Does anyone still prefer film to digital?

I believe the concept of "making digital look like film" will quickly fade away. It seems to be a question in many filmmakers' minds, because of the debate, but honestly...

Did we ever discuss "how DVD can be made to look like VHS?" Of course not, but this current debate is fueled by the thought (erroneous, in my opinion) that somehow the look of real film is somehow better.

I think that in a year or two we won't be hearing the debate, digital is working fine and is improving, while giving filmmakers more flexibility in their shooting. The debate shouldn't be about making digital look like film, the debate should only be about making digital look the way the director and cinematographer want it to look, so that the eventual audiences will have the best viewing experience possible.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

Roger Deakins on Arri Alexa versus Film and I agree with him.

Deakins confesses that he was initially “a little nervous about working with a digital camera,” but found the Alexa to be “a very intuitive, film-based system — it really feels like a film camera. The great thing about digital is that you can see the results on set while you’re shooting, which makes it easier to sleep at night. We established the base look on set, and that tracked through dailies, editing and final color timing. It’s great for the director to really see what you’re shooting, because that makes your collaboration and conversations easier and more refined; you don’t have to try to explain how the image will look later.

“The Alexa is a game-changer,” Deakins maintains. “This moment has been coming for a long time, really, but with the Alexa I believe digital has finally surpassed film in terms of quality. What is quality? It’s really in the eye of the viewer, but to me, the Alexa’s tonal range, color space and latitude exceed the capabilities of film. This is not to say that I don’t still love film — I do. I love its texture and grain, but in terms of speed, resolution and clarity of image, there is no question in my mind that the Alexa produces a better image. There is a beautiful roll-off between highlights and shadows [on the Alexa] that I haven’t seen before. There’s a subtlety in color rendition that is fantastic. I tested it in candlelight, and it was beautiful how the camera picked up variations in skin tones and texture. If you shot that same scene with film, you’d get a very monochromatic feel — just a color wash — but the Alexa can read subtleties that film cannot.

“Sometimes I get annoyed with the garbage I hear about film vs. digital,” the cinematographer continues. “Most of it is simply nostalgia and silly thinking. I love film, sure, but this camera has brought us to a point where digital is simply better. In my opinion, there are now more advantages than disadvantages to digital cinematography.”

although I prefer film to digital, I'm more concerned about digital projection. 30% of the magic of seeing the film in theaters for me is the wonder of watching 24 photos a second flicker through light

As much as I believe that there is room for both film and digital, I prefer film.
It's more for me about reliability and simplicity of it. The film cameras are built like tanks and simple to operate and set up. No cords and wires all over the place.
You can recreate the "look" of film on digital but it'll be easier to shoot on film and not spend a lot of time recreating it in post.
You don't have to worry about 2K or 4K. You can scan film to whatever format that you need and not limited to the camera's native format.
There is more focus and discipline while shooting on film, keeping you on task and on your toes.
Now, if you are working on a low budget, it's a little different. You can use high end digital (Mostly on Red Epics) or Super 16mm/2 Perf 35mm and if are making a VFX/CGI heavy movie, shooting digital make sense since you don't have to scan millions of feet of film.
Digital and Film can work together instead of either or.

Film has a certain cinematic aspect to it. The colors bleed on the screen, as they did at the movie drive ins, back in the day. It looks more classic. Although I'll admit certain films have me thinking; birdman, her, ex machina, and I don't know...mad max. All great films, but still, they might have looked better on film, who knows. All I know is movies shot in film have a certain look to them, and I prefer that look.

I could care less about whether filmmakers are opting to shoot on digital over film.

What I want is a guarantee that when I go see a re-screening of a classic at the local cinema (ie Hitchock, Renoir, Lean) that I get to see an actual film print... as in a projectionist loading reels of celluloid into a projector. Not from some crappy, computerized black box that projects something digital from a Zip file and isn't operated by anyone.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

Go back and watch a high quality print of Patton, or Ran. They almost look 3D.

Some of the older movies on film look better than any UHD digital, not because of the resolution, but because films used to use Technicolor instead of all the sepia washed out look that is popular now.