• “The highest resolution that the expert assessors could discern in the highest performing movie theater was about 875 L/PH.
• “The horizontal resolution averaged over the six multi-burst groups measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about 715 L/PH.”
L/PH = lines per picture height, i.e. vertical resolution
This was for 35 mm film.
Also, well-mastered DVDs with anamorphic widescreen can look astonishingly good on an output device that doesn’t interpolate its lines.
The point is that even 1080p TV is an improvement in resolution over what you used to see in cinemas with 35 mm prints.
I interpreted the claim as being under non-ideal conditions (which is fair, frankly—it's well-known that the visual and sound quality is better at the beginning of a run than at the end, and film quality doesn't matter if your local theater doesn't ensure it's preserved as best it can be).
Plus, I saw a film viewing of Sinners this past weekend (quite a fun movie, highly recommend it) and some visual artifacts were very noticeable—it was regular enough I figured there was a slice of the film roll that got damaged somehow.
House of Dragon was so filmed in the dark, with poor contrast, and color-corrected to be all blue and orange, is almost painful to watch. I have a hard time even seeing what is happening.
Imagine Wild Strawberries in HD. I think it would seem bleaker. Or Blue Velvet. It would make Blue Velvet creepier. It would also make any Corman film seem classier.
HD didn't ruin cinema. It only ruins beauty.
Because there's enough clarity to see set errors, everything important is filmed in the dark.
Examples: just about every fight scene since 2018; Castle first season vs last.
One of the reasons why Shogun was so appealing is they did something different.