When switching from film to digital, we took a lot of steps back and are slowly catching up to quality. I guess around the 2010s, theaters started switching to digital projection, which I believe started with 1K (similar to 1080), then 2K, with a small amount of theaters showing 4K projection. Most high-quality 35mm film is equivalent to 4K resolution. Unfortunately, a lot of movies were shot and mastered at 2K or less, like Mad Max fury road, so there's no point of having them at 4K because the information was never there. With old 35mm, it was probably scanned for dvd or vhs at some point, but studios are going back and scanning movies to 4K with great results. Megapixels aside (an irrelevant number btw), dynamic range was pretty bad compared to film in the early days of digital, but it's starting to get there. The revenant was shot on digital and looks amazing.

Once you start watching on streaming though, you're losing so much to compression. Even with 4K HDR blu-ray, you're only getting 10 bits of color compared to 12 bits with DCP (digital projection).

Nitpick: 1920x1080 is approx. 2K, 1K is more like 1024x768. The "4K" resolution syntax refers to horizontal resolution, while the "1080p" syntax refers to vertical resolution.

Once you get into 70mm film or 70mm IMAX, you're better off just leaving it alone and projecting it directly. I think 70mm could be scanned to 8K, and I'm not sure there's even a equivalent for 70mm IMAX yet.

That's why Nolan still screens his films with 70mm IMAX projectors. He might use digital for effects, but I believe he preserves the analog film in the final prints instead of using a digital intermediate.

I don't see any objective reason for choosing 70 mm analog over 4K digital. Sure, the resolution of 70 mm is higher, but does it really make a difference? A lot of digital cinema is "only" 2048×1080 and you usually don't see the pixels at normal viewing distances. On the other hand, when it comes to linearity and color reproduction, analog film doesn't stand a chance against a digital sensor. 2001: A Space Odyssey might look sharp, but the colors are definitely off.

I guess the real reason why Nolan and Tarantino still use 70 mm is not quality, but personal preference and a bit of self-marketing.

I like his point about not knowing what to look for. On a paper map, you can see all of the points of interest for a specific location. This is great for planning trips. On google maps, you might not see what's around until you zoom in, but you don't know where to zoom in the first place.

Not to mention privacy issues. I like using Square, but now my email gets sent around to any store I visit. Even with a regular credit card, they already get my full name from any transaction.

Plus with cash, you've made the payment and you're done. You don't have to check if the charge was correct, or if you bank account has enough money to cover it, or if the purchase will affect your credit utilization significantly.

> or if you bank account has enough money to cover it, or if the purchase will affect your credit utilization significantly

You’re still doing this with cash since you need to be certain to have sufficient funds in bills and coins before making each payment. And there is more safety in a high credit limit or checking balance than carrying large quantities of cash.