I can understand, what appears to be your romantic connection with film. I personally only see it as a means to an end. A hammer on a builders tool belt. One of many tools used to archive an objective.

To a film maker, it is not the tools one should focus on, but the story and visualising to a distribution medium as best as can be. Celluloid, Digital, whats does it matter. Its only a tool.

Objectively, tooling at celluloid compared to Digital tools, digital is now objectively gives the film maker more advantages at better costs then traditional film.
Digital Stills photography passed this point years ago. Ask any professional photographer. This is obviously happening/happened to motion picture film making to.

Digital is the tool of choice “NOW” for those who know how to use it. It is not a matter of costs, tho that is now snowballing the issue.
Many film makers choose DI post as it gives them the knobs they want to twist. Film has less flexibility.

In general, in exhibition, a film shown in digital looks better then celluloid. Yes, film can be made to look better, but then again, going to super hi res 16k across images in digital is also possible but not doable.

Film has its qualities and can no longer evolve, while digital is likely to evolve beyond film (And has already in many ways) plus can evolve at little cost as.. in a computer, writing a new program or taking advantages of new developments does not mean you have to through out all the current technology (Like you need to with film. Ie a 35mm kit is not very compatible with a 70mm kit)

Yes, when you develop film and it appears before your eyes and you can fell and touch it. That is magic. With digital you don’t feel it, you imagine it. And your imagination has no boundaries. That is amazing…

James

I came to this site because an old friend from Australia started a new job selling DCI movie projectors and 3D equipment (in Sydney). I didn’t know the first thing about digital cinema, but having worked in the (Australian) filmindustry for many years I’m still kind of interested in new developments.
Well, the more I find out about it, the more it saddens me and the more I feel alienated from a medium I used to love.
There’s no point trying to explain this to people like yourself either.
You wouldn’t understand the beauty and mindboggling precision of a Panavision or Arriflex camera. You’ve probably never even seen one. Or appreciate the magic of an image appearing after you develop it. An actual picture that you can see and not a piece of plastic junk that stores electronic information.
It would be like trying to explain that a real flower is actually nicer even though a plastic one has brighter colours, looks like the real thing, doesn’t need water and lasts much longer.
What do you mean when you say “film, please get of” and “the sky is the limit with digital”.
What limit ? Film has been around for a hundred years and better movies won’t be made just because they’re digital. Unless your understanding of better is more wanky special effects.
It’s all about more efficient distribution, more money and cold numbercrunching.
Soon photographic fim will become unavaillable but as long as it isn’t, i’ll keep playing with my Graflex 4×5 inch camera and produce pictures that are of better quality then any digital box of tricks, even with 70 year old technology !

Best of luck, Rob Sandifort (the Netherlands)