it would be different than another 35mm film like T2--because its older maybe? Star Wars is likely more detailed since it was shot in anamorphic widescreen while T2 was shot spherical Super-35.

1. Days of our lives wasn't shot in DIGITAL.

2. It's debatable as to whether an anamorphic film image (which holds more resolution vertically then it does horizontally) really does yield a better result then non-anamorphic filming. T2 was shot in Super-35, which uses more horizontal resolution because the picture goes all the way to edge of the film - something that doesn't happen with other formats. The T2 film would today be 15 years old. The SW film next year will be 30 years old. I'm not aware of the T2 film being in such bad condition that parts of the original negatives on the master reel had to be replaced, like with Star Wars.

16MM is about DVD resolution, not 35MM. If you don't believe me, by an old movie shot on 16MM on DVD, and buy it on HD when released and compare the difference. Try Last House on the Left, for example - it's from the right time period, and has had similar problems to SW with the state of it's negatives. The DVD resolution brings out all the detail in the film. Converting 16MM to HD resolution is just like blowing it up to 35MM.

Jim Cameron seemed to think that the digital filming is achieving a level of detail equal to 65MM film.

If you want to prove that film is better then HD then I suggest when SW is re-re-re-re-re-re-released on home video in HD that you show me captures of the highest detail with no special effects in them from each movie, and compare them to the captures of the highest detail in Ep2 and 3. Cause I reckon you'll find the detail in Ep2 and 3 is more.