Can a theatrical print hold more resolution than HD?
Yes it can but doesn't always. Anyone can make a crappy print, and it depends what you consider HD to be.
Almost any theatrical print that was shot well and printed reasonably holds more than 1080P does, that is easily proved by scanning a frame of any given feature at above 1080P and looking at the detail.
You could however find some features that have around 1080P or less detail wise if you looked hard enough.
Film resolution is dependant on lots of things. Weave reduces the resolution markedly, so depending on the camera used the resolution could be much lower than its theoretical limit.
Loss through the printing process - this also reduces the resolution because of light transfer loss and the grain issue - grain boundaries are different on each frame of film, so detail is lost with each optical process you do.
The prints I have messed with on Star Wars do have better than 1080P resolution, I can state that with certainty.
If you consider HD to be 2K or 4K then it comes down to a case by case basis.
Colour resolution is another thing. Once again, if you consider HD to be 8bit colour in 4:2:0 then any film print will have far better colour resolution. If you consider HD to be 12bit 4:4:4 then you come out about square either way.
Latitude, dynamic range, ANSI CR whatever you want to call it, film outshines current HD in most iterations of HD. However before I left we were working with some prototype HDR digital cine cameras that *far* outstripped the dynamic range of film (and recorded in OpenEXR format), they were incredible and should make it to market in the next 5 years.
Depth of field. This is probably the thing that makes the biggest difference between film and video as far as 'look' goes. It is also the easiest to solve. It simply means making the chip the same size as the film frame. Then you get the same depth of field, can use the same lenses etc. Why isn't the 'better' depth of field on small chip digitals better than films shallow depth of field?
Well, for dramas, comedies etc. a shallow depth of field is preferable as it leads the viewers eye to the subject and makes the backgrounds less distracting. That is a big reason why up until recently video always looked like video, even to the total layman.
For some things though a deep depth of field can be preferable, like 3D movies or wide shots etc. or even just for a particular look.
Film is a funny thing, a lot of its attraction is that we grew up with it, and we are comfortable with its 'look'. Had we grown up with a grain free recording medium (i.e. if film had never existed) and then film was introduced *now* people would probably want to know what is with all of the 'noise' in the picture. They would probably also want to know why the pans are all so blurry as well. (low framerate), and why it can't do true blacks. (OK perhaps an IB print could, but in a cinema a black frame from a theatrical print will always let some light through and give you grey)
We all grew up with film, as did the artists who use it, so we have come to find inventive ways to exploit its limitations and they have become 'features' to many of us, and we have grown to love the look.
There is no reason film cannot be emulated digitally, if the resolution was high enough (say 16K), the HDR system employed, then the rest can be simulated. Organic grain can be emulated exactly if you have enough rez to play with (you can either do it algorithmically or you can scan the grain from a reel of stock and transpose it into the picture). Weave through the gate can also be easily achieved, and DoF is the same if you use the right camera. So it could be done even today if you wanted to throw the time and money at it - but it would be easier to just use film anyway.
In practice though, not enough people in the general public (i.e. the people who pay to go to the movies) care about the intracacies of film and will be happy if the DoF is right and the picture looks good and they can't see any artefacts. A lot of people prefer a 'punchier' picture, (i.e. crushed blacks and high contrast) so even the reduced latitude of current digital doesn't bother them. I think the move away from film will be sudden once the new cameras come through. Film's death has been foretold falsely many times, but never before has there been systems available to do uncompressed 12bit with standard lenses and identical DoF - it will be too attractive to the mainstream studio stuff. It may never die completely, but I think it will disappear from the mainstream suddenly when it does go.
I agree that if you want the film look, you might as well shoot film, and that digital is a great hope for bringing something new to film making. Better framerates, HDR and as yet un-thought of possibilities. There doesn't seem to be much point in reproducing the limitations of film - you would be better off trying to exploit the new things that digital offers.
Short answers are though that:
1) In general 35mm feature films, even the prints exceed 1080P 4:2:0 in resolution and colour depth in nearly all cases. Once you get into uncompressed 2K or better with 4:4:4 colour then you could find examples in both camps that would exceed the other.
2) Distribution prints are nowhere near as good as negatives or even the archive prints, but are still very high quality, and still maintain well over 1080 lines of measurable resolution.
3) DVD is far below the quality of any film stock 720 x 576, 720x480, compressed with colour at 4:2:0 is laughably low resolution and doesn't even look great on 42" televisions let alone projection systems. Any argument that film only measures up to DVD is ludicrous. Even the T2 pics I posted show that easily. DVD is the MP3 of the visual world. i.e. It is great for what is is designed for (TV size viewing/ listening on poratble music players) but isn't great when pushed (watching on a large screen/listening on a great sound system in a good room). I'll say it again - any commercial feature shot even half assed on 35mm film exceeds DVD's capabilities end of story.
4) Generational loss. Optical transfers of film suffer generational loss pretty badly. This is why Lucasfilm went and bought up all the 70mm vistavision cameras as they had to do lots of optical composites for the OT which meant lots of generational loss with each composite. for non effects work though the generational loss between the negative and the print isn't severe at all.
HD can also suffer generational loss if it is captured using a lossy compression method and you have to do composites. If the frames have effects added then they have to be *recompressed* causing compression artefacts and detail loss. This isn't a problem if using a lossless/uncompressed workflow however. It is then usually recompressed with a different codec for digital projection which can cause another 'generational' loss. Once again however, if it gets to an uncompressed workflow from start to finish then digital will be lossless and generational issues will become a thing of the past.
5) Digital projection also currently can't do blacks and has a limited dynamic range, and limited resolution (in some cinemas) compared to film (or even CRT in some cases)
When it comes to the whole analogue vs digital debate to say one is "better" than another is to say that Jet is better than The Strokes, or oil painings are better than watercolours, or that Heavy Metal is better than Punk...
For our purposes here, if you could find a mint technicolour print, and could have a professional run it through a high end scanner like the arri with digital ice, then you would get a better result than the current DVD.
A standard theatrical print transferred by an untrained individual on lower end equipment would probably fall short of the DVD, but would be interesting.
As I said before, first step would be to find a blinder of a print, until you find that, the rest is just fantasy.