You can still buy and use ancient gear yknow.

Did we ever need more?

>>4355848
Yeah, to take photos indoors/at night without flash, and use digital zoom instead of carrying cringe bazooka lenses around. 61mp is the best thing that ever happened to photography. 3x digital zoom that produces professional grade results up to ISO 3200 at max zoom (~8mp) and up to ISO 25,600 with good processing at full size. Camera operation barely fucking matters now. It's like a return to shooting 4x5 with flash, f/8 and be there, make it in the darkroom not with the button. All you need is a good composition in the image, pretty light, and an interesting subject.

I remember film, when it wasn't an aesthetic preference but simply all you had. Somehow, people still shot bangers...I wish we could go back to $2 film rolls bros

>>4355851
anon
film is technically superior to most digital cameras

a roll of pro grade 35mm is like, 24mp foveon with 20 stops of dynamic range. guestimate exposure and you'll have shadow detail and a blue sky with clouds - clouds with detail, something digitalfags compromise on. and no moire anywhere. and no NR smears, because grain looks good and bayer/xtrans noise does not. you can't buy a digital camera like that.

>>4355857
Film you see on a screen is still shot on a 10mp ccd digital sensor. Thats why old digicams have that film 'vibe'. One way or the other Unless you are looking at a piece of paper, film is pretty much the same. In the end it all falls down on proper technique, grasp of the fundamentals and the proper use of proper gear.

>>4355862
Real niggas were scanning with drums and now they scan with snoys

When people think film has shit detail and DR its because of shit scanners like noritsus and imacons. The shit scanner look is not the film look. A good drum or MILC scan is closer to what you’d get with a quality leica enlarger and a very skilled operator.

>>4355869
yeah, but sadly that is not the norm.

>>4355872
Slowly but surely it is becoming the norm now that ff digitals like the a7riv can be used to construct a drum equivalent for the price of drum scanning one roll of 120

fucking em5/em1 shitters outdo hasselblad imacons

>>4355874
Dont get me wrong. Im all about film. But its not practical anymore.

>>4355875
>But its not practical
I am not jewish why should I care if its practical or not

>>4355877
A Cure Is Possible

>>4355857
>film is technically superior to most digital cameras
35mm has about 6mp of resolution, it was surpassed in that respect by the second gen of sensors. In terms of tonality and colour it was surpassed by the time of the 5D1. Dynamic range is miles ahead with digital, especially if you take unlimited bracketing into account. Sure, you might like the aesthetic of film but you might as well say pointilism is "technically superior" to digital

>>4355879
you can get far superior res by going large large, as in hundreds of mps

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2020/02/8x10-film-vs-iq4-150mp/

>>4355874
>fucking em5/em1 shitters outdo hasselblad imacons

just lol

>>4355881
I absolutely knew that retard artreprofag's 4x5 test was utter bullshit. What an embarrassment.

>>4355879
>35mm has 6mp of resolution
No. The dedicated CCD and "virtual drum" (CCD) scanners you used had 6mp of resolution and were surpassed by the 5d1. If 35mm film had 6mp, it wouldn't be btfoing digital cinema, ran vertically, with an aps-c image area in 4k remasters that STILL have cropping room. 24-36 for good/slow stocks, maybe closer to 12-16 for consumer stocks.

There's always three camps in the film wars:
>NOOO M COUSIN SCANNED IT WITH A HECKIN HASSELBLAD IMACON IT WAS THE BEST THING EVER BECAUSE IT SAID HASSELBLAD AND IT WAS OUTDONE BY MY OLYMPUS PEN F! FILM IS OVER!
>Kid, have you ever seen a drum scan? Digital is shit. Here check this out, i pointed my mamiya 7 at a line chart. see how it's outdoing a $50,000 fucking camera? retard.
>Uhhhhh if its not an analog print it*POP* oh shit the knot

>>4355898
OK sorry, surpassed by a 5D3

>>4355898
based

>>4355901
nope. all bayer cameras have 50% less effective resolution than the pixel count implies and inferior highlight dr. all digital has is really ugly, smeary shadow dr.

it takes an a7riv in 4 shot pixel shift and a flawless macro to fully resolve 6x9 so for single shot capture with ugly bayer artefacts you’d need a gfx
unfortunately for digicucks while film converts scene dr into a scannable form but a digislop camera pointed at the same real world will have highlight clipping or smeary bayered up shadow noise issues

>>4355875
>Im all about film. But its not practical anymore.
For who? People shooting lame sets of the back of people's heads and street signs on their Tokyo trips? Film is logistically and artistically more viable than it ever has been. Most people view image content on a phone which is smaller than a 4x6 print and 35mm is more than enough for that format. You have gearfag brain rot.

>>4355903
>inferior highlight dr
Ever shoot Velvia?

>>4355913
I have a few rolls of velveeta sitting here I haven't tried yet. I am unconvinced it will excite my neurons like Ectoplasm 100 does.

>>4355909
>People shooting lame sets of the back of people's heads and street signs on their Tokyo trips?
But anon that is all that lame film shooters can take. The rest of us moved on to better things.

>>4355909
Wow, people get THIS mad about a thread containing pictures.

>>4355857
>film has 20 stops of dynamic range
You mean about 6.67 stops per color?

>>4356012
This. Imagine posting on Instagram lmfao.

>>4355909
>shoot film
>scan it with a digital sensor to upload on internet
???????

>>4356016
>he doesn't know about vision3
>>4356021
Oh no he permanently destroyed his film by scanning it once and now he can never print it in the future!! Idiot

>>4356034
>vision3 film has a 20 stop DR
Huh.

>>4356034
Why use film if you'll forfeit any advantage by scanning with digital slop

>>4356017
>>4356021
>having friends on instagram means you are a loser
Fucking incel neets on /p/ I swear you are mentally ill.

>>4356036
>>4356021
>>4356012
>>4355898
The only time I ever feel superior to digicucks is after reading posts like these. Cope harder.

>>4356021
>>4356036
>Shoot film
>What it does at capture can not be replicated by digital
>End result is capturable by digital because the scene is compressed into a form a modern FF sensor can digest
>Scan it with lots of mp and 4 shot pixel shift
>Stills looks better than digital
>retard: BUT ISNT IT JUST A DIGITAL PHOTO?
Maybe it is if you use lab scans or scan with a micro four thirds instead of an a7riv+sigma 70mm art

>>4356095
The average seething digicuck is almost as bad at thinking as they are at photography.

>>4356100
>>4356100
kek digicucks btfo

>>4355890
>artreprofag

who is that ? any links ?

>>4356016
>>4356034
presumably 14, keep in mind film latitude is more toward the highlights

https://www.indepthcine.com/videos/kodak-vision-3

>>4356145
>presumably 14
Curious that film's dynamic range is always exactly the dynamic range of the most common scanning system. i've exposed respooled vision 250d by +4 on accident and the negatives were dense as hell but still scanned fine.

if metering improperly like that doesn't just yield a non blown image, but also fills out the shadows, it has more than 14 stops of dynamic range. The non-linear highlight rolloff is also laughably superior to digital.

>>4356145
You could probably search his name on an archive site and see the poorly done test.

File: Cover-Scanning-film-The-2(...).jpg (178 KB, 1030x1030)

178 KB JPG

>>4356145
Artrepofag is a now dead namefag who thought film was worse than digital because of some poorly shot film snapshits he found on wikimedia. He insisted they represented the best film could be because "THEY WUZ SCANNED ON A HASSELBLAD IMACON!" (imacons are not much better than flatbeds) and that it was proof that 6x7 and 6x9 films were actually inferior to a canon 5ds r. By all metrics other than his, they should be slightly superior.

Initially he used his own comparisons but they were so botched with shit covering the negatives that everyone made fun of him. He's just not very good with using film.

>>4356145
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4341333/#q4342057

Here is one example of his terrible test. He went from saying digital btfo film to my $400 4x5 system is not as good as my $1500 digital system after a couple questions.

when I bought my first DSLR in 2008 1600 was still dogshit so when I bought a new camera in 2021 I still tried to keep it below that out of habit despite 6400 iso pics still looking perfectly fine.

>>4356147
The funniest part about it is vision 250d is an ISO 250 film.

A D850 for example only has 14 stops of dynamic range at ISO 64. Each stop of ISO consequently removes one stop of dynamic range.

>>4356205
this but ISO 800, since I am a filmfag.

And a m43tard

>>4355879
>35mm has about 6mp of resolution
lol
lmao even
velvia is 160lp/mm, but film is infinite resolution, so this means it has infinite resolution with absolutely no limit and this limit is on resolving detail which is 160 lines per mm

do you know what that means?
in 1mm, it can resolve 160 line pairs according to the test conditions
in order to try replicating this with a digital sensor you'd need at MINIMUM 320 pixels to display 160 line pairs, ideally more, like 4x or 8x

this means at just 320 pixels to capture that 160 lp/mm that's 11,520x7680 minimum
not bayer either, 3-sensor or greyscale
also to avoid aliasing and moire you'd need to ensure you're oversampling so take this number and at least double them so now you're looking at literally
23,040x15,360 just to match 35mm velvia 50, somewhat competently

remember film is literally infinite
it never has issues with moire/aliasing but fine details too fine for capture simply fade into the low contrast pit of grain, which is vastly different from finite sampling limitations resulting in artifacts
infinite resolution doesn't mean infinite detail
but it means whatever detail it can capture isn't plagued by a lack of sample points
film basically guarantees your capture medium (film) will be limited only by your lens

with digital even with a kit lens your sensor is a limit
you run into moire and all kinds of shit all the fucking time and people wearing stripes are your worst nightmare even with a 24mp sensor with an AA/OLPF filter unless you're at f/16 or have a diffusion filter over your lens

>Dynamic range is miles ahead with digital
this is also a marketing lie
>if you take unlimited bracketing into account
this isn't, but also isn't viable for most shots

>>4355857
is right about everything
but forgot to mention
film is expensive and most don't have time for it

>>4356221
it's not the cost.

