> But it's all just perception. Agree, but "perception" is A LOT. Taking digital media and making it look like film in an artistically skillful way is hard. Sh

> But it's all just perception. Agree, but "perception" is A LOT. Taking digital media and making it look like film in an artistically skillful way is hard. Shooting in film and making it look good is hard too, in a different way, requiring different skills. Two films come to mind. Both of them beautifully shot. Tangerine (https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU https://youtu.be/ALSwWTb88ZU) Was shot with an iPhone 5s-- and yes, there was a lot of work involved in post-production, but it was a deliberate decision. The directory, Sean Baker, later went on to shoot Red Rocket (https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28 https://youtu.be/Wfndmy-6e28) this time in 16mm film. Both films are amazing in terms of cinematography and visuals. Licorice Pizza (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/ https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/licorice-pizza/). The director, Paul Thomas Anderson, exclusively works in film. This was a big-budget production with some A-list actors, he could have shot with whatever digital equipment he wanted but he chose 35mm. Whatever the case, the outcome was stunning. At the end of the day, it comes down to choices the creators make for their workflow and which tools and techniques they've mastered. Is it "possible" for a fully digital A/V workstation to give the operator a level of control that blows away analog media? Of course. But what does that level of control actually mean? Endless mouse-clicks, sliders, drop-down menus, and application "plug-ins" and licenses? Unfortunately, yes. Not everyone is willing to do that.