poita said:

Remember that often a 2K or 4K scan includes the sprockets and soundtrack areas of the film so the final resolution can be considerably less.

Makes sense, but I was saying that if the final resolution was 4K for the film area that remained in the final product, it is possible there would not be much if any appreciable difference with the additional resolution because there is only so much resolution to begin with.

Even on a print that won't resolve 4K, it is better to scan in 4K, it gives you finer control when stabilising footage etc. as you can adjust at a pixel level, so you get twice as fine an adjustment without having to resort to sub-pixel alignments which lose detail in the resampling process.

The same with repairing damage, the torn area of the film is resolved at twice the detail allowing any warps or movements of part of a frame to be done without resampling, or if you do have to resample you get a better result.

It is also easier to discern what is grain and what is dirt and other crud.

So there are advantages to scanning at a higher resolution even if the print isn't the sharpest.

Good thoughts, and I totally agree with all of the above. My post was simply defending the sharpness of the sample image because I don't know that it would look much sharper at 4K scanning. I know this first hand with the trailer I am working on.