The hard part, that goes over peoples heads, is that film, if you want max resolution to wank as hard as film will let you
1: Needs a great lens, and great technique. For SLR users this often means mirror lockup or knowing just the right shutter speeds, and spending a wee bit.
2: Needs great exposure. The less light film gets the grainier and vaguer it gets so you need to put ND filter material over the bright parts to bring the dark parts up and fill them out to get that "tonality" you've heard so much about
If you're walking around, seeing nice photos off the edge of a trail or seeing cool shit happening on the streets, that's hard!

But if you're deliberate and know how to use flash and meter and apply filters for landscapes you can btfo every single digital camera in production today including 200mp digital medium format with a bronica sq-b, a ps 150mm f4, and a box of ektar or ektachrome.

>>4356221
>>4356207
>>4356261
One funny aspect of real film photography is that the optimal contrast ratio for printing is only 4.
Thankfully for most of you digitizing your film circumvents this.

>>4356270
Thankfully most film was scanned instead of put on enlargers before the canon 5d came out

>>4356272
Digitization ruined film photography in so many ways.

In my humble opinion viewing your own work as physical prints is one of the best ways to grow as a photographer/artist.

>>4355844

My 2005 Nikon D2x is superior to other cameras from this period.

>>4355879

None of this is correct!

>>4356036

Slide film can be viewed directly in all of its glory.

>>4356276
*is the best way to grow dog hair on photopaper

>>4356308
I have had one instance where one of his hairs got on an 8x10 sheet. I only noticed it when a black hair appeared on my print. Mind you, my darkroom is in my shop where he is strictly forbidden from entering. I tried giving away the 8x10 negative on /fgt/ but no one wanted it. :(

>>4356221
You're both exaggerating numbers in opposite directions, I don't know where he got his from but yours is just theoretical based off some numbers on a spec sheet. In reality the best 35mm films are going to be sub 30mp compared to a digital sensor. And you're completely ignoring the fact that you're talking about ISO 50 film and that film is severely limited in max sensitivity compared to digital. The truth is that 50 just isn't enough in many situations and you're topping out at what, 1600 (and there goes your resolution)? Where as a modern ff sensor can get decently usable results under 12k. If you can get by with the weight and bulk of a medium format or larger setup and taking long exposure on a tripod then sure, film wins. But in most real world situations and using comparable equipment (in size and weight, 35mm ff) it's not even close.

>>4356147
>vision 250d by +4 on accident
I've overexposed ektar and ultramax by +4 on purpose and there is no difference, maybe a very slight shift in colors that can be fixed in editing. No highlights "clipping"/loss of information either

>>4356328
lies

>>4356324
Durr I don't know any of the specs or any of the fucking details but I still know bedder than everyone and everytang listen to meeee

Nope, you're just a fucking bozo on on the internet. If you can digitize a fucking slide at 30mp and again at 120mp and zoom the fuck right in and not see the god damned difference, then you might as well gouge your eyes out with skewers because you are blind as fuck and don't know dick about dick either. But just keep regurgitating that 2010 understanding of this shit and maybe you'll convince everyone else our eyes aren't seeing what we're seeing and all the fucking numbers and concepts behind this shit are all purely theoretical and fake. Maybe there's someone left who hasn't seen you drag this specific cuntery out a hundred times and result in nothing already.

>>4356324
Imagine this scenario. It's ridiculous, but just go along.
>be shooting concert photography
>vocalist walks out in RGB striped lines outfit
>has a Siemens star painted on his face
>all the instruments are checkerboard painted
The best digital stuff would shit itself in this scenario because of low finite sampling resolution.
High ISO film would not have problems here and just capture what the lens is capable of and deliver an image free from ugly artifacts.
You'll have grain with film but the digital will have noise AND the artifacts.

What you morons seem to be forgetting here is that there is ZERO need or reason to digitize film in order to see what it is capable of!

You can yield far more from a film by viewing it directly.

>>4356147
>exactly the dynamic range of the most common scanning system
In theory any scanning system can resolve infinitely into one side (which one it is - highlights or shadows - depends on whether you're scanning a negative or positive), you just crank the exposure or increase the intensity of light source

Like, unless the negative literally melts you can get more detail out if it's there

>>4356378

Theories are BUNK!

Cameras from that period are revolting black plastic blob DSLRs for boomers

>>4356384

Have you ever actually held a professional grade DSLR?

>>4356376
By scanning film you lose any advantage you'd have by shootig film.

>>4356352
>If you can digitize a fucking slide at 30mp and again at 120mp and zoom the fuck right in and not see the god damned difference
Well sure you'll enlarge the grain, see more detail of it, but that's not more image detail. You could slap some film under a microscope and take a megapixel photo of a single grain, that doesn't mean you get gigapixels from the entire piece of film.
>>4356369
And as I said this is just talking about the very best, low ISO films. Results are going to be much lower res with film sensitivity that people actually use in real life scenarios. That concert better be outside in the middle of day and you better be right up front so you don't have to use too long a lens.

And I hadn't even mentioned IBIS yet. With your amazing low sensitivity film you're probably using a fast but unstabilised prime, so with digital and a stationary subject you've then got another 3, 4, maybe even 5 stop advantage on top of being able to go above 1600 sensitivity.

>>4356376
And what about actually using those photos for anything?

>>4356389
>And what about actually using those photos for anything?

Ever heard of a slide show?

>>4356392
Sorry bud but no one's gonna sit round your 50 year old slide projector to look at your photos, nor will it take advantage of that supposedly superior resolution.

>>4356392
that'll ruin any remaining DR.

>>4356337
https://youtu.be/jp4eJvTBjKU?t=257
keep shooting the sunny 16 slop rule and worrying about being 1/3 stop over lmao

>>4356389
>i can imagine anything to justify my bullshit
Jesus, take a hint, do yourself a favor and stfu

>>4356405
I think a low light scenario is easier to imagine than whatever bullshit >>4356369 came up with. As a digital shooter without the limitation I regularly go above ISO 1600, I'm not just talking about theoretical scenarios.

>>4356394
I would, but then I would make him look at my prints afterwards.

>>4356389
>And as I said this is just talking about the very best, low ISO films.
The higher ISO films still have infinite resolution.
They just have more grain and don't reliably capture fine details with worthwhile contrast as the finer grain films do. The image turns to nothing but grain sooner, but never aliases like digital.

With that said the lp/mm rating is usually measured for normal contrast scenes. For high contrast scenes with high contrast details film actually performs better. The more difference there is between white/black, the more lp/mm the film will resolve. Your lens limits this but we're not talking about the lens. Just the film.
With digital, the res is completely finite, and the pixel quantity is already so low that even base ISO shooting on digital 24MP is dwarfed in resolution by even 400 ISO films, and that's before you even consider that the fact that 24MP bayer is much much worse than B&W sensors without a filter, and we're comparing color films to 24MP B&W here yet even color film still wins.

Don't let the hipsters on reddit fool you.
They're shooting film on shitty cameras with fungus filled lenses and getting cheap lab scans or scanning them on flatbeds or with bayer cameras themselves. 99% of people using film aren't getting even 80% of what it has to offer, forget the last 20%.

>And I hadn't even mentioned IBIS yet. With your amazing low sensitivity film you're probably using a fast but unstabilised prime, so with digital and a stationary subject you've then got another 3, 4, maybe even 5 stop advantage on top of being able to go above 1600 sensitivity.
This is mostly copium, the original post this started from was because some retard said 35mm has 6MP of resolution.
If you want to argue that digital is better because you can snap 24MP bayer at 6400 ISO at 30FPS to a 1TB memory card and get more usable images instead of having 36 shots per roll and lower FPS, that all might be true but is not really on topic for this discussion.

>>4356389
>ibis is free dynamic range! *subject moves*
Im sure it is in a world where you have a 20 stop dr camera and nothing moves

>>4356394
>nor will it take advantage of that supposedly superior resolution.

High end slide projection is capable of noticeably more resolution than current digital projectors, and produces a high level of contrast to boot.

>>4356385
0 interest I'm not a boomer

>>4356476

Neither am I! You are missing the forest thru the trees here.

>>4356389
>IBIS gives me 5 stops of dynamic range
lol
IBIS lets you keep more of your 14 stops if nothing moves whatsoever. even at base ISO, you have less dynamic range than portra 400 can work with. have fun dancing around histograms, relying on special highlight metering modes, and using zebras in your EVF for stills.

you've gone full micro four thirds. equivalence equivalence they say, IBIS and equivalence, but the bokeh difference means nothing and most of the time they're stuck using excessively high shutter speeds because lol base ISO 200.

are you also going to say that since the a7riv can resolve MF film with pixel shift, its finally better, or would all the checkerboard artifacts and ghosting from movement make you say otherwise? of course and the colors

>>4356385
I have

Revolting fits.
>All this garbage for a 35mm sensor
I laugh extra hard when there's a dedicated white balance button. A reminder that a well made DSLR is not made for a photographer. It's made for a journalist, and the lower end ones are made for your dad.

After the FM3a was discontinued no more "photographers cameras" were made outside of leicas doors, because it was uneconomical to try and compete with over a century of reliable AF film boxes. Just boomer cameras for all those goddamn bird and bug photos.

>>4356512
>Revolting fits.

I have come to the conclusion that todays kids are mental cases.

>>4356512
There are still some large format cameras produced today.

>>4356385
Anon, go look at some 2005 DSLRs.
They are quite the fucking meme.

Now, what were they compared to?
What is the aesthetic baseline? Oh, right. SLRs.
Non-digital, film, SLR cameras.

File: IMG_20200208_120654.jpg (283 KB, 1600x1200)

283 KB JPG

>>4356520
>but kid, dont you appreciate how comfy it is with a 24-300?
groan zone

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200

>>4356522
>Anon, go look at some 2005 DSLRs.
>They are quite the fucking meme.

