I didn't say I think digital imagery is best. I think film looks nicer, or else why build a product to make digital look like film?
Really?
I produced a movie in 2007 shooting on a viper to uncompressed DPX, and backing each 30 minute magazine, about 350gb of data to an LTO3 tape twice. At the time, the tapes were about $80. So each 30 minutes cost $160 of materials. Shooting R3D is much much less data than uncompressed DPX.
I assume you know how much a 1000 foot roll and development costs.
How can this even be an argument?