Tarantino's also of. He says "digital vs analog" but what he describes makes video bad (half frames) goes for analoge video/TV too, so no: that doesn't make analog better. Also what he says makes analog FIlm magical better (24 Full Photographys a second generating the illusion of movement) goes for digital Film too so no, if that's what makes Film Cinema you don't need Celluloid for that. The real diffence lies in grain vs Pixels. In Sensor patterns vs Film chemistry.

Also what makes oppenheimer unice from the recording side: It's black and white huge imax film. Instead of having "1 grain for all the 3 basic colours" this one has 3 mor grains So more resolution instead of more colours Swirching of colour digitally doesn't give you that. The digital equivalemt to what's used in Oppenheimer would need a whole different dedicated B/W sensor with 4 black and white pixxels instead of the typical 2 green one red one blue, 4 times the resolution at the same pixelsize. Nothing like this exists close to the Imax Format. For what was used for Oppemheimer nothing comparable exists in todays digital world but creating something comparable digitally isn't technically impossibble, just mich more expensive for a one of.