File: DSCF0238.jpg (4.48 MB, 1575x2100)

4.48 MB JPG

1/

>>4362125

Stop being cheap and just pay somebody $10 to develop your film.
The only thing that has happened here is you got lazy.

>>4362127

Did you try putting the camera right down at the yellow flowers in the foreground, I feel you could have made them more prominent for a stronger foreground.

File: DSCF5507.jpg (3.28 MB, 4000x3000)

3.28 MB JPG

wow that's crazy, i'm in the middle of swtiching the other direction. i can't believe film is dead now

>>4362127
where's the rest! also, why under 3k pixels??

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:16 00:27:42
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	OK
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4362125
I may go GFX too. What lenses do you like? 63mm looks good and affordable

>>4362125
just wait a few years and used digital MF backs become truly affordable. today you can get the first gen backs for a few hundred dollars. but those are shitty CCD sensors with like 0.5MP resolution

>>4362147
>used digital MF backs become truly affordable
Why are they still so expensive?
Who's buying them; boomers who lusted after, but couldn't afford them decades ago?

File: DSCF0255.jpg (1.55 MB, 1575x2100)

1.55 MB JPG

>>4362132
lmao you should see the last time I paid a reputable dev in a major US city to do that. Streaks on half the rolls.

>>4362133
Idk bro, I was hiking and moving fast.

>>4362137
i went to bed. more incoming.

>>4362139
I have the cheap zoom which is really fucking nice. I bought a few mamiya 645 lenses to adapt, but in reality the GF glass is really good. The zoom is such a great travel lens.

>>4362147
I'll keep my RZ67 for this reason, but the portability of the GFX is good. I even have one of those fanny packs that fits it.

2/

File: DSCF9061.jpg (4.15 MB, 1575x2100)

4.15 MB JPG

>>4362186

3/

>>4362187
nice colors

>>4362187
>>4362127
>grass and rocks
Wow really making that macro four thirds sensor work hard with this anon, truly

>>4362159
They're comparatively rare. And while they're older tech and behind today's high res FF bodies, they're still excellent and people want to use them with their existing MF equipment and lenses.

File: DSCF9951.jpg (3.16 MB, 1575x2100)

3.16 MB JPG

>>4362187

File: DSCF9433.jpg (4.03 MB, 1575x2100)

4.03 MB JPG

>>4362198

5/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	Capture One Macintosh
Photographer	ALEX
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/420 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Image Width	1575
Image Height	2100
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4362187
Nice

File: DSCF9787.jpg (1.68 MB, 2100x1575)

1.68 MB JPG

>>4362202

6/

How is the GF50mm3.5 as a general use lens? From the reviews I checked it seems very sharp and even it's not very fast the bokeh looks nicer than the 63mm.

>>4362159
>Why do people buy this thing I want?
For the same reason you want it?

>>4362127
>>4362187
>>4362198
>>4362202
wow imagine... digital finally catched up to fucking Gold 200 lmao

Talk me out of one.

I could turn around my entire medium format outfit and buy one outright, with a lens and probably have some money left over.

I am debating the move to a Mamiya 7 over this.

File: DSCF8505.jpg (3.85 MB, 1575x2100)

3.85 MB JPG

>>4362212
what color is your beanie.

>>4362213
do whatever you want. as someone who's loved the idea of film, started out doing darkroom in highshool, owned hasselblads, mamiya 6, rz67, various 35mm, the GFX is finally a digital I can be happy with. I am trading those rare perfect film shots for massive increases in ease, speed, reduction in costs, retarded amounts of time and boredom cleaning dust, dealing with fucking chems, scanners, etc etc etc.

I would have never been able to capture my recent travels well enough to make an 80 page book with film without it taking over the moment. l can be more creative since I don't have to worry about burning through film. I will say I ended up building a 12TB NAS because the amount of shots I've taken just on my 3 week trip was a couple hundred gigs.

Film is great when everything aligns but the reality is that it doesn't align alot of the time. Something goes wrong and I think it slows growth when you don't give yourself the opportunity to snap away and play.

>>4362213
You’re a moneyfag, why not aim for a real DMF like a hassy or PhaseOne? Obese FF won’t be much better than the full frame stuff you have already.

>>4362125
A fucking mirrorless?
Anon, if your camera doesn't have a bellows or an optical viewfinder you might as well not have a penis.

>>4362202
If this were film you wouldn't have a clipped roof.

>>4362242
This is m43 tier quality LMAO

File: DSCF9911.jpg (3.56 MB, 1575x2100)

3.56 MB JPG

>>4362252
It doesn't matter. I still like it, I still printed it.

>>4362253
have you seen the garbage in the fgt thread?

I don't see anything that could've not been done with a FF nor do i like the compositions particularly but i respect someone who i think knows what he wants and will go all-in to try and get good at it.
I am on the same path except i wasn't rich/retarded enough to buy into the film world, but i am dumb enough to get into the mirrorless world. I don't think Nikon and Canon can't make a DSLR with most of the shit a top-tier ML has but i guess i will settle for them, i love OVFs but i am getting blind and the EVFs are way too much convenience in checking focus, video levels and WYSIWYG shots.

>>4362125
>12x12
>50mp
6x7 film requires complete and absolute autism (a7riv/gfx100, anti-vibration table, autistic alignment, homemade carrier, ultrabright high-cri light source, filter set for better correcting out the masks, etc) to scan for all of the resolution it can offer, and you will be wasting it at any output size under 16x20.

File: DSCF0070.jpg (3.67 MB, 1575x2100)

3.67 MB JPG

>>4362255
unfortunately gear fagging seems to be the priority for most "photographers". I used to work in NYC on sets for fashion magazines and you use the tools that get you the results you need while regarding the realities. Alot of things are nice in theory or on youtube but are not practical. DSLR's are old, clunky tech.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	Capture One Macintosh
Photographer	ALEX
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Image Width	1575
Image Height	2100
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4362255
Jim Kasson did an extensive z7 vs gfx50 comparison. If you zoom in to the max on leave, the gfx50 is marginally sharper but strangely has more aliasing.

