http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/technical
the proof is right here. 2k digital intermediate.
otherwise why would Lisa Tutunjian have been paid and credited as the DI editor.
The rough cut or assembly cut by spielberg was done on a moviela, not sure if i misspelled that.
Considering the cgi was not shot live action except for certain elements and created in a computer. It is far easier for them to work in the digital realm in terms of editing, when a film starts out as digital because it does not have to be scanned in. not only do they cut costs there, but also they don't have to go to a film processing labs they have quick turnaround on shots and film costs more now than digital. In the past it was the opposite.
Not sure what digital resolution the cgi effects on phantom menace were rendered, but the physical old style opticals and model shots done on film and the live action Photography would look better if they went back and did a 4k scan. Again i am not aware of the HD resolution Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were shot on, but there is no way it dupicates the resolution of the oneg on even the phantom menace, much less any of the original trilogy films.
As for them looking better in digital projection i don't doubt it since they were captured on video. From what i have read there is some generation loss from taking a digital movie and then printing it back to traditional 35mm film. This seemed to be for the most part retified on revenge of the sith because the HD Camera bugs had been worked out. But i saw Clones in the the theaters on film and i can tell you first hand it looked like shit. Ebert saw it in both film and later dlp. Guess which review was better.
Sure some projectionists should be fired because they don't know how to handle a film print properly , and theater owners who show a film with a bad setup should not be allowed to show a print. I saw Indy IV in less than spectacular condition. This was first run. It had several scratches and what looked like was heavy dupe grain, the fine grain detail was nice i had no problem with that.
The colors looked muted and yellow, perhaps a bad print. The sound was too loud and was not well defined the surrounds were fucked. This is a multimillion dollar theater, but a shopping mall one. So i guess what did i expect. Hey at least the film was centered properly and shown on a 2:35:1 proportioned screen. Before they bought the new screen they would crop the wider films. Since most of the films they show are 1:85:1 or whatever they shoot in these days i frackin don't know,lol.
Maybe the focus was bad or something.
I have noticed that a lot of modern films are a victim of the loudness war and their soundtracks are a mess. I totally look back to the days when the stereo mixes on film were well, mixed well i guess is what you would say. Then some of the first 5.1 tracks in theaters were really excellent as well whether dolby or dts.
Some people have had problems with some of the new films audio when watching at home or in the theater like Casino Royale, the Dark Knight.
The older stereo mixes balanced out the dialogue, the music and the sound effects well so they complemented each other. Now we get tracks where the sound effects are too loud and drowning out everything else.