Either way, I think the vitriol is unfounded. Moreover, shooting film for a timelapse would probably be one of the more cost effective ways of shooting film.
What is it exactly about loving celluloid that makes one a wanker?
For the record, I shot my senior thesis on anamorphic 35mm and I'm not rich, so yes, it is doable.
Reminds me of my days as an IMAX projectionist. Although I've come to accept digital projection as the norm, and, as a more consistent exhibition format, there is a magic to a pristine 70mm print that I still find transcendent.
I'm probably echoing previous comments but...
If I'm shooting film, 99% of the time I wont be carrying any filter other than a few NDs and polarizers.
If I'm shooting digitally, I have occasionally stretched black stockings over the rear elements of the lenses to counteract some of the digitalness of the image and I haven't really found any post effects which have emulated that well enough.
Guy, although I disagree with you and actually think the short was shot quite well, I acknowledge that that is really a matter of taste. However, don't blame the stock, the same film stock was used on "Into the Wild" and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly".
I truly miss Fuji.
Once again we have someone who has never shot on film weighing in on the merits of shooting on film.