This is speculation, the part that follows "thus" I mean. Show me the research. I have heard smart people theorize about such things, but never have I heard it claimed as outright fact or seen it proven.etimh wrote: Its physics, for pete's sake. The chemical imaging of film and the pixellated imaging of electronic imaging are not the same thing. They do not work the same way. The resulting recorded images are of a fundamentally different NATURE. Thus the eye/body/mind of the human organism does not process the information the same way.
Question: you think if digital got everything that you can see with your eyes EXACTLY the same as film - motion characteristics, color, depth, density, latitutde, etc, etc - digital would still be deficient in delivering an experience to the viewer?
I could show you projected images in a theater that you could not identify as digital. Does that make you one of the "indiscriminate hoards"? (BTW, I think you mean "undiscriminating", and a "hoard" is a stash of money.)etimh wrote: But I do agree with you, and the many others who have stated similar sentiments--all digital imaging has to be is "good enough" to satisfy the indiscrimate hoards who have neither the desire nor training to tell the difference. It will come down to economic viability, as you said, and I have no doubt that digital technologies will be able to comptete in this regard.