Like my nearly 100% metal Nikon D2x perhaps?

>>4356523

I use primes exclusively.

File: 2.25lb difference.png (434 KB, 1267x900)

434 KB PNG

>>4356525
>I use primes
dlsaars were a mistake

>>4356543

I have more film cameras than digital. I shoot far more film (Ektachrome and Delta 100).

Have you seen how small and light a Nikon EM/FG is with a 50mm Series E lens? I continue to use it over any compact digital camera.

>>4356435
>The higher ISO films still have infinite resolution.
I don't know why you keep saying this. There's nothing infinite about it, if there was then there wouldn't be the lp/mm measurement. Infinite resolution is literally impossible.
>They just have more grain and don't reliably capture fine details with worthwhile contrast as the finer grain films do
So they have less resolution.
>even base ISO shooting on digital 24MP is dwarfed in resolution by even 400 ISO films, and that's before you even consider that the fact that 24MP bayer is much much worse than B&W sensors without a filter, and we're comparing color films to 24MP B&W here yet even color film still wins.
Erm, you're the only one comparing a 24mp sensor to anything. Why are you trying to handicap digital? We've got 60mp ff sensors so if you're using the best of the best film as an example then that's what we compare to. But yeah even the ~45mp sensors beat films with a sensitivity that's actually usable handheld in less than perfect lighting conditions.
>This is mostly copium
No, you're just missing the point. The biggest flaw with using Velvia 50 as your golden example is that it is very low sensitivity making it useless in many real life situations. I'm surprised you didn't just go to CMS20. I also remember reading something about an ISO 1 film that was used in microscopes or some shit and had insane resolution, but it's completely irrelevant because it's not usable outside of very specific conditions.
>>4356458
Didn't say anything about dynamic range bud. There are plenty of photos taken of static subjects, or at least very slow moving ones.

>>4356612
>35mm digital can beat 35mm film for quality if you buy an Sony A7RV or an Canon R5
Jej

>>4356615
>a 4 dollars roll of Vision 3 btfo anything but a $4k camera
impressive, based kodak

>>4356618
To be fair, you can also do well with a $1.2k A7RIII or a $2k Z7II and get within 50% of medium format films detail level (similar to 50-60 million photosite foveon)

Shame about the PDAF banding on the Z7 (it's also a subtle pattern in the noise on the Z7II), and the WR/AF bitching that accompanies these cameras, but film cameras didn't have those features either.

File: 10844305265_7a2e29e711_o.jpg (1.3 MB, 2640x1760)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4356621
Foveon still gets moire apparently

Found on flickr: dp1x photo with moire pattern

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA DP1X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:13 23:08:10
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	16.60 mm
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	30313030313231374A468D5038363431

>>4356612

You cannot see films true resolution limited without viewing it directly thru the finest laboratory-grade microscopes.

>>4356628
I thought foveon isn't supposed to moire. Look at the roof.

So 35mm film has infinite resolution, but you can't print above 18x12 due to grain, while that's the output resolution of an entry level digital camera? And positive film (the stuff that actually looks good) has less DR than an iphone? Big digital really pulled the wool over the eyes of these sheeple...

>>4356717

The results matter more than the technical specs.

>>4356661
Why wouldn't it? Its an image made from neatly stacked pixels, its gonna moiré when detail gets small enough.

>>4355857
incredible how you were unable to get one stat about film right

>>4356717
>you can't print above 18x12 due to grain

lolwut
What is this, the say stupid shit without thinking olympics?

>>4356776
The grain police stopped me before I could press print.

>>4355857
> with 20 stops of dynamic range.
Are you the retard who can't read a characteristic curve in the other thread?

File: MF-Fuji-RVP-Howtek-vs-5Ds.jpg (800 KB, 2370x1185)

800 KB JPG

>>4355898
>If 35mm film had 6mp, it wouldn't be btfoing digital cinema,
It's not. 4k beats vertically run cine film, and 8k stomps it.

>>4355903
>nope. all bayer cameras have 50% less effective resolution than the pixel count implies
Bayer sensors universally resolve to or near their Nyquist limits. Imaging Resource has years of testing to prove this. Unlike you I've actually tested to try and find a color where Bayer loses resolution. Basically you have to put a filter on the lens which only allows one of the primaries through with sharp cut offs. Nothing in the real world does this.

> it takes an a7riv in 4 shot pixel shift and a flawless macro to fully resolve 6x9
Ahem, I'll just leave this right here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-05 at(...).png (211 KB, 896x1016)

211 KB PNG

>>4356147
>if metering improperly like that doesn't just yield a non blown image, but also fills out the shadows, it has more than 14 stops of dynamic range.
It's ~12ev per Kodak themselves. Some people might try to argue that the flat portions of the curve should be included, but that's a COPE. If density is barely changing, then you're not resolving the tones, are you?

>>4356792
This map was already proven to be bunk. Slide film looks worse than a 5ds but better than an iq180? Look at how desperately you cling to this bullshit oversharpened evidence with all its mysterious color changing lines
>its blue
>now its gray
>now its blue again
yeah and my micro four thirds isnt actually noise just let me open topaz

>>4356221
>>35mm has about 6mp of resolution
Depends on the film and format, 35mm Velvia 50 on a drum is closer to 16mp. Most 35mm is 8-10mp.

>velvia is 160lp/mm
In the real world it's 80 lp/mm at best. Fine detail does not occur at 1000:1 contrast.

>but film is infinite resolution
This has got to be bait.

>remember film is literally infinite
Remember that you're a retard.

>Digital camera defense force
Having actually shot film it has over 20 stops of dynamic range and outresolves most digital cameras. It takes a $2000 body in pixel shift mode to actually outdo medium format film photographically instead of in terms of how well the unsharp mask algorithm can pretty it up, and even then, the colors are way worse without so many hours of effort that developing color at home suddenly sounds like fun.

>>4356435
>With digital, the res is completely finite
It's finite with film as well you utter retard. And provably, observably lower than modern sensors.

>and the pixel quantity is already so low that even base ISO shooting on digital 24MP is dwarfed in resolution by even 400 ISO films
Tell me you don't even own a camera without telling me you don't even own a camera.

>>4356796
>lines are solid blue
>BUT THEY'RE CHANGING COLOR!
Get your fucking eyes checked.

>>4356798
>Having actually shot film it has over 20 stops of dynamic range and outresolves most digital cameras.
Post your photos then.
>crickets

File: image12.jpg (94 KB, 442x883)

94 KB JPG

>>4356800
>Lines are rich, vibrant blue no matter what the surround color is: film
>Lines shift to less saturated tones depending on which color surrounds them: digital
verdict: bayer fuckery and unsharp mask vs unsharpened scan done with shit equipment

something is up if a competent person has provia resolving lines where a phase one iq180 has descended into moire and generated a rainbow maze and a totally inverted line pattern, and another person has MF film struggling to outdo a 5ds. someone is lying.

and it's not the guy that shot this test on his blog and detailed his methods and equipment.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	LinoHell
Camera Model	TANGO
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2148
Image Height	4555
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:11:12 10:08:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	442
Image Height	883

>>4356792
You reproduce maps?

>>4356804
>other people: 6x7 outdoes phase one iq180, resolving at a slightly higher resolution than where the 80mp iq180 goes full moire
>map_repro_fag: struggles to make 6x7 look better than a 50mp cannot dslr with micro four thirds dynamic range
Someone fucked something up, without a doubt.

Possibly the scanner operator.
Possibly the photographer.
Possibly someone compressing a file for web 2.0.

>>4356803
>you can beat digital if you use 4x5 or a 6x7 microfilm!
kek

>BUT MUH BLUE LINES!!!
Told you once before, retard, Velvia over saturated them. The 5Ds is accurate, Velvia is not. Nor would you expect Velvia to be. Velvia's exaggerated color is why you shoot Velvia. You would know that if you had ever shot it. Now: post your own photos that show 20 stops DR.

>but muh line chart!!!
You mean the one where 6x7 Provia can't distinguish the lines?

>>4356807
>6x7 provia can't separate the lines
>OMG FILM WON!
Typical film fag.

>>4356810
>Accurate
>Lines change color depending on background
>Weird thing happening where 6x7 looks worse than 50mp with your biased super angry ass but slightly better than 80mp with someone elses test

>>4356803
Looking here, the mamiya 7 has distinct lines up to about 5.5 but you can clearly see slight hints that there are still multiple converging lines up to 6.
The IQ180 does not produce an acceptable image. There are dramatic rainbow and maze patterns, and it has replaced the original converging black lines with diverging green and magenta lines. This would be seen even without pixel peeping.
The D800E does not produce an acceptable image. It's a totally different detail than the source material. This would be seen even without pixel peeping.

>>4356812
>but the lines change color!
But get your eyes checked.

>but my other test
The one where 6x7 Provia couldn't even get started?
>BUT MUH ALIASING!!!
Doesn't happen in real world landscapes, and is also solved with an AA filter (which you can probably attach to the back).

And you still can't read a characteristic curve. And you're still a nophoto.

File: table.jpg (127 KB, 468x566)

127 KB JPG

>>4356813
You fucked up your test

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
This guy did not fuck up his test. Why can he get 80mp out of 6x7 but you think it's worse than a 50mp cannot?

Either you are lying or you are stupid. In either case, you've been totally debunked by this test alone. None of your other tests can actually be trusted.

>aliasing doesn't happen in real world landscapes
It does. Thank you, trees. Clearly you've never actually shot an AA filterless high resolution camera.
>solved with an AA filter
Now you are blurring your image and making it even worse than film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:18 16:17:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	468
Image Height	566

File: 4x5 vs iq180.jpg (261 KB, 640x832)

261 KB JPG

>>4356814
>nooo that guy's test was solid!
Then how come in the real world the 80mp back was right on the heels of the supposedly 205mp 4x5 Provia? Hmmm? Why is his line chart test the outlier among all other tests?

