zombie84 said:

Yeah, I don't buy that study either. I've done extensive lab-quality tests of my own using Panaflex cameras, resolution charts and 35mm film, and I wasn't getting those results. 800 is a believable number, but 500 in the average? Sorry, there's a reason why we don't screen really good VHS tapes at theaters. There is great generational loss, but 500 discernable lines is pretty crappy, I find that hard to be typical, plus there are things other than resolution, which was the problem with early HD.

That's the problem with "average". Assuming a credible study, they were averaging in hundreds of crappy 16mm slasher flicks shot in low light. That's what could have been at the average theatre at the time, right? And "globally" average too?--ugh, so Bollywood comprises most of the sample, great. See the problem? Averages are meaningless when trying to make a statement about something specific. Ask any woman who wants to be a firefighter, and is told the "average woman" isn't strong enough, but nobody bothers to check if she's strong enough...