>>3478712You're arguing against a strawman.
It's like arguing that you have enough money in your wallet for 10 bottles of whisky at a bar while the other guy just for 2, while you can barely drink a bottle each before passing out.
Both film and digital haven't been constrained in terms of ISO for practical filming, for a decade (and more than 2 for film). The reason being that in cinematography you have absolute control over the light in low light scenes, with intricate setups of sources, modifiers and reflectors. This is not done because light was to low to shoot film (or digital) otherwise, but because you need to control the quality, directionality and colour temperature of the light. You can easily shoot low light scenes with ISO100, because the low light is simulated through colour temperature and light rations, it's not actually what a human would see as low.
Even in the Barry Lyndon, "natural" light wasn't completely natural: they used more candles than even an aristocrat would have used for illumination, they were special candles that burnt twice as bright and would be exhausted within minutes, and metal sheets were placed on the roof that also acted as reflectors. Chandeliers and candelabras were placed strategically for key and fill. That's what they mean by "natural", not what you're probably thinking "I walked into a room and litand shit with whatever light was there".
Walks under the moon, gritty scenes in shady bars, cosy home interiors, it's all simulated low light.
What I'm getting at is, digital obviously has surpassed film in high ISO since forever, but it's *irrelevant* in filming.
There are occasions that digital makes things possible that otherwise wouldn't be, like that midnight shot of some immigrants crossing a border fence shot at ISO200,000 or something. But filming a movie is not such a case.
