Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, let me explain it to you. The end result is not recreatable with digital assets. i.e.: It doesn't matter your budget, we cannot currently simulate the look of the original footage shot on 35 (let alone 70mm, forget about IMAX 80mm) by shooting digitally. Also what you're referring to as 'garbage', is colour grading and composite work. It's not adulteration, it's an essential create part of the filmmaking work.…
I work in this industry and I don’t think this is true. Look at these tests, using a camera that’s now two generations out of date: https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM?si=KMgFb1gEhA7z7QVm I think what makes film great is more the process. It forces slower more deliberate filmmaking and somehow that seems to show up in the product. Only celebrated/respected filmmakers have the influence to force production to allow them to s…
I deeply disagree with his conclusion, because he is downgrading a digital image to show it can match the resolution and some of the visual aspects of a 16 print. Which is like putting a filter over a high resolution monitor and then comparing it to SD TV.
But in either case, his work wasn't about whether digital could match the look of any film (it can't).
He has also never released his nuke workflow, although he's more recently productised it to some extent.
Here's his discussion of the footage you linked - https://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrepDemoFollowup