>>3478517>Pretty sure there are few successfully directors that have argued for the merits of film vs digital in modern ageNone of which are technical specs. You're not trying to argue that film has nice tones, or that working with it is nice, you're actually trying to argue that it has better fidelity. That more color and contrast information can be extracted from it. You're wrong and this can easily be measured. Why didn't you address the fact that a $2.3k kit could capture the candle scenes in Barry Lyndon? Why are you trying to circumvent an actual argument by saying "look at this image, it was captured on film in relatively low light, so therefore film is better at low light than digital"?
>why do you get so mad?Ah yes, "umad". Ascended elder god tier argument right there.
>I post you examplesExamples of what? You're trying to argue that film has better fidelity than digital and you're not posting side by side comparisons, or even approximate comparisons, you're basically saying "this looks nice so I'm right". Did I say film looks bad? No. Did I say film was incapable of capturing nice images with a lot of artificial light, and/or insane effort like sticking an f/0.7 lens in front of the camera? Also no.
>BTW. That's 1080 screen from large format film movie. You can try and find digital equivalent that undoubtedly beats it in quality, and I'll accept defeat.What a dumb and pointless thing to say. You can try and shoot a scene lit by a single candle with an f/1.4 lens on film.
Pic related is what you should drink for saying all this stupid shit. It's shot on a $80 lens and a body from 2012. Look at all the noise and the $23 million NASA equipment I had to use to achieve it.