>BUT MUH MICROSCOPE!!!
Ken Rockwell level delusional measurebating.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: 7D Velvia 50 Imacon 8000 ppi.jpg (326 KB, 1978x1033)

326 KB JPG

>>4356814
>35mm velvia
>24mp
kek. Left is 35mm Velvia 50 on a fucking Imacon vs 18mp apsc, it still loses.

Now, I'm waiting for those 20 stop film shots of yours, nophoto.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1978
Image Height	1033
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	8000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	8000 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:04:18 14:59:36
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1978
Image Height	1033

>>4356816
>it takes a $5 sheet of 400 speed film for film to almost be worse than base iso $20k digital
holy kek and film still has better color definition and looks more like a photo than a green smear
>provia
read the blog thats portra 400. oh boy did you accidentally set your scanner to 400 dpi? are you dyelsicx?

>>4356814
moire being so bad even with a d850 makes this chart even funnier

>>4356818
>on a fucking imacon!!!
Yeah we’re trusting the competent howtek drum operator over the dyslexic who thinks an imacon isnt merely slightly better than a flatbed here and is so visually illiterate he cant even pixel peep correctly

File: file.png (3.86 MB, 1284x1898)

3.86 MB PNG

>>4356818
>On an imacooon!
Silence, child. you lost. Imacons are overpriced shite easily outdone by an em5ii and a kit zoom.
>>4356816
>4x5 provia
Uh illiterate bros?

So what should I buy

File: 645-vs-5Ds.jpg (1.22 MB, 3142x2014)

1.22 MB JPG

>>4356819
>"$5 sheet of film"
>forgets tens of thousands in scanning equipment
Again, you prove you've never touched film or any camera for that matter.

>muh blog!!!
It's ridiculous measurebating with wild inconsistencies proving the guy didn't know what the fuck he was doing. 4x5 clearly wins the line chart test but not so clearly in the real world. But even worse, he portrays a D800 as mush yet a 5D2 gets far closer to 4x5 than it ever should. How the fuck can a 5D2 be better than a D800 and an IQ 180 be both far away from and right next to 4x5???

>>4356820
>imacon only slightly better than a flatbed
Again, you've never touched either. Never touched a camera. Never touched a film unless it was your mom's 35mm point and shoot as a child. Which is why you remain a nophoto posting other people's shit.

>inb4 NOOOO A BETTER SCANNER FILM TOTALLY WOULD HAVE WON!

>>4356821
>so desperate he has to cling to a typo
Why are you a nophoto? Can you post one photo you've taken of anything? Ever?

>>4356824
nikon fm3a
24mp worth of detail at iso 100-250 (if normal film or kodak's god tier cine film), 20 stops of dr, no moire

fyi digital only has 14 stops of dr at base iso, each additional stop of iso removes about a stop until the dual gain crossover if any where it regains maybe 2/3 of a stop

>>4356824
Any old 8x10 camera, a good lens, and a good tripod. Make contact prints.

>>4356827
You're totally incoherent, kid. Time for you to go to bed.

Your comparisons and tests are botched, or lies. Non-botched, non-lying tests show this clearly. I strongly believe you spam this exact same shit over and over again because it is wrong. You know it is wrong, so you're using the oldest tactic on the internet:
Keep reposting until the sane people leave.

>>4356829
I hate it when my finger slips and I accidentally type "rovia" instead of "ortra". Time for bed timmy!

>>4356830
>can't post a photo
>"totally 20 stops of dr"
>t. nophoto

>>4356835
yes, 20 stops of dr. y u mad tho?

>>4356834
>You're totally incoherent, kid.
You can't even post one photo, kid.

>Your comparisons and tests are botched, or lies.
You're mistaking me for the retard who made that blog post.

> Non-botched, non-lying tests show this clearly.
Which part is clear? 4x5 beating an IQ 180, being close to an IQ 180, or being close to a 5D2?

>NOOOO IT WAS PORTRA!!!
Oh well this changes everything. Apparently now Portra 4x5 is better than an IQ 180 but Velvia 4x5 is barely better than a 5D2. Who knew Portra was higher resolution than Velvia?

Oh...wait...it's not, and your blogger is incompetent.

>>4356836
>yes, nophoto
We can see that.

>>4356837
tldr you botched your tests

if you say 6x7 is worse than a 5ds, with a clearly posterized and low resolution image
and another person posts clear evidence it's better than an *iq180*
who do we believe?

resolution tests can only be botched in one direction. down. so the iq180 that's hitting a moire wall just before 6x7 went to impenetrable mush was shot poorly? moire happens when the photo is perfectly sharp, botching it would actually reduce moire (and resolution).

and the 4x5 portra 400 is bad, when it actually reproduces the color of the details instead of shifting everything to green-brown because lol bayer? nope.

you will not proceed to repost your maps until everyone who knows you're wrong gets sick of it and leaves.

>>4356840
>the guy with completely inconsistent test results is right
Are you stupid?

>howtek drum scan
>"low resolution image"
Yeah, I guess you are.

>and another person posts clear evidence it's better than an *iq180*
With an ISO 20 (really ISO 12) microfilm.

>who do we believe?
Clearly the guy whose tests show 4x5 is better than an IQ 180 but not really but actually a 5D2 is pretty close to 4x5 but a D800 is mush. Yeah, that guy really knows what he's doing.

>BUT MUH MOIRE!!!
Doesn't change the fact that the IQ 180 clearly out resolved 6x7 Provia.

>but muh bayer had the wrong colors!!!
Doubt. Bayer sensors are more color accurate than even Portra. This is like you claiming Velvia is more accurate because "pretty blue lines" when I have the fucking map and it's not.

>you will not proceed to repost your maps until everyone who knows you're wrong gets sick of it and leaves.
You will never post a photo. You have no film, you have no cameras, you have no pictures.

>>4356842
>Inconsistent test results
What? His results are incredibly consistent.
>with an ISO 20 microfilm
And provia. Did you not read? Can you not read?
>4x5 is better than an IQ 180 but not really but actually a 5D2 is pretty close to 4x5 but a D800 is mush
I'm trying to dissect this and figure out how badly you fucked up basic reading and coming to the conclusion that you read at a 3rd grade level.
>Bayer is more accurate!
Yeah that's why it turns orange grass green and blue lines conditionally gray. Bayer doesn't have color accuracy issues with fine detail at all.
>You're a nophoto
I'm a hasphoto but your spastic map spanning makes me think, what happens if I post one? You call it shit no matter what. You make up a persona for me. Whats it gonna be? Dog fucker, hooker rapist? /p/'s come up with worse. You spam in anger wherever you think I may be, just like how you're spamming your shitty maps every time someone says digital isn't as good as professional film stocks. You as a person aren't worth it.

>>4356843
daring of you to imply you have anything to prove to someone who takes photos of maps

>>4356843
>4x5 being way better on a line chart but barely better at all in the real world is TOTALLY consistent
kek

>And provia.
6x7 Provia was mush from the start, it didn't win shit.

>I'm trying to dissect
I'm trying to dissect why you don't have any photos.

>grass is orange
More confirmation you need your eyes checked.

>can't post even one photo
>"I'm a hasphoto"
You were saying something about 3rd grade reading level? Because even a 3rd grader knows that nophoto != hasphoto.

>nooooo you'll make fun of muh photo!
Pussy nophoto.

>>4356844
>posts other people's line charts
>"uh...you just post maps!"
kek

>>4356846
Most people will agree that the 4x5 portra 400 version has much clearer color differentiation.
>>4356821

Sorry, "that the 4x5 provia version is almost as good as a 5d2" (dyslexic version you will probably read as the above)

>>4356848
>"most people will agree"
>has never asked most people
Portra is shifted to red/yellow. That's literally it. If you owned Photoshop you could confirm this easily. Given that it was clearly an overcast day the IQ 180 is almost certainly more color accurate. Note that "accurate" != "what i think is prettier", a lesson you can't seem to learn.

And again, you can't post a single photo. This board would improve dramatically if nobody could post to a thread without first posting one of their own photos. Where is your 20 stop film photo? Why do I have to keep asking for it? Because it doesn't exist?

>>4356850
Holy cope

I'm not posting anything for a spastic map spammer, sorry. That would be like posting pictures of a cute husky in a micro four thirds thread or some adorable german shepherd in /fgt/. We've all seen how perpetually wrong gearfags respond to hasphotos.

>>4356851
>i could post a photo i just don't wanna!
OK nophoto

>>4356850
>Where is your 20 stop film photo? Why do I have to keep asking for it? Because it doesn't exist?
Because you can only print 20 stops with darkroom printing. If digishit can't do it what makes you think digishit scanners can?

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-05 at(...).png (105 KB, 1828x426)

105 KB PNG

>>4356851
>>4356852
A nophoto in every thread, every time.

>>4356852
You botched your tests and no amount of dyslexia will change that

Gonna spam them tomorrow when someone dare says film is good? Gonna spam them every day until everyone who sees through the faked tests finally gives up? I mean you already spammed twice in one day so who knows what to expect.

>>4356853
>Because you can only print 20 stops with darkroom printing.
>t. never been in a darkroom
No paper can present 20 stops. Only through tonal compression can a 20 stop real world scene be printed with all tones captured. Again, try reading Adams. He figured this shit out years before digital or HDR.

This is no excuse. Do you have a test photo showing 20 stop capture on film or not? Are Kodak and Fuji and Ilford wrong with their characteristic curves or not? Not, because you are nophoto.

>>4356857
>muh curve
Yet in real life film has 20 stops of DR
>but it cant underexpose only overexpose
Oh no, anyways

>>4356855
>links to blog with botched tests
>"noooo you botched your tests!!!"
OK nophoto

>Gonna spam them tomorrow when someone dare says film is good?
You don't say "film is good", you make retarded claims about infinite resolution and 20 stops of DR with zero evidence to back it up and in fact, zero photos at all.

