@nomad - How interesting, that's almost exactly the same as the GH2's resolution!

@Sangye - Of course you are right about the advantages of film. But is some ways digital already has the advantage:

1) When digital is reproduced there need not be any degradation of the image. 2) The newer digital sensors outperform film in low light. I have a Nikon D800 that can produce virtually noise free images (video, that is) at well over ISO 1600 - and that's with no NR applied. 3) Digital is much cheaper (free, essentially). 4) Digital is much easier to edit. Even if you scan film - well... at that point you have used a digital sensor for scanning. 5) you can get instant feedback with digital. On set, there is a big advantage to this.

Eventually, digital will reign supreme - when issues like global shutters, etc... are resolved. I read somewhere that the last film based movie camera to be manufactured (from the majors) was built last year. I think these guys have recognized that the handwriting is on the wall - even if we aren't quite there yet.

Of course there is the film "look". But eventually that will be digitally reproducible as well. It's a little like vinyl records versus digital. It's not just that vinyl is better or worse - in fact, a major reason to prefer vinyl and tubes is because the distortion they produce is pleasant. At some point digital will be able to do all that perfectly - it's just a matter of time. Now, how close we are to that today - well... that's and entirely different question.

Right you are - sometimes the journey is more important than the destination:>) I have to admit - the Zen potential with digital is pretty low.

the last film based movie camera to be manufactured (from the majors) was built last year.

here we go .. mention film and we're all on that same old merry-go-round of misinformation.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev - can we have one of those definitive beginners' topics for film where all the up-to-date info is in one place and opinion doesn't come into it?

Hey, the days are still long in the Northern hemisphere and a few films are being shot. Why not get a job as an extra, hang around the catering tent at lunchtime and meet some of the guys and girls shooting on film?

today i went to movies again, late afternoon. i saw two films, both projected in 35mm film. Total Recall and Seking a friend for the end of the world, two kind of script, i like them. I saw the two half time in back row, half time in front row, what i can say is: in front row image is very very soft, not pleasant, in back row image is amazing, all the beauty of 35mm film blows out and are wonderfull. i agree vinil and tape have its charming as 35mm film does, but digital quality have its advantages also. 4k cinema will outperform 35mm film, but for the vintage people who likes the pop noise from vinil, the hiss from tape, the grain and texture from film, digital will not be that same experience. I saw Avatar in 2k digital projection and there is no organic look as 35mm film projection have. The image is great but it lacks that romantic vintage look. But lets be realistics, us, the indie people, we do not have the money to shoot 35mm film. it is so expensive for us. the hacked gh2 with some tweaking in shooting and post can give us some kind of the vintage look we like. some grain in camera, some grain in post, some shallow dof, some cinematic light... Just an advice for the vintage romantic girls and guys: find and buy a vinil record from the brazilian singer Caetano Veloso, try to find one of the first released ones. you will fell it have all the charming from the vinil era.

@goanna - Why not use daguerreotypes, or 8 track tapes, or mercury to treat VD, or tape based studios, or arc lamps, or Edison cylinders, or zoetropes, or 78's. Why bother with stereo, surround sound, color film, widescreen, etc..., etc.... Red herring argument... Tell me - what is the cinematic medium equivalent of a Stradivarius - Kodak, Fuji, Ansco? Hell, with that logic, movies - no matter how they are shot - would be considered newfangled faddist nonsense anyway.

Do yourselves a favor. Go to your local art house theater when they're projecting an old movie. It could be from the 50's, or it could be from the nineties. It doesn't really matter, as long as they're showing a good print. I've seen great prints of 50's films that looked better than anything digital today. I've also seen prints from today that look horrible. You have to go to a trustworthy theater that cares about it's prints. Great theaters will even warn you if it's a bad print.
Seeing a movie in a theater today that wasn't shot on film is not an accurate test. Just the same, if you see a movie that was shot on film today, then had a digital intermediate, then projected on film, it's still not the same.
You really have to see a movie that was shot on film, color timed on film, and projected on film to really appreciate it. I don't know what it is, but I still think there's nothing that compares to it. Of course low light is better on digital, and digital has many advantages. But when it comes to the final product, I think film still sings.
Of course, when they were making the tree of life they used a digital intermediate for the first time in Malick's career. Apparently modern film stocks are too contrasty, they couldn't get the right look coloring timing the film. I guess there's not really an option these days besides digital... But it's a shame because like I said, there's nothing like seeing a great print of an old movie. It looks so much better than anything done today. (the colors, the depth, the grain structure).
There's also an argument that film is better to shoot with. Yeah, on set now you can watch monitors and what not. You also have a whole digital village with five producers watching at the same time. It used to be you had to trust your camera operator. If they messed up, they told you. There was magic there.

Another note: remember Imax is the equivalent of an 8K camera, at least that's what they say and I believe it.
It's a shame that film has come to an end :( Of course, I wouldn't have a career right now if it wasn't for cheap beautiful digital cameras, but I sure do miss seeing movies shot and projected on film.

Go look at a fresh answer print and then tell us 35mm is soft. Every year they keep saying digital will soon surpass film. But it never happens. If you want the best, go rent a Panavision. Digital is cheap and good, but if you want the best, get film.

@goanna I don't know that this thread was initially entirely about projection technology as there was mention of DR, lack of compression yuckies, and shadow detail.

@brianluce

I went to movies last weekend and saw Batman and The Expendables 2, both projected in 35mm film...

Of course there will be related comments within threads, but if every thread about film is allowed to turn into the same circular conversation, newcomers will not see what's been written about a particular aspect.