Well, I added this bit before you responded:

"It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful."

And no. Sorry. Raiders could be shot 90% the same looking with a digital camera today--if they wanted to. But people don't. You could achieve the same effect. It's not the technology--it's a matter of taste. Crystal Skull was shot on 35mm film and look how that looked! That alone proves the matter overstated.