>spams threads endlessly
>"noooo don't spam my spam!"

>>4356858
>"yet in real life film has 20 stops"
How would you know? You've clearly never shot film.

>>4356859
Where are you getting this idea that the blog botched the tests? Those are incredibly consistent results with thorough methods.

Is it just because you can't accept being wrong?

>>4356862
>Where are you getting this idea that the blog botched the tests?
From the fact that his test results are all over the place. Is 4x5 clearly better than an IQ 180 or hardly better at all? Does 4x5 blow away a D800 or barely beat a 5D2? Which is it?

Now post a photo or go away.

>>4356863
>Is 4x5 clearly better than an IQ 180 or hardly better at all?
if you read above a 3rd grade level, you'd see "clearly better" (100s of MP) is for the 100 speed ffilm and the one that's less clearly better but still has obviously superior color separation is a 400 speed film.
>Does 4x5 blow away a D800 or barely beat a 5D2
Again, if you read above a 3rd grade level...
>Obviously the 4x5 Velvia has more resolution but we downsampled it to match the 5Dmk2
I can't believe I wasted my time explaining how you are legitimately retarded. You are NOT intelligent enough to continue this argument. Most of it has been trying to beat reading comprehension into your skull.

You won't even understand this post. You're too stupid.

>>4356868
hol up he might just be legally blind

>>4356868
>if you read above a 3rd grade level, you'd see "clearly better"
Then how come it's not clearly better? >>4356816 >>4356821 It only edges out the IQ 180.
>but muh table of fake megapickles calculations!
Fake numbers are fake.

>>Does 4x5 blow away a D800 or barely beat a 5D2
>Again, if you read above a 3rd grade level...
Again, if you would look at his pics.

>>Obviously the 4x5 Velvia has more resolution but we downsampled it to match the 5Dmk2
Should still look way better, yet it doesn't. Have you never downsampled from a higher resolution? Of course you haven't, you don't even own a camera.

>>4356870
>hol up he might just be a samefag
And still a nophoto.

blind confirmed

File: film.vs.digital.35mm-d.gif (43 KB, 613x505)

43 KB GIF

>>4356814
Here's the opinion of a PhD NASA engineer in charge of several deep space imaging missions.
https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html/

>>4356881
Nuh uh

>>4356878
nophoto confirmed. Why can't you post a photo? Just post the 20 stop proof, prove you own a film camera.
>noooo you'll call me names like husky fucker
I mean...is it of a husky in a compromising position or something? Is that why you can't post?

>>4356797
>Remember that you're a retard.
Kek
>>4356799
>It's finite with film as well you utter retard
Kek

You people are dumb.
Film is infinite, that's all there is to it.
When you want to print to a 4x6 or a 4.2x6.3 film's infinite resolution won't require upscaling or digital resampling. It just exists, and has infinite real-world resolution. Much like a chessboard made of real wood. You can rotate it and it never loses resolution despite being an 8x8 grid. Once you've only got finite digital sampling, you're in the finite realm and have limitations. You rotate an 8x8 checkerboard in digital space (with 400x400 pixel per tile size so 3200x3200) you immediately lose detail. No matter what algorithm you use. No, you can't "sharpen" it back, that just causes more issues (artifacts).

Film never has these issues.
There are no "pixels" or "lines" to blur as you view/project it at 99% scale or 99.999999% scale, or 40% scale. Digital is different and suffers here because it is finite.

>Tell me you don't even own a camera without telling me you don't even own a camera.
Tell me you like unsharp masking and photoshop presets.
Go, do it.
Try and photograph an RGB stripe LCD display with a 24MP sensor and report back. Tell me how that works.
You know what? Try it on the following.
12MP
18MP
21MP
24MP
45MP
60MP
even a fucking hassleblad 100MP
I don't care.
Film will still beat all of those in this scenario because the subpixels won't obliterate the image with aliasing.
Infinite resolution doesn't mean you can be a zoomtard and zoom in to get moar detailz it relates to the sampling alone. Optical resolution is always a limiting factor in practical use cases and is why in practice low res digital is good enough for most cases, but there's plenty on the table with film that is rarely put to use.

>>4356890
based retard

File: dynamic-range-tfcn-film-1-600.gif (29 KB, 600x455)

29 KB GIF

>>4356881
>There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR cameras, like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. Point and shoot digital cameras, somewhat less.

>>4356890
>"film is infinite!"
>t. nophoto who has never shot film

>>4356628
With such a low res sensor moire can be an issue, but this is a heavily baked sharpened image.
It would definitely look better in the RAW.

>>4356639

if you ever shot superia 1600, you would have noticed resolution limitations even with lame 2003 2800dpi film scanner

>>4356895
>>4356881
How does someone manage to be so wrong and completely contradict established evidence? Spun definitions and cutoffs?
>nasa engineer
Moon program status?

>>4356814
this remains truth

my personal opinion: anyone who stays up past midnight spamming into the void is automatixcally wrong and mentally ill

>>4356990
just use basic science

clark vision doesnt have good experimental proof. he uses a consumer ccd film scanner for all his hard data. blog guy is a drum operator and collaborates with another optics expert.
>scan with shitty ccd ie imacon v850 noritsu coolscan
>film has detail and dr of shitty ccd
:o

all tests require a competent drum operator or gfx pixel shift

>>4356980

Scanners are the limiting factor. When you depend on scans to see the resolution of film, you screw up!

>>4356881

This is unfortunately faulty data based on low-end scans and meaningless specs.

For instance, the 1DS MKII failed to clearly outresolve the D2x in my tests.

>>4356998
>all tests require a competent drum operator or gfx pixel shift

Again, digital cannot capture the true resolution of film!

File: 200128114911-01-space-shu(...).jpg (494 KB, 3000x1688)

494 KB JPG

>>4356990
>Nasa engineer!
IIRC his specialty has very little to do with the correct use of artistic photographic materials and more to do with analyzing minerals in space so some fuckups are to be expected.
>a physicist and an art student each scan their film
>the physicist runs it through a borrowed minolta scan dual, and says "this old tech is garbage, my sony does way better"
>the artist pays someone $500 to drum scan the entire roll
>the results are clearly superior to digital
>and the artist says "wait, shit, im out of money, SHIT"

File: 2021-11-27-11-02-41-BRadi(...).jpg (55 KB, 539x529)

55 KB JPG

>>4357037
Yes, it can, or at least as much as is useful (the point where you can see individual grains in a dense negative). You just need to spend $10k on equipment.

This is what a 200% crop of a 7200 dpi effective scan of 6x6 looks like. 400mp. Every last detail, far beyond what looks good. It barely even looks like details. If you wanted this level of grain peeping on a larger format you would have to stitch.

>>4357040

I and Henning Serger are worlds foremost experts on this subject. We have spent countless years testing all aspects of film and digital.

You are simply out of your league here!

>>4357041
>Henning Serger babysat my dog

>Muh drummer scanner
>https://clarkvision.com/articles/large_mosaics/

>>4357041
Henning did his film tests at a 1:4 contrast ratio. That one guy always says muh ultra high contrast. I think we can both say he has been btfo on this fine day.

>>4357049
Drum looks better
bayer slop looks nervous as always

>says film is low resolution
>creates 200mp scans that show there is still detail to be had
kek

>>4357040
Just so you know, 7200 DPI isn't much. That's like 64MP over 35mm.
No mention of what optics were used in shooting the film originally
and you clearly still aren't even near resolving the grain

>BRadius5Smoothing4-4
I assume this image is blurred?
What the fuck it's like you're not even trying.
Also 200% crop, with what? Disgusting upsampling?
If you're going to give comparisons, the only usable method for upsampling is nearest neighbor by integer values.
You're failing digital 101. It's no wonder you can't comprehend film.

>>4356990
>"how can you contradict established evidence?"
>proceeds to rant about moonie conspiracy theories and deny space
Is Earth flat too?

>>4356998
>thread filled with good experimental proof
>"noooo i want good experimental proof!"
Film monkey see no evil.

>>4357031
>"nooo it's the scanner a better scanner would win!"
>t. never looked at film under a microscope
A drum grabs everything that's there and an Imacon comes damn close. But keep believing in flat Earth and infinite film theories.

>>4357038
>poisoning the well to try and ignore the evidence
COPE

>>4357056
>fine detail occurs at 4:1
LMFAO you've never shot film, never shot digital, never made a print. The reason film companies include 1.6:1 resolution tests is because fine detail is that contrast or lower. Think skin texture, texture in a rose petal, etc. It's never 4:1 and certainly never 1000:1.

Film's resolution is highly dependent on target contrast, and high contrast tests are nothing but filmfag COPE. You guys are literally more delusional than m43 fags.

>>4357061
>35mm barely has 10mp
>"64mp isn't enough for 35mm!"
Hilarious.

Here's Norman Koren, the author and founder of Imatest. Nobody has more knowledge about testing photographic and optical systems than he does.
https://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Oh look at that, he says 6mp apsc is close to 35mm in resolution. Fucking 6mp LMFAO.
>nooooo it's the scanner
>nooooo you need a microscope
>nooooo film is infinite plus one
Norman Koren and Roger N. Clark's claims closely match my real world experience shooting throughout the 2000's and 2010's.
- Started on 35mm with a dedicated 35mm film scanner.
- My first DSLR, a 6mp apsc model, out performed a number of print films. My scanner was higher resolution, but the films were not. Slide films and low ISO B&W could still show more fine detail at the cost of more noise.
- By 18mp apsc 35mm film lost on every measure, even when sent out for a drum scan. Only Adox CMS 20 could still win.
- 50mp FF beat everything through 6x9. And proved surprisingly close to 4x5 on many occasions. Film fans forget that there are a lot of factors which can pull film's resolution down, while digital delivers almost regardless of conditions. So while 4x5 at its best can beat high rez FF and compete with MFDBs, it doesn't take much to pull 4x5 down (film flatness; lens; problems during development). I recall comparing 50mp shots against B&W 4x5 for a model shoot and being shocked at how well 50mp did. The B&W film just ended up with more grain than usual, probably a slight variation during development, and that pulled it down.

