Well, yes there is because they're uniquely addictive, and encourage over-eating. While it's hard to over-eat on just high fat and protein - you feel full quickly and don't get those "snacking" urges between meals, you do with carbs, especially wheat. For a person with a healthy metabolism that hasn't been damaged, indeed you can consume a fair number of carbs. The problem is that so many of us no longer have such a metabolism due to the vast over-consumption of carbs (fructose is probably one of the main gotchas, along with wheat). Our bodies now react rather differently to carb intake.

"we're taking in more calories then we're using... and thus getting fat" - to say that helps not at all. What we need to know is "why" - why are our bodies that normally self-regulate so well, getting our energy consumption so wrong. Address that issue, and you'll get to the bottom of things quickly.

Salt is not bad for you, indeed studies have shown that those that consume the least salt have higher mortality.

Well, yes it is excessive carbs that make you fat. And wheat is indeed killing us.

But there's nothing wrong with saturated fat? Where are you getting "low fat" from?

Since when was good saturated fat in meat bad for you?

Still some of the funniest comedies ever. Love them to bits.

Typical motion picture film stock maxes out at around 14.5 stops of dynamic range. Any camera that shows a greater DR will hold the scene better. Film is also relatively noisy (grain) in the shadows meaning you get much better low light performance with a quality digital cinema camera. Good digital has already outdone 35mm film in terms of measured resolution and noise performance. It's just starting to take over on dynamic range.

Quantization is a non-issue because that is in film, grain limited and digital has been less noisy (it's equivalent to grain) for quite a while, hence the better low light performance.

Add in the weight of the mag and film stock, and the size of the mag and film stock.

No, good 35mm motion picture film stock like 5219 measures about 3k resolution. 80MP would equate to what - 12k. Don't be silly - that's a vast over-estimation of the resolution of film and you're also well into lens and diffraction limitations at that point. Don't confuse scanning resolution with measured detail, and don't confuse 35mm motion picture film with 35mm stills film which is somewhat larger...

Which film stock are you referring to? at 35mm to get 8k rez you'd need a lens capable of passing detail at 160lp/mm.

Yes, the colour gamut of a modern digital cinema camera like the RED Epic already exceeds that of film.

Yes, there's some oversampling, so the 3k detail in 35mm film is scanned at 4k to avoid aliasing artifacts and get some over-sampling in there. But 65mm film is around twice the size, hence the greater resolution on it's scan at 8k to preserve it's detail with some oversampling, and larger again for proper IMAX for it's larger frame area.

For archive purposes they generally use open uncompressed formats. That takes up more space, but is utterly more reliable.

A good 35 film neg will contain around 3k of resolution. This is generally scanned at 4k to preserve all the detail. Scanning beyond that makes for larger files, but no more actual detail. "Digital film" - as in the files from modern digital cinema cameras like the RED Epic is already recording more detail than that 35mm film neg.

Film doesn't have a "true RGB" resolution because the granularity of the three layers is different. If you examine some film scans the detail you'll pick up in blue is much less than the other channels due to the larger grain size in that channel. Even at 160 l/mm that's like what, 3.5k across the film? Typically 35mm film will measure around 3k resolution. RED Epic will measure (in the recorded file) ~4k and in A/B testing does look sharper than 35mm film, looking more like 65mm film.