| > At the microscopic level film pixels look like "clouds" of colored ink. No, only color reversal film (slides) looks like clouds. Negative film, the one used in movies, looks like crystals (because they are crystals). > actual capturing technology produces a cleaner signal This is true, albeit for a film like Kodak 5203 or Kodak 5213, you'd have a hard time proving that this is true. These stocks are so smooth with good exposure and proper development (as it done when making movies) that you need a grain focuser to see the grain. Many blockbusters and big productions that you probably saw in a digital cinema were shot on this film, and you never knew. > Digital clearly won Digital is much cheaper, it's very good, and allows much easier intermediate processing (editing, vfx, color timing, etc). Of clourse it "won", although film is still widely used, and although archival copies are still done on film. The fact that digital won doesn't mean that projection has better resolution (it's roughly the same for 35mm, but worse for larger formats) or better contrast (it's far, far worse for digital) or better colors (film has more saturated cyan and yellow, although this doesn't matter much). It sure has less flicker though. There are still plenty of reasons why people shoot film, use a digital intermediate workflow, and print film today. |