I still shoot film as well. But not because of infinite resolution (lol) or 20 stops DR (lmfao) or any other nonsense spouted by filmtards. Film can give a unique rendering of color and tone, and is therefore another creative outlet. The darkroom is also very relaxing, but filmtards wouldn't know because they've never been.

>>4357157
Imagine seething so hard you lose the ability to read. Funny and cute!

>>4357160
It makes me sad so few people print their film here.

>>4357160
Thats all old. You can be excused for repeating that shit because its as dated as what you were shooting way back then.

But to make that case in 2024 and not acknowledge the major improvements of the last decade you’d have to be wholly ignorant of them, disingenuous as fuck, or just utterly retarded.

Im giving you the benefit if the doubt by assuming you're a goddamned retard. I mean just old and not keeping up.

File: vis3_250d_003_v1_1500.jpg (1.14 MB, 1500x967)

1.14 MB JPG

I like the cloud detail in film pics even if the resolution isn't the best

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	digiKam-7.9.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	967
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Horizontal Resolution	2400
Vertical Resolution	2400
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Width	1500
Image Height	967

File: imgp5503_v2_1024.jpg (196 KB, 1024x688)

196 KB JPG

>>4357165
Old digital cam pic with poor cloud detail

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX K10D
Camera Software	K10D Ver 1.31
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	688
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:08:08 17:02:35
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1024
Image Height	688
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4355844
All anyone needs is a SVGA-resolution digital camera, Because you’re only going to upload 600 x 800 images on your feed anyway and if you wanted to print them bigger just upscale and use filters for that and it’ll look 1000 times better than film because they were only a few hundred grains of image information in a single slide anyway.

I think I’ll re-post this I think I’ll repost the several times and every thread from now till 10 years from now and shit all over every discussion because I have nothing else to fucking do with my life but say stupid shit on the Internet that anyone can easily refute by doing a 10 second experiment resizing a high resolution scan of a slide made with modern high-quality equipment, all the way down to two fucking megapixels and comparing the difference, jesus fucking christ. But don’t let that stop you fucking retards from filling another thousand pages arguing hypotheticals like a bunch of goddamn do you know what fuck this fuck all of you fuck everything fuck off and put your fucking blinker on you jack ass either make the turn or get the fuck out of the way holy shit I taught you how to drive

File: vis3_250d_024_v1_1500.jpg (1.26 MB, 1500x933)

1.26 MB JPG

Another film picture with fairly nice cloud detail

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	digiKam-7.9.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	933
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Horizontal Resolution	2400
Vertical Resolution	2400
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Width	1500
Image Height	933

>>4357167
Lol that was cute. Want a kiss?

>>4357167
>your feed
speak for yourself social media drone

some of us have people in our lives that arent code running on a chinese server

if i print an 8x10 with less than 24mp to scale down from it looks bad unless i stand on the other side of the room simple as. digital megapixels are overstated by a factor of 3.

>>4357178
I notice a downgrade in quality going from my 45mp camera to my 16mp camera even in 5x7s. I don't have this issue with film. 35mm 5x7, 120 5x7, they look equally great. Digital is so bad. Digital basically invented gearfaggotry. Tied to a "film stock", the rise of zooms and autofocus encouraged buying lenses to solve problems created by prior lenses... before you had manual primes and manual primes, and every lens was good.

>>4357160
>Film fans forget that there are a lot of factors which can pull film's resolution down
i don't think many of them actually shoot film. there's more variation just in 100iso c41 than in the last 20 years of cmos yet they talk about "film" as if there's one magical stock that combines the best properties of each with no tradeoffs, not to mention the issues with colour balance and sensitivity
>>4357166
so spot meter the clouds if you want detail there, -1EV wasn't enough. the other images are exposed for the highlights

>>4357160
>The founder of some worthless digital gearfagging shit has a wrong opinion
>A retarded gearfag is also wrong
Imagine my shock. Imatest based lens reviews have consistently misled me into buying garbage.

How is it that "50mp FF beats 6x9" according to map spammer, but more thorough tests that involve scanning film properly rather than with a v850, imacon, etc (crap) show they're way off by almost a factor of 2?

How is it roger n clark has anyone believing him when he used a consumer film scanner and his results are directly contradicted by anyone with a drum scanner or a decent MILC scanning setup? Seems most everyone else says "a7riv+4 shot pixel shift is enough" or "400mp pixel shift really gets those last few details i cant even see in prints" which corresponds with the better tests putting medium format color film around 80mp (true color, not bayer) for slow stocks and 40mp (true color, not bayer) for fast stocks?

>>4357160
He says he scanned film at 4000 dpi but most dedicated scanners people could afford to use back then topped out at less than half that for effective DPI (meaning you were just enlarging optical blur) and is talking about scanning on an HP PHOTOSMART. Do you read your own shit?

Actually, let's backtrack
>>4356868

No, you can't read at all. Ken Rockwells prediction has held true:
Film keeps getting higher resolution every time its tested, because scanning tech keeps getting better.

>>4357187
bro is reading articles targeted at prosumers from 2008.
>bro an 8mp cmos digital is sooo much better than film because *argument entirely derived from using a nikon coolscan*
whenever someone competent in using a heidelberg, a7riii+, gfx, etc shows up all of a sudden all of that is directly disproven
mapfag seethes hard

hollywood is still paying for vision3 film because even ran vertically it has too much resolution for 4k. if the 35mm area you're used to is approximately 24mp (non-bayer), then the vertical area is closer to 10mp which is indeed too much for 4k. especially since most people are used to 4k with bayers resolution loss.

>>4357163
>Imagine seething so hard you lose the ability to read. Funny and cute!
Did I confuse you with an infinite resolution filmtard? Sorry if I did.

>>4357164
>author of Imatest proves 6mp can compete with 35mm
>"nooo that's old"
Film hasn't improved and there are even fewer good scanners today. But high marks on the cope.

>>4357182
>i don't think many of them actually shoot film. there's more variation just in 100iso c41 than in the last 20 years of cmos yet they talk about "film" as if there's one magical stock that combines the best properties of each with no tradeoffs, not to mention the issues with colour balance and sensitivity
Yep. Discussing resolution? Every film is Velvia or Adox CMS 20. Discussing dynamic range? Every film is Portra. It's just their cope.

>>4357157
we're not the ones flat out lying with tests based on 2008 prosumer scanning tech, misrepresenting film with posterized low res crap off wikimedia, and then calling real tests "incoherent" because they literally can not read

>>4357192
>There are even fewer good scanners today
The "freakin hasselblad imacon!" you always emphasize was outdone by the d810 and af-s 60mm macro. Scanning keeps getting better. A properly used fuji medium format outresolves drum scanners.

>>4357184
>nooooo the NASA scientist is wrong
>the industry expert in photographic testing is wrong
>but i'm right!
LOL

>>4357184
>How is it that "50mp FF beats 6x9" according to map spammer, but more thorough tests that involve scanning film properly rather than with a v850, imacon, etc
The 5Ds comparison shot used a Howtek drum scanner for 6x9. Scanning literally does not get better, and that drum scanner can out resolve the very best darkroom setups. If you have to lie, then your beliefs are a lie.

>>4357187
>He says he scanned film at 4000 dpi but most dedicated scanners people could afford to use back then topped out at less than half that for effective DPI
The fuck are you talking about? Most dedicated desktop film scanners were 4,000 dpi, the cheaper ones were 2,700 dpi. Again you opine about shit you know nothing about. You can't even prove you've ever taken a single film shot in your life.

>>4357189
>bro is samefagging
So many posts from you, yet no photos.

>>4357193
>nooooo you're lying!!!
Says the nophoto.

>>4357194
>muh D810 scan!
Scanning with a camera can provide good results, but does not surpass a fucking drum scanner. If it did then there wouldn't be any labs left still charging high prices for drum scanning.

>>4357196
>If it did then there wouldn't be any labs left still charging high prices for drum scanning.
Oh, bless your heart

>>4357196
There are labs left charging high prices for drum scanning because there are still people who believe a drum scanner is better than a gfx.

>>4357195
>The fuck are you talking about? Most dedicated desktop film scanners were 4,000 dpi
With this one sentence, I know you are wrong.
>The 5Ds comparison shot used a Howtek drum scanner for 6x9.
What settings, what post? Because SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AN ANGRY SPAMMING AUTIST ALSO USED A HOWTEK DRUM SCANNER TO DEMONSTRATE A SIMILAR FILM STOCK OUTDOING AN 80MP MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA, AND ALL YOU HAVE DONE SINCE IS COPE AND BE UNABLE TO READ.

Good fucking bye, you actual fucking idiot.

>>4357195
>he thinks ancient desktop film scanners actually delivered 4000dpi
this just in, epson v600 outperforms fujifilm gfx100sii pixel shift

>>4357166

contrast lore might have slight improvements since these pics i do not remember that well and not that interested, i like raws though

If you really care about resolution(tonality is more important) just start doing 8x10 contact prints on silver chloride paper like adox lupex.
The images are almost uncanny with how sharp and realistic they are, and you can use a 10x loupe to look at details you can't see with the naked eye. They are really incredible to look at, especially a well done portrait.

The other plus is that you stop fussing so much about smaller formats and utilize them more for times when a view camera would be impractical or impossible to use.

>>4357244
that sounds really cool, you should post some

>>4357244
resolution is tonality, or it was, before bayer confused everyone into thinking their camera was super sharp (as long as the color combo of the details wasn't wrong)

>>4357249
I am going to try scanning a print on max quality to see if it looks better than using my 5dm3. If you want to see a couple of my butterfly 8x10 pics check out the macro thread. They're poorly digitized.

