Huh?! If you have worked with film then you know much a negative will deteriorate in 37 years. Maybe I misunderstood you comment. But saying it can't look any worse than it did 35 years ago is not worthy of you sir. Film is organic and it does get worse with age. Or were you making a joke? Perhaps I didn't understand. Pro audio is my thing. Not video. But take for example The Anne Of Green Gable movies done by the CBC back in 1985/86. The films needed to be restored. They were in bad shape. And that was 8 years ago. So a film from 1980 must be worse. You saw the negative 2 years after it was made. When did you see it last? All the original 6 classsic movies came out on Blu-Ray a few years ago. Or was it last year? I assumed that all those negatives got scanned at 4k when they put them out on Blu-ray. Or is that wishful thinking? I read somewhere that the resolution of a 35mm film negative is somewhere between 3.2k and 3.6k. Can you confirm this? Following this logic would a 16mm negative be half of that? And 8mm half of that? A 35mm movie house print is 800 lines of resolution tops. That I know. It's been proven. I still think a movie house 35mm print looks better than a 1080p HD Blu-Ray made from a 2k/4k master. I just prefer analog film. And digital projection I hate. It looks horrible. Great for big budget mthem on a real pro projector. But all the home digital projectors I have seen fall short. I remember when back in 1982 when our school rented a 16mm copy of The Empire Strikes back. I guess the Blu-ray is better. (1997 version). But...there is something about film...I guess at 50 I am getting old.