If I may give my 2 cents on the digital vs. film debate...

People keep saying that "digital has better resolution than film prints that are many generations removed from the negative".

First, the majority of digital projections are in 2K, which is barely above 1080p, and not higher than a film print in any sense. Second, film has infinite resolution. People may count grains, but the grains themselves are not uniform. Information on film goes down to the atomic level. Although, most films these days go through a digital intermediate for colour correction, so the resolution will be stuck at that level no matter what.

Also, "digital is more stable and has better contrast/no scratches". To me at least, watching a perfectly stable film is distracting. It's like a moving painting. As to the image quality beyond just the resolution, although no scratches are nice, contrast & colour are locked to a certain range, which no matter what that range is, can be as distracting as the lack of movement. Film has very slight variations in every aspect of the image, aka "warmth", which is more natural to look at and therefore less fatiguing to the eye. I find that listening to lots of digital music, especially compressed, is fatiguing to my ears. Vinyl & cassette doesn't do that.