Originally posted by: vbangle
But as to what beats what in resolution, there is zero argument.

I don't agree (predictably). There is, for example, a big difference in pciture resolution between camera negative and release print. Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.

From what I've read, the difference between even a director's workprint and a regular, garden variety release print is already quite noticeable; how much more difference, then, between camera neg and release print?

If you consider the total workflow (which is a required part of filmmaking, unless you're going to project camera negative or positive), and how much room there is in the process for degrading the image quality, I think it's far less clear cut that film has more resolution than HD. Which might go at least part of the way to explaining why Cameron would equate HD results with those from 65 mm. In order to get the same results on screen, maybe he's figuring he'd have to start with 65 mm to compensate for all the lossy (analogue) processing needed with film?