David Laresen and Hugh Lilly do a nice job of framing the digital vs. celluloid film debate and covering Side by Side. The comment that caught by eye was:
But it also seems clear to me that the old “CD vs vinyl” style arguments for film’s inherent superiority over digital – film is “warmer”, film has “more texture”, film has this magic quality or that magic quality and digital is a plastic hamburger – are fundamentally mystical. I’ve seen a number of people, including some critics I admire (notably David Thomson), try to come up with language for the feel of film, the lustre of film, the thing film gives you on the screen that digital simply can’t match, and I don’t buy it: there is nothing film can do that digital won’t be able to do just as well, either within a few years or right now.
When all is said and done the best argument for celluloid film is the ease in which it can be stored. As the authors so aptly ask:
In 50 years, how many of today’s digital films will have been lost to format obsolesence or file corruption?
All in all a good read. The entire review can be read at The New Zealand Listener.