>>4308002>spots of color dye are better than digital!Color film interpolates color via spots of dye of varying size and density. It has 3-4 dyes to work with, and a dye is one color. It's bound by grain/dye spot size which is why film tonality and color fidelity are tied so closely to film size, and to ISO for a given film size. At 35mm size it's easy to spot tonal and color transitions that are not smooth, grainy, and/or blocked up, even at low ISO. It's also easy to find colors which the film simply cannot distinguish and record. Film works very much like a modern inkjet printer in this respect.
Digital pixels are analog before the ADC and are bound by noise. On modern sensors a single pixel can record 16k distinct tones at base ISO. A piece of film the same size as that pixel would be lucky to record a few tones (B&W) or colors. Digital has to look to neighboring pixels to reconstruct the exact color at any given point, but it works very well given the depth of information. The result is that at base ISO even small sensors can yield accurate colors and smooth transitions. In this respect digital works like your retina.
When measured good FF sensors have tonality and color fidelity (gamut and accuracy) superior to film. You need 6x9 to even compete and 4x5 to be close enough that viewers will never notice in a large print no matter the subject.
Note that color fidelity is not the same as color palette or "I like these colors." Films are designed to yield a certain look while RAW is made to be flat and neutral, leaving the look up to you. As an example, Velvia's palette is magic under the right circumstances. Portra can also be beautiful under the right circumstances. But neither can compete with FF digital on gamut or accuracy, even when using a larger format.