I don't think it will ever really be the same as viewing them in person because the print isn't naturally backlit like a screen, and it's got a textured and glossy surface. Most of the detail will be there, but the full effect won't. :(

I bought a couple 8x10 glass plate negatives off ebay out of curiosity before shooting it. They're fairly cheap, and can be a fun way to see what the format is all about before investing fully in it.

>>4357253
It's a big part of it, yes. Some films handle shadow and highlight detail in a way that make their tonal gradation look smoother than other films.

Tonality is also has a fairly nebulous definition that probably includes some stuff to do with contrast as well.

File: IMGP0182.jpg (494 KB, 1728x1152)

494 KB JPG

>>4357182
>the other images are exposed for the highlights
My film cam has only needle metering. Those film pics were just average metered. At least on my old digital cam I had to underexpose -1 or -2 EV and yet still often failed to deliver nice cloud detail. My new digital cam is only slightly better but still fails to deliver cloud detail at 0 EV.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:15 00:52:40
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4357315
>My film cam has only needle metering. Those film pics were just average metered. At least on my old digital cam I had to underexpose -1 or -2 EV and yet still often failed to deliver nice cloud detail. My new digital cam is only slightly better but still fails to deliver cloud detail at 0 EV.
I think you need to go back over the basics of exposure

>>4357320
How to learn? I always just wing it but would like to learn how to do it properly.

>>4357315
Really really nice

>>4357327
Well there's no such thing as 'needle metering' - there's 'spot metering' but that's a specialised function and I don't think any film cameras only come with spot meter

Do you mean your film camera has a meter which displays using a needle pointer? In that case that's almost certainly a center-weighted meter.

Go into more detail about what you actually have and how you use it.

>>4357219
>nooooo people who buy drum scans just don't know about muh gfx!
They probably skipped over the GFX for Phase One 150mp backs. They still pay for drum scans of their film.

>>>4357195 (You)
>>The fuck are you talking about? Most dedicated desktop film scanners were 4,000 dpi
>With this one sentence, I know you are wrong.
The arrogance on you, child. I lived that time period. Most people had 4,000 dpi dedicated scanners. The major manufacturers all had >= 4,000 dpi and 2,700 dpi models. (Minolta's best was 5,400 dpi.) Nikon's 4,000 dpi CoolScans were the most popular, and the 2,700 dpi models were pulled from the market before the 4,000 dpi models because anyone willing to pay for a dedicated film scanner wanted the higher rez models. I started on 2,700 and moved to 4,000. The 2,700 model was actually surprisingly good.

>noooo it's the settings!!!
If by "settings" you mean film, then yes, film lost because of film.

>proceeds to scream for an entire paragraph
>YOU'RE JUST AN ANGRY AUTIST
Oh the irony.

>Because SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AN ANGRY SPAMMING AUTIST ALSO USED A HOWTEK DRUM SCANNER TO DEMONSTRATE A SIMILAR FILM STOCK OUTDOING AN 80MP MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA
No they didn't. Even though they botched their line chart test, the IQ 180 still out resolved 6x7 Provia. And how do I know they botched that test? Because in the field the IQ 180 nearly matched 4x5 Portra. Something doesn't add up on their site, and guess which test is the outlier which disagrees with everything else on the Internet? That's right, their botched line chart test. That test also made the D800 look like shit, another thing that proves they accidentally or intentionally botched the digital shots.

At least one factor in their botched tests was using the worst possible scaling algorithms for digital files. I've seen filmfags pull that sleight of hand before. They have to lie to cope.

>AND ALL YOU HAVE DONE SINCE IS COPE AND BE UNABLE TO READ.
All you have done is post with no photos.

>>4357220
>nooo the scanners didn't really have 4,000 dpi
Go back and read reviews where testers used USAF resolution chart slides. They all came damn close to 4,000 dpi in real use. The CoolScans were something like >3,900 dpi.

>no film shot with 20 stops DR
>no film shot beating high rez FF
>no film shots at all
>"omg film has infinite resolution and over 9,000 stops DR it's just the scanner if you used an electron microscope you would see the truth!"
Absolute peak nophoto

>>4355862
>is still shot on a 10mp ccd digital sensor
No, lol. Coolscan, for example, doesn't have a bayer filter, lots of other scanners too

Imagine if all the time and energy spent arguing about utter triviailities in this thread was instead spent on taking photos.

>>4357380
sounds pretty gay anon.

File: 1722206416616352.jpg (2.74 MB, 3072x3734)

2.74 MB JPG

>>4357259
wow such quality and detail that digital can never compare too, film truly is superior, even if its not possible to see online and you have to view in person
suck quality photographs that necessitate such fine detail too, you're so right to focus on maxing resolution, since you've clearly mastered everything else

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4357390
Lmao. You sound so angry. Why is that? Film is just different you silly little guy.

That was my first ever 8x10 bug macro. I think I've improved a bit. Just take a deep breathe and scroll down some more in the macro thread. :)

>>4357401
i give nothing but compliments and you think i sound angry

>>4357402
doghair has a persecution complex, literally spergs the fuck out at every reply. just browse the film thread sometime lol.

File: 5E7A6668.jpg (3.43 MB, 4117x3072)

3.43 MB JPG

>>4357402
Lol, okay. :D

I like them too. I have a couple framed and on my wall. They're nice to look at. Instead of walking away to see them better you walk closer to see them better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	5760
Image Height	3840
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:13 17:16:37
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	769/10000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/8.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4357405
I know sarcasm can't be properly conveyed online, but you're REALLY SILLY if you don't think that post has atleast a 50% chance of being sarcastic.

File: PICT7442.jpg (538 KB, 1728x1152)

538 KB JPG

>>4357329
Sometimes I get good cloud detail from my digital cam

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	72 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:07 18:41:31
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	48.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>4357390
Digital really can't compare to that film he's using, but even with $15k into camera gear and a rock solid scanning setup, you would never record it all in one shot. He took a photo of it on his phone.

The great film problem: User error. Just look at our resident retard who thinks 6x9 can't outcompete a 50mp cannot POS 5d, while 6x7 color film slightly edges out 80mp medium format elsewhere as long as you shoot it for optimal resolution. Digital's advantage is not resolution, it's cost and how compatible it is with computer processing to simulate greater resolution and sharpness than was ever there. Film is more honest about what went through the lens. FIlm does not "fix" your shit lens with a special sharpening algorithm or AI noise reduction.

Film = real and good
Digital = fake to be "good"

>>4357348
You botched your test. This is trustworthy:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
This is trustworthy and directly demonstrates how many non-interpolated megapixels is required to see every last detail 4x5 tmax has to offer
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/stitch-scanning-4x5-tmax-100/
You are not trustworthy. You directly contradict everything but tests done on nikon coolscans.

I'd take a random retard scanning with his a7iii over you.

>>4357428
>big film is better
>but you cant use an SLR for medium format because mirror slap blurs everything all the time
>only the $2000 meme rangefinder or a view camera with a 120 holder
>and you need to pay hundreds per roll to drum scan it - with someone who is actually good at drum scanning - or buy a $4000 A7RIV slide copying rig to scan near or above the actual resolution of 6x9
>or darkroom print which is a dead art with a dwindling supply of quality products such as enlarger lenses that can actually give you an equivalent to your 80mp scans across the whole photo
>since that's not going to work well why not just make a contact print and look at it with a loupe
aaaand that's why people spend $20k on digital mirrorless medium format gear bags that are "sorta almost as good depending"

>>4357430
I believe that rodenstock still makes the best enlarger lens series ever made. The apo-rodagon N.
My leica enlarger also has a stupidly nice lens on it, but that's only for 35mm.

Paper and developer choices are somewhat limited, but you still have a decent selection of beautiful paper to pick from.

I do think that getting a super high dpi scan of an 8x10 neg and using a digital printer is a better option than enlarging it traditionally. You need a very specialized darkroom to make prints bigger than 40 inches.

Also ra4 printing is sort of dead because they only produce RC paper for it. If you're printing digitally you have a massive selection of cool papers.

>>4357409
>Ahhhh baby gonna cry? Whats wrong babby? Its nothing
>Maybe you should see a shrink
>(i was being sarcastic btw)
bro learned social interaction from his german shepherd
>BARK BARK BARK IMMA KILL YOU
>come back it was a joke

>>4357428
>Digital = fake to be "good"
I mean it's also real in a way, but here's the problem.
Aliasing.
Resampling.
If we could have honest sensors with a high res and an honest display to display their capture on things wouldn't be so bad.
Like a 6000x4000 sensor for 24MP directly displayed onto a 6000x4000 bayer display, not having demosaicing or any bullshit just what comes in comes out, and you can WB at the display instead by changing brightness of the color channels as desired.

The way it is now is a meme.
>Pixels?
All interpolated. Thanks Kodak.
>Artifacts?
Usually generated in software.
>Viewing?
Oh, that requires scaling. Often numerous times (photographer output, lens corrections etc) then reduced in size by a website, then reduced in size again unless expanded to 100% scale in someone's browser. Every step is lossy.
>Digital printing?
Oh, you're gonna scale it down to fit a resolution or have it re-interpreted by the printer firmware. Usually both. Both are lossy steps themselves. Some printers don't even follow the normal expected values, so resampling is almost guaranteed. Again every step of resampling is lossy.


Film never had this issue you'd just make prints in infinite resolution world and people could view them however they wanted. 6 inches from their face? Wait no, 8 inches? No, 9 inches. 3' on a desk in a frame? on a wall? Whatever. That's all fine. It also requires 0 resampling. Just physical (changing print size) size or apparent (holding print closer to eye) size differences. All effectively happening in infinite res land though.

Like the pic in >>4356628 view that at 100% and you have that moire baked into the image. You scale it to 99% scale and the moire changes. 90% its still there, it starts turning into different beasts.
Meanwhile in infinite resolution world you can view it at 100% on your monitor panned to the roof, and move your head back and forth and the moire stays the same. No new artifacts because no resampling.

