35mm motion picture film is usually shot across the short axis, which means a width of 24mm. 6000/24 = 250, or 125 cycles per mm. Lenses that can achieve that with a decent MTF across the whole frame run about $30,000, if they exist at all. IMAX is talking about the theoretical limitation of the film itself, and probably not even that, since high resolution color film, at least for consumers, is no longer manufactured.

It gets worse. IMAX is abusing the technical term "depth of field" to imply some sort of image quality, whereas depth of field is actually worse in direct proportion to the lens aperture (which in turn is directly proportional to the film size for a given field of view and level of illumination at the film plane.)

IMAX provides great quality, but the explanation is BS.

Still images require greater resolution than movies for the same level of visual satisfaction.

Early laser printers had 300 dpi, which was visibly inferior to printed material. That's 2550 pixels across a letter-size sheet of paper. Can you honestly say there's no use for having three sheets of paper visible at once?

Some manufacturers are making Adobe 1998 RGB monitors. Even wider gamut is technically possible, but requires engineering compromises like narrow-bandwidth filters which are less efficient, or expensive options like more than 3 channels of LED backlights, or laser backlights, etc.. Sharp did introduce a 4-color TV, has this given them any market advantage?

High brightness is of little use indoors, and is a disadvantage for motion picture display because it requires a higher framerate. Tom's Hardware considers brightness over the 200 nits they test at to be excessive.

I too would like to see a digital Pellix. This would allow the sensor chamber to be completely sealed, and would reduce vibration somewhat.

SLR viewfinders have been very bright for 20 years or so. It's OK to let 75% of the light go to the sensor.

Fixing the problems caused by the Bayer pattern sensor is an ongoing challenge. The problem is getting the last bit of detail from an image without introducing false color. There have been improvements in recent years, and I'd guess we're pretty close to the limit of what's possible.

Camera manufacturers actually intentionally blur the image slightly before it gets to the sensor to reduce the problem of light either producing false colors or "falling in the cracks."

Any time you try to match a reflective medium like your McDonald's box to an emissive medium like a monitor, you are dependent on the ambient lighting. If your room lighting isn't matched to your monitor's color setting, and your room isn't all white, grey, and black, you're doing it wrong.

Gamut on LCDs varies some, and if you want wide gamut you have to shell out for a "professional" monitor. Modern top quality LCDs cover all of the Adobe 1998 gamut. Alas, I haven't been able to find a recent technical gamut comparison between CRTs and LCDs.

CRTs age and fall out of alignment much more rapidly than LCDs. If you calibrated your CRT a year ago, it's not the same now. The filaments weaken, phosphors age, and x-rays darken the glass.

CRTs have geometry problems that are intractable. A large flatscreen CRT has glass so thick that parallax is a problem: try measuring something on a CRT's screen with a ruler.