[jankins]

The image retains characteristics of film even though it goes through DI, even color quality. (Quality in the sense of 'different', not strictly 'better'.)

I think it's the principle of "you can't work with what's not there" - film (especially talking several years ago vs. today) will capture a different and usually wider dynamic range, and lend a different starting point that that might not be possible or easy to simulate.

[stephen_g]

Film is beautiful and has a great 'by-default' aesthetic - but many digital imaging systems have been able to capture more dynamic range (and far more resolution) for a few years now, and it isn't that hard to add grain and emulate the kind of image response for popular stocks in post...

These days it's really more of a tactile choice - 'do you want to work with film' - than aesthetic.

[jankins]

Well I'll admit my acquaintance with the equipment is dated by a few years since it turned out programming was more fun and paid more :P I imagine it still gets you a different quality and a different set of possibilities, even if digital has taken the rational and technical upper hand in many situations.

More on-topic, it also occurs to me that the Kodak cameras mentioned here will produce an image that the average film student or hobbyist (I guess that's the market?) with a canon or red wouldn't likely be able to reproduce convincingly, so that's interesting.

Anyway what I'd really like to see resurrected is 3-strip technicolor! That'd be retro