Hello, and thanks for starting this topic!
Firstly, I would like to say that I did have time to watch the roundtable interviews - however I feel that this is not really necessary with regard to this debate. Opinions in this case are just that, opinions. We may talk about many aspects of cinematography that we find appealing, but what does this mean? How can we think critically about what we are viewing? How do we view images? How are these images disseminated culturally?
In the worlds of Marshall Mcluhan: "In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."
When studying digital media and images, it is commonplace to study the works of Marshall Mcluhan. The Medium IS The Message. He discusses our relationship with technology and how there are aspects of new innovation that we are unaware of at the time of its birth. This can be observed in the common debate Film and Digital production. So, instead of asking which is "better" (film or digital) - ask "how do we view each medium?"
John Berger's book "Ways Of Seeing" explores this topic further. It was later turned into a TV documentary that is quite interesting:
Ways of Seeing:
The history of images (and image viewing) provides important insight: What is the story? Why have these cinematic choices been made? What makes an image ascetically pleasing? How do these images make me feel. Personally I have seen images captured on VHS that have made me consider what I am watching. There is more to filmmaking and cinematography than ascetics. Move beyond!
That is just my opinion, thanks for the debate!