This whole debate strikes me as kind of a painting vs. photography argument. At the dawn of any new technology with similar applications as an older technology, invariably people will begin to argue that either the new will permanently replace the old or that the old will remain and any new technology is inferior or just a fad.

However, like painting and photography, both film and digital offer unique advantages and disadvantages depending on what your goals are. As already mentioned, video can be significantly cheaper for low budget pictures or pictures with a high number of visual effects. However, film still offers better resolution, dynamic range and color space than video can currently muster.

Both of these formats give you certain things for "free" that the other doesn't. It's very difficult to replicate the grainy, softer look of film on video whereas it can happen automatically for film. Conversely, video can keep everything in sharp focus, which can be desirable to some film makers. Orson Welles and his cinematographer Gregg Toland struggled to keep the entire frame in focus for "Citizen Kane," even going so far as to use optical mattes to achieve the effect when it could not be produced in-camera.

To denounce either film or video as inferior or ugly is to ignore the inherent qualities of both. We should appreciate that each format has its advantages and shortcomings and neither will replace the other.

So anyway....about that 35mm preservation?