>>3478570>>Your claim was that digital is superior in every way.>I never said that. It's technically superior and captures much more detail in the same conditions.So what that leaves out? Still, lets just look at technical superiority and much more detail in same conditions. Your own words? I believe all these prove that you are wrong. You've low light scenes, and you've high detail scenes.
>>3478550>>3478517>>3478474>>3478228>>3478558You also have Nolan and other directors claiming that you get more details by shooting film. Already mentioned proof; Samsara. Shot in 1994. Easily upscaled to 8k and rivalling, if not beating modern digital productions. Funny tidbit you probably don't know yet. First digital film to be actually shot in 8k was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 released last year.
Do you still wish to argue this? Another thing, still image is not film! Apparently you are that stupid to bring your own shit up again. You won't be able to shoot shutter speeds of your sample when filming! What's clear is that you don't watch films, if you did you wouldn't have your opinions. Seriously, find that Samsara somewhere, watch it on a 8k screen, heck even 4k will do, and it'll change your opinion for good.