Only the gfx100 series really have an advantage over a dinosaur d850.

File: Italy_Fast_26.jpg (228 KB, 900x1319)

228 KB JPG

>>4362275
nikon bodies are gay tho.

here's some film shit for fun.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	SilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	900
Image Height	1319
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023.12.21 17:04:16
Image Width	900
Image Height	1319

>>4362254
is it just me or are the highlights in these all blown tf out

>>4362281
they are

>>4362277
all we see is unsharp mask and fake contrast

File: San Diego_2022_017.jpg (951 KB, 1744x2163)

951 KB JPG

>>4362284
I didn't do anything to that image.

more film

>>4362285
Your software did.

>>4362284
>>4362291
Lets play “spot the expert darktable user with dull and shitty looking photos”

File: _1216795.jpg (1.54 MB, 1599x2400)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4362294
I'm not that retard

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-GH5M2
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	230 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:23 01:28:39
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	115.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1599
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Auto
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	1.00 EV

>>4362304
Wow this looks bad

I was close to knocking OP for the velvia wannabe shit and focusing and cow asshole photography but you just put it all in perspective.

File: DSCF9398.jpg (4.35 MB, 1575x2100)

4.35 MB JPG

>>4362304
lmao holy shit this is bad. this is why i dont take anything serious on /p/.

File: _1216752.jpg (353 KB, 2400x1349)

353 KB JPG

>>4362308
Neither do I

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-GH5M2
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:23 01:40:52
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1349
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Auto
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	1.00 EV

>>4362312
>image quality can't make a good photo ba-
Dear god man the whole things a smear and your colors look like a vegan's nutrislop smoothie

>>4362308
Super slight bokeh with busy backgrounds looks awful so you know

File: DSCF9189.jpg (4.32 MB, 1575x2100)

4.32 MB JPG

>>4362313
dont care. welcome to my thread.

>>4362308
Love the look of gfx sensor. Closest to film photos you can get in digital imo

File: DSCF9014.jpg (2.7 MB, 1575x2100)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4362326
You can change through the "film recipes" after the fact. I barely do any fucking around in color with these images which is pretty nice.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	Capture One Macintosh
Photographer	ALEX
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/240 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Brightness	8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	1575
Image Height	2100
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4362132
I did the film root from the 1970s onward went up to Hasselblad and a view camera. Haven't shot film in about 10 years

>>4362244

Mannn I thought about PhaseOne, I can get a back for my RB already I believe. There's Hassy adapters too for it, all I would have to do is drop the new back in.

>>4362275
>aliasing
GFX50 series has gapped microlenses

>>4362125

Any recommendations for GFX nice lens? I have GF50 F3.5 and it is extremely boring.

>MF digital
>Produces same images as high resolution mobile phone
You guys are delusional

>>4366822
It doesn't, however. You're just viewing on a phone screen so you can't even tell AI generated people apart from real ones.

>>4366823
Viewing on the phone is how photography is intended to be viewed in 2024

>>4366838
No, not really.

You're just poor and socially avoidant so you can't imagine being on a computer for these things and leaving your phone in your pocket.

>>4366841
Nobody has a computer. Everyone has a phone or iPad.

>>4366847
>And other tales from some middle school in the "inna" city
Photography is an adult activity. Sorry.

>>4362281
One thing Fujifilm digicams fail at. Exposing clouds correctly. Quality is no difference than their point and shoots.

>>4366859
User errror. Most of the scene is shaded so multi segment metering overexposed the sky.
>this is still happening
>on a medium format camera with negligible shadow noise and live exposure preview

>>4362125
Show us the two cameras together, with a time stamp.


What’s that?

You can’t?

>>4362125
50mp is a turning point. I still get nostalgic for film sometimes and enjoy occasionally shooting it, but my 5Ds effectively retired MF for all serious/professional use. I might like the rendering of a particular film or spending time in a lab printing B&W. But if I want peak image quality from my kit, it's the 5Ds. Peak low light performance, R6.

>>4366937
Low iso mf film can easily stomp all over a 5ds, especially a 5ds, that sensor is ass. You just have to forego mirror slapping and spend about $9k on a scanning rig. Maybe not an a7riv, way better sensor on that one. And better glass.

>>4366944
>you need to forego the good mf cameras, sharp shadow detail, ISOs over 250, and auto-anythint, and buy a $9000 digital camera that stomps all over even 4x5 to scan it. Film wins!

>>4366947
Whats wrong, can't afford a ten grand digital camera to take photos of your photos? Don't want to buy and repair a heidelberg tango and spend 10 hours scanning a roll of 120, which you will inevitably fuck up a bit and end up with some frames that are no better than the ones you'd get from a flatbed? Don't want to spend $50 per shot contact printing 8x10 and displaying LF slides with electronic backlights? Film just isn't for you.

File: scan0027_s.jpg (2.04 MB, 1500x1000)

2.04 MB JPG

people who shoot film for "dat resolution" are sick in the head

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3888
Image Height	2592
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	236 dpi
Vertical Resolution	236 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:30 21:17:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000

>>4366954
>>4366947
All true

Film is so amazing in theory. If you do everything right, and its the end of the world as we know it prior to an AI overmind enslaving humanity for what the AI "thinks" is our own good. It's real photos, 100mp if you expose it perfectly, with all the GNDs you can stack, develop each individual frame accordingly, and scan with the most sophisticated and expensive gear without any procedural errors whatsoever. C2PA? These negs are unfakeable, bro!

