I don't know if filming Superman using Digital 3D is going to give us the best quality.
A lot of the digital cameras being used still have that ghosting feel when you see people move on the screen. I think even Green Lantern is using Digital and not film. The Green lantern footage looks a bit too glossy for my taste.
Ghosting could be the result of a lot of different things...but isn't inherent to digital cinema cameras shooting in their proprietary formats. You can get it from DSLR's shooting AVC/H.264 compressed codecs, as well as some HDV/DCCProHD camcorders. Or it could be something with the projector.
What can also happen is you get 'motion artifacts' if you start messing with a digital camera's 'shutter angle'. In some cameras, it's not as intuitive as it is with a physical film camera...so if you're going for a narrow-shutter-angle, 'choppy' look like in Saving Private Ryan...or if you're doing speed processing...digital can sting you. And a large screen can amplify that.
But if shot well, chances are that most people would have a hard time distinguishing digital from 35 these days if they didn't already know which was which.
Digital quality is stunning, but it still isn't perfect enough like 35mm film. The reason digital video is used for 3D is because they don't have to wait to process any film, they can see results straight away.
A prime example of awful digital video is the Star Wars Attack of the Clones prequel, that digital filming was awful, you could tell it was all green screen, and it had zero warmth in its quality.
Even Superman Returns didn't have the warmth of 35mm film with the Genesis camera. Then again, maybe Synder can suprise us all.
Star Wars was shot on the earliest CineAltas...I'm not sure what kinds of lenses they were able to use, but I assume they had PL-mount adapters. Most high-end digital cinema cameras now come with standard PL-mounts so that you can use the full range of 35mmm camera lenses with the right focal-lengths. And lenses are a huge part of giving 35mm it's 'look'.
Superman Returns' look was more a result of the final color timing than the camera itself. That Genesis is capable of shooting things just as bright and clear as any system...the Red, the Arri Alexa. That dark, muddled look was what they went for...why, it still boggles the mind.
Its one of the reasons why Nolan only uses 35mm film or 70mm IMAX film for his movies. He doesn't accept digital video as good enough to match film.
Some of it depends on taste, but I'll agree that film still has a certain 'texture' to it...and often when I'm working with digital, I find it too clinical in its base/raw form and feel the desire to add some 'grain' when doing color-timing. I liken 35 to painting on a 'canvas', as opposed to airbrushing a smooth surface, or even photoshopping.
But it does keep advancing, and even today, it's capable of getting a '35mm-quality' image if you put the work into it....and especially if you light well. There's still stuff that happens in the blue channel that's inherent to the process and is pretty technical, especially in low lighting conditions, but it's improving. 3D almost has to be shot in digital because it's the only way to keep the dual-camera or dual lens rigs controllable....and not spend twice as much on film stock. Plus, you can at least preview the footage on-set, so you have specific 3D technicians checking convergence and stuff right there. Can't really do that with 35.
