>>3478541Nolan, Fricke and Tarantino have stated advantages of film over digital in their interviews. Look them up.
>The question of the endurance of “Samsara” as a visual record was a concern for Mr. Fricke and Mr. Magidson. Before filming began, in 2007, they considered but decided against lighter, more portable digital cameras because of the rapid pace of changing digital standards. Besides, in their view 70 millimeter is the highest quality way to capture images.>“It was important to bring the material back in a format that was going to stand the test of time,” Mr. Magidson said, even as he noted the toil involved in lugging the 70-millimeter camera around the world. He added later, “I didn’t want to go to 25 countries and come back with something” that would soon be outdated.>Examples 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. I'll take that as chickening out and backing out of your own words. Your claim was that digital is superior in every way. I've so far put forward a case of it being even worse. A case your only attempt of addressing is by posting a still image of your pissbottles... I rest my argument.
