>>3804988You can do most of those things in film, just not "on demand" in the middle of a roll. But only digital can automate those.
>change light sensitivity on demandFilm stocks and ND filters
>change white balance on demand>change tone curves on demandFilm stocks and daylight/tungsten filters
>implement in camera sharpening and softening Which looks like trash, and is just moving a feature from post to the camera. Also difussion filters.
>change color profiles on demandsFilm stocks and filters.
>view instant histogramsNothing to do with having more or less control, just seeing the result earlier. It's convenience tech, like an automatic transmission.
>apply lens corrections in camera based on profiles for lensesThat's like traction control, convenience enabled by tech. With a "manual" you'd have to know what you're doing and use the correct lens accordingly, you can't just accelerate your way into the sunset because you'd stall or overrev. Same here.
>denoise in cameraThat's a solution to a problem digital itself created.
>Digital offers far more control than film.The entire point is that it *requires* less control. Like an automatic.
>When it comes to to postDigital post can be done to scanned film. You can even combine the two for optimal results.
>analog chest thumping makes you correct because digital gives more control. This is not debatable and the debate is now over.kek you're really emotional about this, sorry your analogy was retarded. This isn't about chest-thumping, it's about analogies being accurate or not. Shouldn't have brought up cars if you know nothing about them.
