The perception of "quality", however, is highly subjective. What pleases one does not necessarily please another, which is why, in an earlier posting, I posed the question why this could not simply be respected.
I agree that quality is subjective but this is to a point. There comes a point where trends do seem to point to certain mediums over others. For instance, most people feel that a THX certified sound system sounds better than a clock radio. I cant tell you why this is but it does seem to be the case. Most people will also tell you that tube amplifiers sound better than solid state...again, I dont know why this is.
And the untrained people I have talked to, who know nothing of the Film VS digital argument, they have said that when they look at movies (that they are later informed were shot on film) that they look "colorful", "have depth", "rich". The digitally acquired footage usually gets remarks like "flat", "soap opera like", "too much like real life", or even "harsh."
If quality is totally subjective, why is there such a leaning toward film even for those who are not informed? Is it programming because of 100 years of film or is it because of how humans perceive quality?