But that's just a theory and film was used to fake shit anyways by "accidentally losing" the original negative and calling everyone who asked questions crazy

>>4366956
There is nothing else

If a digital camera like a gfx, a7rii, or ls-2000 can scan a frame it can also take the same photo all on its own. It's people trying to justify film, when it's wholly dated. "Well, I can't do pixel shift in one shot", thinks the film scanner as he tries not to breathe while his a7riv is humming away, otherwise what fucking point is there

There is no real difference between scanned film and slapping a preset on an .arw file.

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

800 KB JPG

>>4366944
>Low iso mf film can easily stomp all over a 5ds,
Be quiet nophoto.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 10,000-ppi-Scan-vs-5Ds.jpg (2.6 MB, 3840x3840)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4366957
>film is 100mp
Prove you own any camera or stop posting.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	3840

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

1.22 MB JPG

>>4366944
>especially a 5ds, that sensor is ass.
>t. never touched a camera

>>4366958
Its just a fun hobby, that's all there is to it yeah.

>>4366965
>645
might as well just shoot 35mm LMAO

>>4366963
unfair
film was shot at f16 and cropped to micro four turds equivalence
diffraction has COOKED that film meanwhile the digishart is sitting at a comfy f4

File: 5543 09032024 3-011.jpg (1.35 MB, 2000x2000)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4366961
>>4366963
>>4366965
Bro Ive seen your comparisons gutted so many times it's stupid, most of them are wholly invalid.

I don't even waste time scanning film to its peak and am the one saying that resolution be damned, film is borderline pointless, but I've seen it done much better than your comparisons, many times, by different people, and had a few peeks at a negative through a loupe. They are not all conspiring together to fuck up the digital halves of their comparisons in the same way. You, just one guy grabbing random, sourceless, crap with no published, reproducible methodology on the other hand? Hard to trust. The map is the only one that comes close to reality and it's really just film not being smoothed and sharpened to death. Color separation is still a lot better and it's visibly slightly higher resolution - within the realm of an ideal 30mp difference, hurt by glass quality and operator error. If you think a drum scan is always going to be ideal, bad news, that's not real life. A car driving past can really wreck a drum scan and people sperg out over this drum operator vs that all the time.

Give it up. A shitty 5ds available is not going to outdo 6x7 any day unless the guy shooting and scanning the film is incompetent and using shittier optics, it'll only come close enough and be better for people who prefer nr/sharpening to grain. Good, very low ISO film shot, developed, and scanned as competently as possible with the best optics available will always resolve midtone and highlight detail better than a 50mp bayer shitter.
Now, an a7riv with GM glass WILL be so close to 6x9 that no one cares.

Film died outside of the motion picture industry because only the motion picture industry has time and money for the
>shot, developed, and scanned as competently as possible with the best optics available
part. I guess it's worth no aliasing in their footage, since they always use 250d and artificial lights.

Also lol shadow DR, film has NONE.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.5 (Windows)
Photographer	Brooktree Film Lab
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:03 11:14:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Unique Image ID	9793508392

>>4366978
>f/16 causes diffraction on 6x9
Thank you for confirming that you know jack shit.

>>4366981
You're enlarging a closer tire in good light, and comparing to to a more distant tire in dark light, knowing full well that tires have next to no texture to appreciate and film has ass shadow DR. It's a very crooked comparison to present as a resolution test, rather than an example of how film's tonality and resolution tank below zone IV.

>>4366980
Note: all of this assumes you stick to a certain sensitivity range.

By the time you reach 400, there's no contest, film is inferior pixel peeping feed to digital, it loses exponentially.

So, film, technically
-Has slightly higher resolution than some $800 DSLRs at the cost of visible grain, and struggles to compete with modern mirrorless, if you are paying $20 for 12 shots or less
-Handles fine colored details just a little bit better if you're looking close enough to see grain
-Spills its spaghetti if it's just a little too dim in part of the image
-Satisfies your pixel peeping at low ISOs only
-Is a massive pain in the ass to make the most out of
Film, technically, is worse overall.

But if you really want to see individual pine needles with 0 false color or weird wobbly stuff, granted they are well lit pine needles, putting as much effort into scanning a single frame as possible is definitely the way to go.

But if you're not pine needle peeping film is just a faster route to a certain color palette. You're kind of paying someone to edit your photos, instead of bringing the scene into that palette yourself.

>>4366980
>paragraphs of seething
>no evidence
Love the grain and fuzzy trunks in your scan btw. Was that supposed to be an example of a "better scan"?

>bro i've seen your comparisons gutted
Link to one gutting.
>crickets

>i've seen better scans!
Post them. The one you posted is not.
>crickets

>You, just one guy grabbing random, sourceless, crap
I included the source for the highest IQ film scan. They make good money providing 10,000 ppi scans to people who want the best. Go right ahead and best them. Show us all how it's done.
>crickets.

>muh methodology!!!
All settings fully listed in the 10,000 ppi comparison scan. They have more sample files on their web site, feel free to find one better. Speaking of methodology: literally zero details for your scan.

>muh map sharpening!!!
The maps weren't sharpened. The 5Ds is that sharp ooc with the right lenses.
>muh smoothing!!!
Funny way to say that 6x9 loses on noise/grain.

>Color separation is still a lot better
LMFAO the 5Ds resolved subtle color detail much better in each comparison.

>and it's visibly slightly higher resolution
Are you referring to the 5Ds? Yes, the 5Ds is visibly higher resolution.

>it was the glass!
>it was operator error!!!
They were all properly exposed tripod shots with sharp primes. There was no error. And I LOVE how you simultaneously claim the 6x9 map is better while making up excuses for why it's not better. You don't even believe your own bullshit.

>a car drove by during the drum scan!!!
ROTFLMAO. Again, you don't believe your own shit. That's why you claim MF is better and in the next breath claim there was operator error.

