Originally posted by: RIJIR
I shot some Super 8 film a few years ago in this very old cemetary. It has a look to it that digital will never give you.

You agreed that your own statement is false when you agreed with zombie84, who wrote that it might be "20-30 years" before digital matches film.

If you had said, "It has a look that digital doesn't yet give you," I'd agree with you. But you didn't. You said "never." Well, my friend, "never" is a very long time.

You may think I'm a pedantic asshole, and you're right: I am. But I'm not an incorrect pedantic asshole. This pedantic asshole dislikes statements that include words like "never," when describing the unknowable (in this case, you, as a Super8 filmmaker, are really in no position to be able to say whether digital will ever match Super8 -- especially when people more in the know than you are indicate it already has).

Statements like yours belong to the "film is great" camp, just like I said.

Don't get me wrong: I read American Cinematographer and Cinefex. I like the art and science of filmmaking (even though I don't do it myself). I understand more than your average bear about dynamic range and resolution, etc., with respect to film and video. I don't disagree that film has a lot going for it, and that people who figure who HD is already perfect for replacing film completely are nuts. But I also think lunatics like Spielberg who say they will never use HD are being very short-sighted.