>>4141704>ignoreI'm not ignoring it, but a scan is a scan. DSLR scan in this case, I assume. The scanning step introduces many possibilities for errors. That is why you need proper equipment. Also, isn't i1 pro 2 a spectrophotometer, not a sensitometer?
>it doesn't allow the film to record colors outside its gamut.Well, yes, because anything film records is inside film's gamut. Any system can't record anything beyond it's possibilities. However, masking brings the dyes closer to ideal, which does widen the possibilities
>you still get greyWhy? Do you not get grey with 3 glass filters when you put less light through them?
>Mostly linear isn't good enoughOk, let me rephrase. It is linear where it matters. The part that you actually see is linear
>More expensiveThen what? A digital camera kit that can give results anywhere near film's quality starts around 1k$ or 3600 frames on film
So you need to shoot around a hundred rolls before film does start to get more expensive, and then again, 1k$ is the bare minimum, so more than 100 rolls, most likely
>Less accurate and smaller color gamutColor shifts on your film aren't representative of the medium as a whole. Digital sensor isn't a true additive system, it is simply dufaycolor with transistors
>white balanceCan easily be corrected in post
>the whole industryNot the whole industry, film is still used very often.
Well, depends on what you consider "the industry". Reproduction? Yes, most likely, I won't argue here
>>4141858I am not convinced, because he didn't use a proper methodology. If he did use proper equipment and showed the results obtained with it, I would be convinced. But alas