I don't know if you're trolling or actually butt hurt that high res FF beats 6x9 film. But give it up.

>Good, very low ISO film shot...will always resolve midtone and highlight detail better than a 50mp bayer shitter.
Except that it didn't in three comparisons. Let me guess: a car drove by during the scan, right? All of them, right???

>>4366992
>Was that supposed to be an example of a "better scan"?
It's a lab scan because I see film like this
>But if you're not pine needle peeping film is just a faster route to a certain color palette. You're kind of paying someone to edit your photos, instead of bringing the scene into that palette yourself.

The rest is mostly about you being a spastic and perpetually wrong gear queer. Not wasting any more time responding to your reddit spaced hysterical meltdown except for this part because to me it best demonstrates your inability to think rationally.
>They were all properly exposed tripod shots with sharp primes. There was no error. And I LOVE how you simultaneously claim the 6x9 map is better while making up excuses for why it's not better. You don't even believe your own bullshit.
It is better, but not as better as it could be. Operator error is common in scanning no matter how high you drag the PPI slider, sorry.

And, anyways, an A7RIV+GM prime will get you that last little bit needed to outdo the majority of film. Have fun.

>>4366981
it does if you crop it down to micro four turds size

>>4366982
>muh excuses!!!
At least you didn't claim a car drove by during scanning in all three scans LOL.
- Tires are comparable size and all tire detail should be resolved well at both sizes.
- The VW bug was in good light, a strobe setup. Just because it was done at night for a moody background doesn't mean the subject was underexposed.
- Tires do have texture. In the 5Ds shot you can see the tire wear and it looks just like reality. You can see the text on the tire wall and it looks just like it would if you were sitting next to the tire. 6x9 simply struggled to sharply resolve those details and presented them with grain (at this mag).
- While bitching about shadow latitude you ignore that the rims are bright, and yet we still see grain and soft edges.
- If it's a crooked comparison test then why does the map test (equal size/exposure in a mid tone scene, same target except for a few printing differences) and the portrait test (high key scenes) both show the same exact thing?

When I saw the portrait shot on Canon's website in 2015 I knew 6x9 had been beaten by FF. I've never seen a 6x9 portrait with that level of sharpness and clean detail. I didn't make excuses and cling to film like a child.

With every excuse you confirm the truth. Likewise with every nophoto post. "6x9 is so much better!!!" yet you do not have, and cannot find, even one example of this. You have to jump to 4x5 to edge out 45-61mp FF/MF.
>inb4 but a plane flew overhead during scanning in all three cases and that's TOTALLY the reason for soft edges and grain

>>4366997
Didn't read any of this except "muh grain and soft edges" to which I say

"That doesn't matter, crisp edges in a bayer photo are always added in post"

>>4362304
>micro4shit
>rocks and leaves
not even once

>>4366991
I engage in these debates because I find human psychology fascinating. Even in the face of hard evidence people will still cling to their beliefs. It's insane to watch in real time.

>-Has slightly higher resolution
You have to go to 4x5 to out resolve high res FF.

>-Handles fine colored details just a little bit better if you're looking close enough to see grain
It observably does not. This is one of the worst film myths. Film's resolution is highly correlated with target contrast and it does poorly resolving subtle detail whether it's B&W detail or color detail. And for the same reason that a 1.6:1 test yields half the resolution of a 1000:1 test on film. Your pine needles will resolve better on high res FF or digital MF. Look at the strands of hair in the portrait comparison or the map relief texture in the map comparison. Film can do better distant foliage than high res FF only IF you're shooting 4x5 or 8x10.

>>4366961
may we see your 5ds pics?
if seen many on flickr.com and for the life of me i don't see a difference between it and sony a7iii

>>4366994
>>Was that supposed to be an example of a "better scan"?
>It's a lab scan
And the only detail you provided (film, lens, methodology) was the hint in the file name. Yet your criticize my methodology?

>The rest is mostly about you being a spastic and perpetually wrong gear queer.
Is that the reason you had to come up with copes like "a car drove by"?

>Not wasting any more time responding to your reddit spaced hysterical meltdown
Good. Keep your mouth shut unless you can post comparisons you have made which back up your claims. Was that a 6x6 scan you posted? Go back to that location with a rented high res FF and do the exact same shot at the same time, see what happens.

>It is better, but not as better as it could be.
It's not better at all and you can't point to a single thing that indicates any kind of operator error. Camera shake, misfocus, poor exposure, development errors, even a "car driving by and shaking the drum scanner" would all be obvious. It's just a COPE and a revealing one since it betrays your true thoughts about the comparisons.

Next time you're going to lie, think about how two lies might contradict each other and reveal your true thoughts.

>>4367002
>Even in the face of hard evidence
I have seen your comparisons gutted and contradicted enough times. Only the map comes close to more competently done tests and real life.

I've also extensively used two high resolution FF cameras, both better bodies and better lenses than a 5ds, and found them to come very close to 6x7 but not exact.

If you really hate grain and want edge crisping in post digital is for you, god knows film has enough problems with the testy process, exponentially worse results for every stop over ISO 100, and total lack of shadow information, but please stop being so angry because film still does a few things better than digital (handling aliasing, a bit of resolution, and keeping people away from the sharpening slider).

>>4366995
>proves again that he doesn't understand diffraction
Any comparison photos of your own? No? Can you even find any that backup your claims?
>inb4 1000:1 line chart test pitting digital against 4x5

>>4367008
>It's not better at all and you can't point to a single thing that indicates any kind of operator error. Camera shake, misfocus, poor exposure, development errors, even a "car driving by and shaking the drum scanner" would all be obvious. It's just a COPE and a revealing one since it betrays your true thoughts about the comparisons.
>Next time you're going to lie, think about how two lies might contradict each other and reveal your true thoughts.
This big hysterical pile of diarrhea is an excellent example of why you're intolerable.

