I think we're referring to two different things here. You're talking theoretical limits of media. I'm talking about what ends up on screen, as in what you would project VS a blu-ray.
The film rolls delivered to cinemas are 8K? Not a chance.
In a theoretical BEST CHANCE, BEST CASE, FIRST GENERATION, 35mm film role you'd have a chance of getting 6k. Maybe. That's generous. With analog you can debate away a few thousand lines here and there pretty easy.
I don't know many 35mm/Super 35/etc films that have a 6k pipeline from beginning to end. If it's perfectly transferred and played back digitally, most films probably hit 2k. If it's 35mm projected, it's far worse. Most film will see about 1,000 lines of vertical resolution or less when it's actually in a theater.
"At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart. We go through this all the time at NYU ("Was this shot on film or video?")."
http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm
As for IMAX, again, you're talking pie in the sky numbers.
From John Galt...
"The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. How can that possibly be?, you say. It's an enormous big frame. Well, because of what I was talking about earlier: the physics of optics. When you take the entire system into account from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with."
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Maybe I'm way off base, but that's what I've seen, read, and been told. Anything you have to share to the contrary would obviously be an education for me, as I put my knowledge squarely at lower-middle. ^_^
BTW, IMAX trumps Blu-ray, no question. Huge difference. Ditto to a lesser extend for 65 and 70mm.
