"The fact is when Shane Hurlbut recently tested a modern Kodak film stock he found digital more emotionally pleasing in every way. The fact is that the modern film stocks are more clinical than the older, discontinued ones. Yet most people don’t see it that way." First time posting here. This site is wonderful resource. I agree with a lot of you have to say, but I can't agree with this one. The film example looks like boyhood the C300 looks like a commercial spot. The film literally makes the talent look better. How could you or Shane find this to be a better image. I think you're fumbling here, because you focus on the specs on everything. You zoom in on 4k images and dissect every aspect of a camera. If you're on the pro level, and you can get 95 percent of the quality with digital, you will probably still choose to shoot film. What are your opinions on the different guages? 16mm and 8mm certainly capture a very unique look. This doc shot on 16mm looks beautiful in every way. It just seems more believable to me. I watch so much commercial stuff shot on the 5D, this is such a nice break. If you have the money it seems like the way to go. Obviously different tools for different jobs. https://vimeo.com/49445992 I still feel that video with a film effect, still looks like, video with a film effect...