You get this meltdown from "it's a bit better but not as good as it could have been". Yikes.

Remember, I mostly agreed that film isn't that great and you were responding to me saying that what little film has to offer is too hard to extract for most people. I just said digital can't handle the finest details, especially if they're colored details, as well as the more expensive and hard to use film formats, and only at low ISOs. Nice meltdown.

>>4366999
>i didn't read any of it
>i just magically happened to pick out 5 words in the middle
You're a terrible liar.

>sees ooc sharpness
>"nooo that was added in post"
Please cling to your misunderstanding of how Bayer works despite any/all evidence to the contrary. I hope no one ever tells you that the human eye sees color the same way. Where do you think Bryce Bayer got the idea from?

>>4367006
>may we see your 5ds pics?
I shot the 5Ds map.

>hurr sony a7iii just as good
Did you forget the R?

>>4366849
Then why are you shitting up the boards 24/7 with your bullshit, shizo. Don't you have a job?

>>4367012
>>i didn't read any of it
>i just magically happened to pick out 5 words in the middle
You don't know what skimming is?
>I hope no one ever tells you that the human eye sees color the same way. Where do you think Bryce Bayer got the idea from?
There's a great chance I was the one who told you the human eye sees color a similar way, but it's a composited feed from two organic, curved sensor RGBW cameras reading out all of the "pixels" whenever they regenerate and editing out the blood vessels and floaters, not a single scan of a RGGB grid, so has no relation to cameras.

Remember what I originally said.

In the 42-50mp FF class, film still edges out digital for some very demanding subjects at low ISOs, at the cost of visible grain that's impossible to get rid of without wrecking the whole photo. It's also not very compatible with sharpening because of this. 42-50MP FF is still bad enough to lose occasional photos to maze patterns in hair, eyebrows, and fabric so I wear my shutters the fuck out by leaving every camera in CH just in case.

>>4367009
>I have seen your comparisons gutted and contradicted enough times
Where? Link to it.
>crickets
Every time I post these I get nothing but excuses, copes, and unsubstantiated claims like "no a car drove by during scanning if you scanned in the middle of a forest away from a highway it would be better!" The only thing you've gutted is your own argument.

>Only the map comes close to more competently done tests and real life.
6x9 lost that test. And the map shows the same relative IQ difference as the other two, so how can it be the only valid one? Explain that please. 6x9's performance in the car comparison isn't dramatically worse, it's about the same IQ difference as the map. So why is one valid and one invalid? 645 is a little bit further behind but did admirably given the size difference, not a dramatically worse loss compared to the map test. So again, why is one valid and one is not? If we're seeing the same relative IQ across all three, doesn't that reinforce the results?

>I've also extensively used two high resolution FF cameras, both better bodies and better lenses than a 5ds, and found them to come very close to 6x7 but not exact.
Post the comparisons, with EXIF so we can see your "better bodies and lenses." And give all specs on the film side. Eager to see this.
>crickets

>because film still does a few things better than digital (handling aliasing
What aliasing? Where is there aliasing in any of the 5Ds crops? Circle it in red.

>a bit of resolution, and keeping people away from the sharpening slider
You have to use more sharpening with film scans to get a best possible print. And the only way you get more resolution is by shooting a B&W line chart under bright strobes. Never in the real world. Not unless you shoot Adox CMS 20, that's the ONE film that can actually stand toe-to-toe with digital in terms of sharpness/detail in the same format.

Anyways OP nice photos sorry the autistic map spammer needed his pacifier shoved back in his mouth because someone dared insinuate that the canoshit 5dcrap was worse at the smallest thing than them dastardly films

>The pacifier fell out
>Skim over the most recent hysteria
>"There's no aliasing in my crop so it never happens"
Oh no, its retardation is incurable.

And it thinks I have more time to waste arguing with it. But I don't. Just gonna leave it on this note:
Its comparisons have been gutted so many times it's not even funny anymore. It writes these hysterical meltdowns on a false premise.

>>4367011
>This big hysterical pile of diarrhea is an excellent example of why you're intolerable.
You've posted nothing but diarrhea. You've shot "better bodies and glass" side by side with 6x7 and digital lost? Show us. Don't write paragraphs about how a car drove by and ruined the film scans, three times with three separate scanners in three separate locations. Show us what you've got.
>crickets

>You get this meltdown from "it's a bit better but not as good as it could have been".
There's no meltdown. I'm just calling you out on your bullshit, obvious lying (it's very clearly not better), and obvious copes. And you don't like it. I posted three comparisons with no real text and got paragraphs of excuses and rhetoric in response, but nophotos. The irony is how completely you betrayed yourself. If you really thought the film side was better in any comparison, there would be no need to write paragraphs of excuses.

Every time it's the same with film fags.
>Noooo the film should be better!
Then show us better.
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T ASK FOR PROOF!!!

But I'll give you credit for this: "A car drove by." Thanks for that. That's a new one. I'm going to remember that one.

>>4367015
>I shot the 5Ds map.
That should be "map and car." The car is snapshit but close enough in size to compare to a 10,000 ppi scan of a supposedly superior medium. Zoom lens and hand held and it still won.

>>4367036
Your comparisons have been gutted so many times its not funny anymore.

>>4367038
Do you want to get serious instead of being a coping ninny that has constant meltdowns?

Upload the car snapshit's raw.

>>4367020
>You don't know what skimming is?
I don't know where your photos are. You've shot 6x7 side by side with "better digital bodies and lenses" and "6x7 won" but I don't see any photos attached to your posts. Is there a problem with my browser? Are they not loading?

>There's a great chance I was the one who told you the human eye sees color a similar way,
There's a zero chance since I knew this decades ago.

