1. Digital does not have a “particularly vivid capacity for color” over film
-Film has a much larger color space available in the negative.

1. Digital does not produce a “detailed depth of field”
-That’s just not how any cinematographer would describe DOF. It can be shallow, deep or anywhere in between, but this is related to the format size (sensor or film size), lens focal length, f-stop, and distance to subject. It has nothing to do with digital capture or celluloid. Yes, many digital sensors are smaller in size than a 35mm frame, but deep depth of field can be created through technical decisions like using a faster film stock and stopping down. Or using a wider lens. Or both.

I'm certain that the time period has much to do with that, as well, which is why I was still able to love Collateral so much – but even then, there were a couple of shots that took me out of it because they looked so very cheap. There is no other way to say it, really. It doesn't matter how much money is spent, of course, as long as the production values are strong.

I'm certain that the time period has much to do with that, as well, which is why I was still able to love Collateral so much – but even then, there were a couple of shots that took me out of it because they looked so very cheap. There is no other way to say it, really. It doesn't matter how much money is spent, of course, as long as the production values are strong.

I personally liked the digital up to a certain point. I thought the shoot-out scenes were fantastic, although it seemed far too digital when the camera would pause to take a breath. And a few things were more blurry than I would have hoped. But I was never pulled out of the movie like some people were.

Give me film any day, but I foresee digital getting better and better to the point where they will be impossible to delineate between.

Collateral was a good movie and the digital aspect was evident but not to a fault. Where I was really turned off was the commercials for the Miami Vice movie, it looked 'too' digital. So much so that I never want to see it. Maybe he has refined his digital touch as I've only seen a couple digital moments in the trailers for his current vehicle. It is still too much for me to want to spend $10 just to enter the theatre

Like most pioneers people will scoff and sling arrows and I know he will continue to make movies the way he wants

Either way, digital is here and has been for years and will likely grow in popularity. That said, I still prefer the film aesthetic and technically speaking, very few digital cameras (as in, approximately 1 in use and 3-4 in development) can capture an equal or higher resolution than film can – and even these models still suffer from some of the digital problems like shuttering, etc.