Grain is in fact noise. Noise: Things that are not in the actual signal.
> If you go down to the microscopic level film goes way beyond the resolution you can ever hope to achieve with the best digital cameras out there.
That simply isn't true. At the microscopic level film pixels look like "clouds" of colored ink. The pixels are not square, but they are there, and they are not the size of atoms, but much larger - you can see them in a typical microscope (I know, because I tried it).
Digital is cleaner not because of filters, but because the actual capturing technology produces a cleaner signal.
A couple of years ago there was still an argument, but these days the argument is over. Digital clearly won.
> At the microscopic level film pixels look like "clouds" of colored ink.
No, only color reversal film (slides) looks like clouds. Negative film, the one used in movies, looks like crystals (because they are crystals).
> actual capturing technology produces a cleaner signal
This is true, albeit for a film like Kodak 5203 or Kodak 5213, you'd have a hard time proving that this is true. These stocks are so smooth with good exposure and proper development (as it done when making movies) that you need a grain focuser to see the grain. Many blockbusters and big productions that you probably saw in a digital cinema were shot on this film, and you never knew.
> Digital clearly won
Digital is much cheaper, it's very good, and allows much easier intermediate processing (editing, vfx, color timing, etc). Of clourse it "won", although film is still widely used, and although archival copies are still done on film.
The fact that digital won doesn't mean that projection has better resolution (it's roughly the same for 35mm, but worse for larger formats) or better contrast (it's far, far worse for digital) or better colors (film has more saturated cyan and yellow, although this doesn't matter much). It sure has less flicker though.
There are still plenty of reasons why people shoot film, use a digital intermediate workflow, and print film today.
> A couple of years ago there was still an argument, but these days the argument is over. Digital clearly won.
You are using survivor bias to prove your point. My point is that Digital is inferior in SOME aspects to Film - and it still stands. The fact that Digital won has nothing to do with the facts to be considered when doing a comparison.
> If you go down to the microscopic level film goes way beyond the resolution you can ever hope to achieve with the best digital cameras out there.
That simply isn't true. At the microscopic level film pixels look like "clouds" of colored ink. The pixels are not square, but they are there, and they are not the size of atoms, but much larger - you can see them in a typical microscope (I know, because I tried it).
Digital is cleaner not because of filters, but because the actual capturing technology produces a cleaner signal.
A couple of years ago there was still an argument, but these days the argument is over. Digital clearly won.