>but it's a composited feed from two organic, curved sensor RGBW cameras reading out all of the "pixels" whenever they regenerate and editing out the blood vessels and floaters, not a single scan of a RGGB grid, so has no relation to cameras.
Nothing you said changes the fact that color is resolved by interpolating the output from three separate color sensitive cell types. It's fundamentally the same.

>In the 42-50mp FF class, film still edges out digital for some very demanding subjects at low ISOs
SHOW US. Tired of responding to words and excuses. Your words are meaningless without proof. Apart from Adox CMS 20 the only time I've seen MF film edge out high res FF is on contrast pumped line charts. And it often loses even then.

>42-50MP FF is still bad enough to lose occasional photos to maze patterns in hair, eyebrows, and fabric
That's an aliasing/moire problem, the reason why I got the 5Ds over the 5DsR and think Canon is right to have an AA filter on the R5/R5ii. Maybe once a year I see a little moire in a spot of fabric and clean it up.

>>4367029
>You have to use more sharpening with film scans to get a best possible print.
THIS NIGGA IS USING A PRINTER LMAO

>>4367030
>nophoto
>"hurr i'll hurl insults instead"
Note that all I did was post three comparisons with practically no text and the pacifier fell out of your mouth.
>WAAAAAAHHHH
>FILM IS BETTER I SWEAR
>BUT A CAR DROVE BY
>THAT'S WHY YOU MIGHT THINK IT'S WORSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S REALLY BETTER
Hilarious, I love this shit. I laugh at every nophoto cope response.

>>4367048
>>4367052
When will you stop being retarded and upload the car snaps raw?

>>4367040
>if i repeat the line "your comparisons have been gutted" maybe someone will believe me
OK nophoto

>noooo post your RAW!!!
Maybe I will after you post something to back up any of your claims.

>>4367053
When you post your 6x7 scans and...Sony I'm guessing?...RAW files that show film beating high res FF.
>crickets
>words
>excuses

>>4367054
>>4367055
>uh no i wont upload it until you...
I'm not going to waste my time scanning to peep at pine needles to determine if it's possible to get you to stop spamming these tldr reddit spaced meltdowns any time anyone dare say that MF film is even slightly better at the slightest thing than your personal favorite digishitter.

Upload your raw so we can verify your constantly spammed claims by looking at more than a blurry tire or shut up.

>>4367056
why would he disprove himself like that

>>4367056
>uh no i wont upload it until you...
That's right considering you haven't posted shit other than paragraphs of excuses. It's your turn to post, nophoto.

>I'm not going to waste my time scanning to peep at pine needles
LMFAO so how do you know film won if you never scanned it??? Did you just tangle yourself up in another lie?

>to determine if it's possible to get you to stop spamming these tldr reddit spaced meltdowns any time anyone dare say that MF film is even slightly better at the slightest thing
All I did was post an opinion. YOU are the won that came back with insults and snark. So then I posted proof, and that's when YOU melted down.

Don't get butthurt when you get called out for being insulting and for having zero evidence. Ironic you called me a "gear queer" when you are the one being a queer and I'm pretty sure it's about gear you don't even own. Hell, just do that: post a shot of your 6x7 and high res FF bodies with a note for /p/. Prove you even own any of this. Then we can talk about getting those scans and RAWs.

>upload this upload that
You don't get to make demands, nophoto. Not until you start uploading.

>>4367064
>all these words and no raw
come on prove a cannot pos r can do better lol

>>4367065
>all these words and nophoto
You don't even own a camera, do you?

>>4367064
If only you were as good at uploading raw files as you are at coping :(

>your 6x7
I never said I owned a 6x7. I said I've seen other people do better. Why would I waste my time scanning to pixel peep it as hard as possible? You can do that with a negative and a loupe.

>>4367066
If you did you could upload your 5ds raws!

>>4367068
If only you could upload ANY photos rather than having meltdowns.

>I never said I owned a 6x7. I said I've seen other people do better.
Oh good! Then it will be easy for you to link to them.
>crickets

>>4367074
I swear to god man you've had this argument at least once a day with 5 different people, stop treating it like it's the first time. You can nail it shut real quick, with no room for debate, with proof anyone can check out at their leisure, forever.

You linked the scans already. Just upload the raw of the car. I will personally be comparing it to the next lower resolution scan because over-scanning (resolving grain) to that degree ironically looks worse, even if you can barely make out a few extra marks in the rubber, and I can't be assed to work with a 4.5GB tif. But I will be double checking some common claims, like size in frame (in case it would be like saying 20mp m43 is sharper than 20mp ff by using a 20mm lens on both) and real detail without optional computer hallucinations.

For the record I said film is a gay color preset because the amount of effort needed to wring that one, tiny, very conditional bit of "better than digital" out of it is isn't really worth it.

>>4367074
>no raw
what is she hiding bros?

File: 6807-ppi-drum-scan-vs-5Ds.jpg (1.88 MB, 3840x1920)

1.88 MB JPG

>>4367077
>I swear to god man you've had this argument at least once a day with 5 different people
Stop lying and exaggerating and post photos or links to photos, even if they're from someone else. Let's see it. Let's see 6x7 beating 45-61mp FF or 50mp Fuji GFX. And remember: you started this. All I did was make an innocent comment, and you had to be a gear queer. Don't cry now that you got your ass beat.

>pls upload
You first. It's that simple. You don't get to make any demands when you have posted NOTHING.

>I will personally be comparing it to the next lower resolution scan because over-scanning (resolving grain) to that degree ironically looks worse
I tend to agree. Here's the drum scan. Film looks a little better than in the 10,000 ppi scan, but the 5Ds still wins this with ease. Film is still softer and still shows some grain. Looking at surfaces you see the structure of film showing through. Looking at surfaces in the 5Ds shot, it just looks like reality. Same thing we see in the portraits. This directly contradicts filmfag claims regarding resolution AND color detail/separation. "Muh Bayer!!!" has no trouble with the most subtle color transitions and details, while film turns to grain.

