Yeah I don't buy any of that. Digital cinema was the biggest scam in the world back in the early 2000s, peddled by companies looking to sell something ridiculously expensive and with built-in obscelecence, and it was embraced by people so eager to have "the wave of the future." I saw lots of people saying it looked great. They had no clue. Its like Lucas saying how superior his shitty Cinealta camera was. Really, that low-res camera with no depth of field, no dynamic range, hot spots blowing out all over, bad gradient, no black information, dark levels breaking up, cables out the ass, no wireless transmission, bad balance for camera operators, etc. Those cameras were news cameras too, they weren't made or intended to be used for motion pictures.

Don't be fooled, all that hype was exactly that. These days, it's a different picture, it would be unfair to use technology from 1999 to judge the medium today. Today most of the problems are gone or on their way to being gone, so I don't hold anything against people wanting to shoot digitally, but in 1999 come on. I saw digital projection back then and yes, it was clear and there were no splice and the colours were bright--this is the exact sort of stuff that fools everyone into falling in love with high-def. "It's so pretty!" They don't notice the noise, the moire, the aliasing, the tack-like artificial sharpening, the artifacts, the poor resolution, the picture breakup, etc, on the 1999 projection because its bright and shiny.