>>4086073This is so incorrect I'm not even going to try to correct it. Id checking out 'The reproduction of color' for the film stuff and
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Sensors_&_Raw/Sensor_Analysis_Primer/Engineering_and_Photographic_Dynamic_Range.htm for the digital stuff.
There isn't a mapping problem going from high dynamic range digital sensor to a low dynamic range slide film. The Shadows and highlights get crushed mathematically to 0 and 255, just like slide film.
>>4086079You'd need different luts for different lighting, this is true for digital too. Color grading and 3d icc luts are completely different things. Unless you're really boosting the shadows, which you won't if you're trying to sim slide film, 3d luts don't introduce more noise. 3d luts aren't distructive at all. RAW files can be re-edited with a different .icc enabled with a few clicks.
Film is entirely able to be simulated digitally. Sure, digital is different, but digital is better than film in a few key ways which allow digital to simulate film.
1) Subtractive color is worse than additive color in practice. Phosphers in CRTs have a larger gamut than even the best slide films (Hunt, reproduction of color, pg 130)
2) Subtractive color is worse than additive color in theory too. "As far is color rendering is concerned, all subtractive color processes suffer not only from the unwanted color shifts present in additive systems (that were described in chapter 2), but also further defects of their own.
3) digital sensors have linear response to light. This is crucial, since to simulate film, the characteristic curves of the CMY curves must be perfectly matched. This can done via a LUT.