>>4367080
>nophoto
What are you hiding? If you really want the RAW, you will post a comparison that backs up your claims. THEN you can have the RAW. nophoto, noraw.

>>4367088
nor him but youre missing details i have in the drum scan i just downloaded and youre not uploading the raw. you crooked little bastard.

what. are. you. hiding.

>>4367090
>nophoto
>"nooo i swear there's more detail!!!"
what. are. you. hiding.

>>4367088
Still with the uneven enlargements (no way of knowing what the uncropped digital photo really is without a .crw...or are you trying how to figure out to crop and upscale a .crw?)

>You started it!
I dared to say film had a little gas in the tank and you spammed the same tired invalid comparisons for the 20th time with a huge reddit spaced tantrum. It's time to put this to rest.

For just one of them, the car, upload the raw. I will double check size in frame and compare it directly against the ok-ish drum scan and mega overkill scan without computer hallucinated details. Simple as that. it would take you <2 minutes to go to catbox and upload a 30mb crw file.

>>4367094
You sound like you need to have sex. You shoot Sony, don't you?

>>4367094
>nooo how can we know the size?
The whole photos are at the top of the meme photo. Stop engaging in pilpul.

>hurr are you figuring out how to scale
Preserve Details 2.0 as noted.

>I dared to say film had a little gas in the tank
No, you were an insulting little gear queer shit with nothing to back up your claims.

>has no comparisons and nophotos
>"your comparisons are invalid!!!"
nophoto, noraw. hasphoto, has raw. It's that simple. I want to see you post something, anything, even if it's a link somewhere else. On what basis do you claim that 6x7 has higher resolution or better color detail/separation? Where are the photos?
>inb4 1000:1 B&W line chart shot on 4x5 or ISO 20 6x7 mircofilm

>>4367096
At this point I doubt he owns a camera.

>>4367096
>>4367098
Enough hysteria, enough seething any time someone casts doubt on your canon fanboyism. The only way you'd be this opposed to dragging and dropping a crw file into a web browser is if your argument thus far has been on an imaginary premise - you know the comparison really isn't valid and it will be pointed out much more definitely than it was before.

I already told you, I have never and will never waste my time scanning a frame that thoroughly. I've just seen more trustworthy, less spastic people than you do it better than you.

>>4367099
Do you need alzheimers meds? I posted one of my lab scans. That's as much as I ever scan film. Remember the post you started spamming over - I said that although film has some gas in the tank, it's not worth anyones time to try and get it.

>>4367100
(in other words, this isn't about gear, it's about how you're an obnoxious spamming faggot and i want you to hand me the rope to hang you with, if you're so right you gain everything by posting it)
(you know this, and you know it would be rope instead of a bungie cord, which is why you're so opposed to just sharing the raw to compare)

there is no way map spammer is not hiding something

he knows the raw would prove him wrong

>snoy schizo forgot to take his meds again

>>4367100
>canon fanboyism
Oh piss off. I made a point about 50mp being a turning point, not the 5Ds specifically. You just have a Canon hate boner because you don't own any camera.

>The only way you'd be this opposed to dragging and dropping a crw file into a web browser
The only way you would be this opposed to posting ANY photo comparison at all is if one doesn't exist, and your opinion comes from reading Ken Rockwell posts.

>I already told you, I have never and will never waste my time scanning a frame that thoroughly.
So you own 6x7 and compared it to two high res FF bodies...but you don't own 6x7...but you do own 6x7 you just don't scan the frames...or you do scan them, but appeal to the eternal filmfag cope that "hurr a better scanner and it would win!"

Can you pick a lie and stick with it?

>I've just seen more trustworthy, less spastic people than you do it better than you.
LINK IT. The only reason you would be this opposed to posting a URL is if it doesn't exist.

>>>4367099 (You)
>Do you need alzheimers meds? I posted one of my lab scans.
How do I know where that came from? At this point you've told so many lies I can't keep track of which is which.

>>4367102
Yep lol

Or just ignore him and go watch jim kasson scan 400mp 4x5 with resolution still unscanned

>>4367105
>keeps quoting claims i never made
Holy fucking shit, retard. Post raw or shut up.

File: Screenshot 2024-09-30 at (...).jpg (87 KB, 1714x486)

87 KB JPG

>>4367102
As soon as you post, I'll post the RAW. I want to see the comparison that led you to claim
>6x7 is higher resolution
>6x7 has better color detail/separation than Bayer digital
You get the RAW as soon as I get to see what you're basing your opinion on. Let's do this.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1714
Image Height	486

>>4367108
>nooo i never said that...
Ahem...

>>4367068
>I never said I owned a 6x7.

>>4367009
>I've also extensively used two high resolution FF cameras, both better bodies and better lenses than a 5ds, and found them to come very close to 6x7 but not exact.
If you don't own 6x7, how the fuck would you know how it compares to any digital body? Which bodies by the way? And which lenses? Can you show them to us?

>nooo i meant someone else i just won't link them
LOL

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

261 KB JPG

>>4367107
>but 4x5
Called it. It always ends with filmfags jumping to a format that has 15x the surface area of a 35mm sensor.
>400mp and resolution still unscanned!
Is that why it barely edges out an 80mp back?
>nooo muh scanner
>muh line chart
>muh microscope!!!

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

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

>>4367115
>If you don't own 6x7, how the fuck would you know how it compares to any digital body?
Yes, someone elses photos are an excellent way to see it on a PC screen. And also, loupe on square, and compare it to a cropped 35mm. Film is grainy and fuzzy instead of noise reduced and sharpened but it shows things that do not exist in similar digital photos because they are below the limits of what the tech can do in a single shot.

