Couldn't have said it better! Digital right now appears to be a means to an economic short coming. The quality cameras, Viper, Genesis and F35, are not only tech heavy but cumbersome in the operation and media ingestion that people resort to RED and the SI-2k camera. Knowing topped the box office based on content with no reliance on the visuals, for a Sci-Fi film consisting of a massive amount of Green screen I would not call it a show pony for the Red. For a camera with only two stops of over-exposure it performs well in VERY controlled environments. If there were any show pony it would be finchers "fate" commercial shot on the red by Chivo. As for Slumdog I share the opinion that it shouldn't have even been nominated, even the parts shot on film seem over lit and boring, a wise friend wrote " don't mistake location and narrative intensity for visual supremacy", the film works well and cuts nicely but visually it appears more convenient than crafted. Maybe I'm still bitter that a film shot on IMAX with stunning lighting and beautiful exposure didn't win. Not that Mantle isn't very accomplished, 28 days later is still a feat yet to broken. Simply, digital is convenient but has yet to prove it's worth in cinema so far, Zodiac being the exception, "by far the best looking digital film available", shot by Harris Savides, summons the notion of a digital future. Mullen's works as well looks to control and properly apply talent with technology. Obviously there is a massive range of opinions on people's work and the future of digital narrative but for now Knowing does not represent RED's ability. Maybe the Book of Eli will prove me wrong.