>>4357444
Going mono to bayer would not work. You'd be throwing away frequency information and only counting photons. Film is already essentially foveon, subtractive color. Smaller gamut but it often looks better than higher technical color accuracy because all these mechanical mediums cant work like the human eye (literally AI processed RGBW) anyways.

Digital will fully match films quality when bayer is completely taken out of the equation without reducing the photosite count and replacing it with "marketingpixels" like sigmas stupid MP figures.

Also, scaling and resampling applies to scanned film as well, which is the only kind of film you can appreciate and share the resolution of without looking at contact prints under a loupe.

>>4357445
You really don't need a loupe to appreciate an 8x10 contact prints resolution. The "quality" of resolution translates into other more nebulous things that are hard to describe. Dimensionality, hyperrealism, super fine tonality etc.

Like I was saying before with lower resolution prints you have to walk away from them to "see" them better, but super high resolution pictures are the exact opposite.

>>4357447
>The "quality" of resolution translates into other more nebulous things that are hard to describe.
Impossible to describe. At least to normies.
Film has that PERFECT infinite detail in regard to line pair transitions on diagonals and curves while digital has a sort of sweet spot when lines align. No grain, lines resolving lines, but throw any slant and it loses it all and that's where film's grain is superior.
The grain is always there and you never get to resolve detail without a bit of grain but grain is infinite so unless you're digitizing it and introducing literal aliasing that emphasizes the grain, it's not an issue.

For what it's worth people already stare at matte coatings on their monitors so a little subtle texture doesn't bother most people.

>>4357380
>implying filmfags own a camera
For the record, I like and still shoot film. But anyone claiming infinite resolution or 20 stops DR is a filmfag nophoto.

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-07 at(...).png (362 KB, 580x618)

362 KB PNG

>>4357428
>"hurr if i repeat the lie again maybe someone will fall for it"
>t. nophoto
Maybe the arrows will help you out, nophoto.

>points to a clearly botched test with worst possible scaling for digital and results completely different from their own real world shots
>"noooo you botched your test"
Your mom botched her pregnancy.

>stiched shots increase sharpness but not detail
>OMG YOU NEEED GIGAPIXELS TO RECORD 4X5!!!
OK nophoto

>>4357444
>no photos
>"infinite resolution"
Can you prove to us that you even own a camera? Any camera besides your phone?

>>4357508
Are you genuinely fucking blind or just stupid

Show me where on these resolution charts the lines begin diverging and staying at the same spatial frequency. The chart does not have diverging lines. You are calling MOIRE detail.

I do not post my photos for you because I don't want to be associated with trying to talk sense into an actual idiot

>>4357508
>maybe if i crop out the maze patterns i can pretend its not moire
Seriously
You are a fucking retard
Actual fucking idiot

Look
>>4356803
LOOK AT IT.

Your only responses if you want to keep trying to play this game will be "no, retard". Again, you are not smart enough to argue with. It is like trying to tell a caveman the earth is round and orbits the sun. I have tried. You have failed.

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-07 at(...).png (73 KB, 88x604)

73 KB PNG

>>4357511
>Are you genuinely fucking blind or just stupid
Are you genuinely fucking blind or just stupid? Provia is solid gray while the IQ 180 is right at its limit of resolving the center lines. Still Resolving > solid gray. Provia lost, as one would expect.

Here's the beginning of the chart where Provia is already struggling to resolve the lines, but the IQ 180 is clearly separating them.
>but muh aliasing!!!
We can't ignore the fact that this filmfag...who at least owns a camera, unlike you...used the worst possible scaling algorithms when scaling the digital files, meaning some of that is due to his fuck ups, not the camera.

>dude i totally have photos, and a girlfriend in canada, you've never met her but she TOTALLY exists
To date you haven't even proven that you own a camera. Any camera. Nophoto. Nocamera. And yet here you are, shitting up the board opining about shit you've never experienced. You're like a junior high boy giving his opinion on sex.

File: 645-vs-5Ds-2.jpg (1.26 MB, 3142x2014)

1.26 MB JPG

>>4357513
Look at the attached pic. LOOK AT IT. Film lost. Hard.
>nooooo it's the scanner
>nooooo you need a microscope
>nooooo if you used a microfilm in 4x5 format then film would totally win
Don't reply unless you're willing to at least prove that you own a camera. I want a pic of your favorite camera with a written note to /p/ and the date and time. Can't do it? Fuck off.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3142
Image Height	2014
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:07 16:23:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3142
Image Height	2014

>>4357518
And another thing...
>muh bayer
>muh interpolation
>muh fake digital vs real film!!!
Left film side is already showing grain. Hair color is blotchy and most hair is unresolved. Film is not "real" or "infinite resolution." We're already at the resolution limits of 645 on the left, exposing the structure of the film underneath the detail. Film color is also "interpolated" from 3-4 dyes, dithering by density. Small color transitions end up being blotches or lost, not smooth, because there's not enough space for sufficient dye dithering.

Right digital side? There is no hint of the underlying pixel structure or Bayer pattern. It's just perfect fucking color and detail. It's "real" at this magnification, i.e. if you were standing next to her with the tip of your nose touching her nose, that is what you would see with your own eyes. (I can't blame you for not realizing this since you've never been that close to a girl before, but it's true.) You have to scale 2-3x to start to see any breakdown, any underlying structure in that RAW file.

That's the same thing I see in all my 5Ds shots. They can print 60" with ease. They still look perfect at 60 fucking inches. 60" can be a challenge even for 6x9. I know because I've actually made large prints, unlike you.

Why is canon't not putting more MP sensors in their cameras?
a7R was even featured in "Civil War"

>>4357521
Could be SNR. The 61mp Sonys have relatively poor high ISO, while the R5/R5ii are quite good. Yet 61mp doesn't give you that much more detail than 45mp.

They also think video is very important, and 45mp matches up to 8k and scales to 4k very well. (Oversampling is CPU intensive so you want a sensor resolution that works with faster and more efficient algorithms, limiting your available pixel widths.)

I would love to see Canon bring out a 90-100mp stills body even if they sacrifice video and some high ISO. That's probably the practical limit for 35mm FF sensors, but it would represent another jump in IQ above what's available now. But on the other hand...I can't imagine needing more than 50mp (or 45mp for R5 owners), especially with today's AI scaling algorithms which work better the more pixels you start with.

>>4357518
>Film lost because of this random, apples to oranges comparison with absolutely no detailed information, "just trust me film sucks"
>ignores the rigorous apples to apples comparison with the methods fully detailed by two, then three people
I did not read a single word you wrote. I just saw you reposting an invalid comparison yet again.

Therefore I will call you what you are:
A fucking idiot.

>>4357536
>nearest neighbor scaling
>results inconsistent with own real world results
>"rigorous"
I did not read a single word you wrote, I just saw that you are a nophoto again. A fucking idiot nophoto.

>>4357523
There is no reason why 61MP full frame sensors shouldn't be good
We've had cheap 24MP APS-C for years

When scaled to FF that would be...
~6000x4000 x 1.5 = 54MP for snoy/niggon
~6000x4000 x 1.6 = 61MP for cannot

It's been possible
yields might be a limiting factor but it sure ain't physics like people think it is, we've got room for a lot more growth in terms of sensor res for the forseeable future
at least at normal ISO values if you want to shoot at 102,400 you should invest in lighting instead

>>4357542
Whats that? Are you spouting nonsense based on something you thought was there because you had trouble reading more than a whole sentence, again?

>>4357547
>There is no reason why 61MP full frame sensors shouldn't be good
>We've had cheap 24MP APS-C for years
They don't have the SNR of the better FF sensors, even accounting for the format difference. Remember, I think Canon should do a 100mp FF body even if there's some sacrifice in terms of SNR and video. But they market what their pros tell them to market, what they think will sell. Not very many people want or need 100mp.

>at least at normal ISO values if you want to shoot at 102,400 you should invest in lighting instead
I want to shoot 4k under a bright moon which means 102k and f/1.4, which is what the R6 delivers. There's a place for extremely high ISO.

>>4357548
What? Did you post without a photo again?

>>4357517
agreed. film is clearly better when tested rigorously. this guy posting maps is a total retard.
>muh imacon!
>muh hp photosmart!
>crops out the maze pattern to try and hide that the digital camera generated moire instead of resolving detail

>>4357555
Imagine seething so hard that you samefag and reply to the wrong post. And still...nophoto.

>>4357428
You are correct and it is no wonder that the moron you're arguing with is the cannot POS R shill that rants about ISO 10000000 4k video.

His magnum opus was an ISO 25k photo of a shoe with noise reduction turned off.

>>4357561
>still samefagging
>still nophoto
And I've never posted a shoe in my life.

>>4357562
Not a samefag but bruh you're so clearly wrong and coping it hurts

Every time someone shows how they scanned, show that they scanned it correctly, and process the files for retaining resolution instead of reducing filesize film beats digital, the only time it loses is if they don't show how they scanned or they do and it's an ancient low resolution desktop scanner like an epson flatbed or a lab scanner ie: fuji frontier, hasselblad imacon.

Or when they're you and the film files they post look like gifs from 1998. Worse than /fgt/'s dirty scans.

>>4357563
>nooooo i'm totally not a samefag
You could post a photo to prove it.
>crickets

>Every time someone shows how they scanned, show that they scanned it correctly, and process the files for retaining resolution instead of reducing filesize film beats digital
It's the opposite, nophoto. And your blogger did not process the digital files to retain resolution, he purposely used the worst possible scaling algorithm. Like I said, I've seen that sleight of hand by dishonest filmfags before. It's a cope.

>imacon is low resolution
>howtek is low resolution
Yep, you're the same idiot samefagging and proving that you know jack shit about any of this. You've never shot film, you've never scanned film, you've never been in a darkroom. Which is why you have no photos.