People keep saying that. I don't think it means what they think it means...

If the future is digital, then the future is mostly compression artifacts. Then, there is no contrast, no color (4:2:2 means the color is 1/2 the resolution of the brightness), and no resolution. (400 dpi? thats video. Typesetters do 2400 dpi.)

My official review of the DV codec (as used on miniDV) is "IEEEE, the jaggies, the jaggies! Do people really use this?".

People keep telling me "OH, digital cameras are as good as 35mm now!". I'm shooting 120... And I must disagree anyway. A film recorder can do 12 bits/component. I have yet to see a digital camera that does more than 8 bits/component. AND, unless its a 3 CCD camera, or exotic, its using a Bayer pattern. That means take your "megapixels" and divide by 4. A pixel traditionally has a red, green, and blue component. (Its divide by 4 because the Bayer pattern is red-green-blue-green, in a square.)

I don't want cheaper. Digital is certainly cheaper. I want better. Better images, not easier, not more convenient. (Digital is certainly more convenient.) My interest is not in taking a lot of pictures, it is in taking very good pictures.