Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
Even if shot on film, there's still all of the digital processing that results in the product looking no different than another that was digitally shot. That's why Christopher Nolan doesn't use DI, and has his films traditionally mastered (example, instead of color timed digitally, he color times his films chemically). That's one of the things that bugs me about the Abrams Star Trek films. If you visit the set and take a photo, the set looks great and vibrant. On his films, the colors look all washed out because the film has been processed so many times digitally. That's why the films before XI seem more vibrant looking, at least to my eyes. That's why the news of STAR WARS returning to 35mm film doesn't really excite me, because in the end it's just going to look like any other over-processed film.
As for TNG being scanned at 2K, it doesn't bother me too much because that's really the standard of all TV shows today, whether they're shot on film then transferred digitally or if they're digitally shot at 2K from the start. 4K would have been too generous for a TV show, and given how great the show looks the way it does on blu after being stuck at standard definition for over 20 years, I'm pretty content with this.