Digital Film is shit and will never compete. Prove me wrong

>>82665236
Alternatives have already lost.

Convenience always triumphs

Digital is better for night scenes

>>82665236
>Digital Film
That's a thing?

>>82666235
Not really. 35mm negative has the same amount of detail as digital in night scenes, and that's the direct source for both theatrical and blu-ray releases

>>82665236
Buddy, when it goes through an avid it's getting digitized anyway.

>>82665236
There is no "Digital Film" you absolute retard

File: broken_man.jpg (526KB, 1280x953px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1280x953px

>>82665236
>4K Episode II and III release never since Lucas shot them with 2K cameras

>>82665236
Digital is constantly improving, film is staying rougly the same.

File: 35mm_film_audio_macro.jpg (2MB, 1914x1393px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1914x1393px

>>82668028
>he doesn't know
>he doesn't store his smug anime reaction faces on optical tape

Still haven't been proven wrong, by the way.

>>82665236
The last few films shot by Lubezki and Deakins (Hail Caesar was film, but it didn't look that great).

>>82666200
this

Oh, hi, Christopher, don't you have like a movie to finish?

File: quentin-tarantino-paul-thomas-anderson-70mm-hateful-eight.jpg (88KB, 680x478px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 680x478px

>>82665236
We'll be OK if you stop making movies, Mr. Tarantino.

but don't you dare take PT Anderson with you