Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I see it on my computer screen, therefore it's digital. Just like every other photo shown on the Internet.
I agree with Brian that it does look neat and would be a cool screensaver. Looks very futuristic IMHO.
Your post and question is a bit awkwardly presented. But getting to the essence of what photographer's do from a future perspective...
I would welcome a camera of any type that after setting such up could record a scene faithfully with good exposure, deep depth of field, without increasing contrast even with contrasty subjects, such that the result (with an immediate checkable result better) requiring little post processing other than cropping. So from that perspective, having to do less to achieve the end result would be more satisfying a process not only because it would be more efficient, taking less time and effort, but because the moment of capture after composing the frame for a subject better connects the photographer to the end visual result.
In other words put most of the artistry and skill at the point of composition and framing and not in a computer visual editing program where a common strategy is not a vision at all but rather a gradual multi-step manipulation of evaluating how pleasing each step of a result appears. And likewise if I wished to capture an image with some unnatural style, say with increased saturation, limited DOF, or different hues etc, that I could also setup in the camera with a resulting capture that was near the end vision.
Making images is always gratifying, different gratifications depending on what the image is being made for. Commercial? Yes. Film? Of course. Digital? Absolutely. Personal? Personal has highest satisfaction in my universe and that is 98% film in VCs.
"Vocation to Solitude -- To deliver oneself up, to hand oneself over, entrust oneself completely to the silence of a wide landscape of woods and hills, or sea, or desert; to sit still while the sun comes up over the land and fills its silences with light." Thomas Merton
If I had a large budget I'd be shooting with a P65 and printing with a serious digital inkjet. However, I'm an emerging artist and spreading my costs out over time like I can with film photography suits me. I came to 4x5 film because I wanted to make large prints (16x20 and larger) and I didn't have a large budget to get started on it. A 16x20 silver print costs less than $1 worth of chemicals and $6 worth of paper and the entire darkroom was had for less than a 24" inkjet. 4x5 cameras and enlargers are being sold at great prices lately and emerging artists like myself have a great opportunity to enter a field of art that would have previously been inaccessible 10-15 years ago at the current price point.
I'm selling a print per month right now which is covering my supplies. My ship would have been sunk 6 months ago if I had entered the art market on a digital work flow. Even if I had the equipment to create great work I need time to develop my skills, build a voice and find a context in the art community. If things get better I might look into a half decent scanner and a printer. Who knows, down the road I might even be using something such as a P65 on a monorail. I don't worry too much about digital vs film, I instead worry about the results and how I get them. Right now film is giving me the results I desire at the price I can afford.
Is digital more convenient than film? Maybe in how some peoples' brains work as they move through the workflow but there are other aspects of "convenience" such as "can I afford it?" that factor into my use of film.