Most of the people attending this forum do so because they think you observe the development of affordable film or video equipment with reason. 1.I dare the assertion that most of your (and everyone's) favourite films were shot on film stock. 2. Let people decide what emulsion e.g. film or digital they want to choose. They have their reason. A lot of important director don't like the look of digital, even of an Alexa, and the don't like it for workflow reasons. Michael Haneke, for instance. Because even an experienced DP sometimes has to use gear that he wasn't yet able to accustom himself to. 3. Very simple, indoor vs. outdoor. You know why so many people are enchanted by video low light scenes? Why so many amateurs test their cameras for low light? Well because the look better in dim light that in sunlight. Check No country for old men. Desert shots, film stock. Hard to beat. Check Skyfall, Roger Deakins amazing cinematography. Wit one exception. Last sequence with Moneypenny on a rooftop. Daylight. Mmmh, the scene looks very digitally recovered. It looks familiar. Overexposed scene brought back with "Clarity" or whatnot. Not really pretty. Film stock is far more forgiving in that case. DR and highlight rolloff. Hard to beat on film. Same goes to stills. BW street photography: OVer or underexpose, doesn't matter, the image is all there. Try that with a raw file. You can wrangle the latter a bit, but every experienced eye will discern just this. Go in a photo gallery. Most of the art stuff is shot on film. It has a certain pictorial quality. Lets be happy to be able to shoot with great IQ on video. And I'm glad fims stays around for a while.