First let me say that I LOVE film for all the organic, "living" qualities already mentioned.

But for those who argue that 35mm film has more resolution than even 1080p material, I submit this article: http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

In short, while film has the potential for higher resolution, the reality is that digital projection looks just as sharp or sharper. The real lesson to be taken from this is that resolution is not nearly as important as people make it out to be (I was reading another article about that specific topic but can't seem to find it right now). If you really want the highest quality moving image, you also need things like contrast, frame rate, and good color reproduction; all of which are just as important and work together to make a quality image.

The real problem wih digital (IMO), that others are kind of hinting at, is that it feels too sterile. It lacks the little inconsistencies, the gateweave, the scratches, the pops, etc that make it feel organic and alive and, i agree, less fatiguing to watch.

I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?

What thread am I in again?