Remember 6x7 is 4:3, 6x6 is 1:1, and 35mm digital is 3:2. Therefore 35mm (small format) should actually be directly compared to 6x9 (full frame), and cropped to compare to crops of 6x9.

>>4367117
Here we see an example of how dishonest and spastic you are

Comparing ISO 400 on film, which I already agreed is one of the ways film loses hard - exponentially, and yet... the fine details are just a lot better and more distinct. But that's because it's 4x5, a low ISO film with that area is hundreds of "megapixels". Sheesh.

>>4367120
>Therefore 35mm (small format) should actually be directly compared to 6x9 (full frame), and cropped to compare to crops of 6x9.
BASED

>>4367117
A 645 sized 80mp back that costs 20 grand? Wow portra 400 4x5 btfo

Redo with fuji gfx pls.

File: Portra-400-vs-Velvia-50-M(...).jpg (135 KB, 1748x795)

135 KB JPG

>>4367122
Here we see an example of how dishonest and spastic YOU are.
>Comparing ISO 400 on film, which I already agreed is one of the ways film loses hard - exponentially
Left is Portra 400's MTF curve, right is Velvia 50, both screenshots are from their respective tech sheets.
https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/e4050_portra_400.pdf
https://www.ishootfujifilm.com/uploads/VELVIA%2050%20Data%20Guide.pdf

Where is the "exponential" loss of resolution? Do you even know what "exponential" means? Because that's not an "exponential" difference. Portra 400 is a ~65 lp/mm film, Velvia 50 ~80 lp/mm. An "exponential" difference would make Portra 6.5 lp/mm. (Note that these numbers are still line chart tests even if they're at a contrast closer to real world fine detail, 1.6:1. If you take those numbers and try to compute film's resolution in MP you're going to be sorely disappointed in the real world, because in the real world you don't hit those numbers due to various losses across the board.)

If Velvia 50 is 400mp in 4x5, then Portra 400 should be 325mp. And yet an 80mp back is within striking distance of it on resolution.

Protip: 4x5 != 400mp. Unless you're shooting Adox CMS 20 II, THEN it might hit those numbers.

>the fine details are just a lot better and more distinct.
"A lot"? You couldn't tell them apart without pixel peeping. Yeah 4x5 won that one, but not by much.

>>4367120
>Yes, someone elses photos are an excellent way to see it on a PC screen.
Can we see them too? Please?

>Film is grainy and fuzzy instead of noise reduced and sharpened but it shows things that do not exist in similar digital photos because they are below the limits of what the tech can do in a single shot.
Please show us these examples where you see more detail. I've asked how many fucking times now?

>Remember 6x7 is 4:3, 6x6 is 1:1, and 35mm digital is 3:2. Therefore 35mm (small format) should actually be directly compared to 6x9 (full frame), and cropped to compare to crops of 6x9.
Two of the comparisons are to 6x9. And you can still compare to 6x7 as long as you match vertically and look at the center.

>>4367145
>Redo with fuji gfx pls.
If it's the 100mp model Portra would probably be edged out.

What's the largest size pic that can upload to /p/?

>will not post a single raw file
>will write an essay and look up charts to claim that 400 speed film is as good as 50 speed film
he's hiding something.

>>4367159
>will not post anything, not even to get the raw file
What are you hiding?

>>4367162
You think that's me don't you

Holy shit just upload the raw and shut up, something about someone seeing the actual photo without your post copes obviously scares you. Someone who does not even think film is definitively better. Someone who thinks digital has an edge specifically because it is more compatible with post copes and doesn't force you to enjoy grain all the time.

>>4367165
Holy shit just upload any comparison that supports your claims to get the raw and shut up. Something about posting a photo obviously scares you.

I promised you the RAW, but you have to POST SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIMS! You very firmly believe your claims, I would like to see why.
>nophoto/noraw
>hasphoto/hasraw
Get it?

>>4367174
this guy will do anything but post the raw for his crooked comparison

>>4367189
This guy will do anything but post a photo.

>>4362125
I wouldn’t give you a squirt of piss to have to drag around that camera. Though, i guess i wanted to look at my photos as ink on paper id care about any of this. But i cant think of a worse way of looking at images. OP i think you fucked it all up.

>>4367191
I did post a photo, and that's not me.

I'm a lab scan chad. I just want to tie a noose around your map spamming autism.

>>4367104
of course he's a Sony shooter kek

>>4367204
>I did post a photo, and that's not me.
You posted a scan with no details that doesn't support your claims at all.

>I'm a lab scan chad. I just want to tie a noose around your map spamming autism.
You've already tied the noose around your own neck by being a noevidence autist gear queer who throws a fit if anyone challenges his sacred cows.
>but a car drove by while they were scanning!!!
I'll never forget that one. That is classic cope.

>>4362125
Digislug cope on top of fujislug cope, impressive

>>4362192
Can smell the jelly on you lmao

>>4367219
Why the fuck would I waste my time and money scanning for "details"? I don't personally care for them.

But, people much more competent and trustworthy than you have already completely contradicted your claims and left you coping, so, I encourage you, do post the raw for your supposed damning comparison (where you did whatever you could to make the digital file look better) so I can take an unbiased look at it, even though in both photos, half a headlight and half a tire are all that's in sharp focus (i don't know what else to expect).

>Sacred cows
You mean like the cannot POS you think outdoes everything? People don't say "it's not worth the time and money to get the most out of it" about a sacred cow. Now, taking you down a notch, that would be funny.

>>4362252
If you weren’t a faggot you wouldn’t have a distended sphincter

>>4362275
>dinosaur D850
I remember lusting after the D800E as it was coming to market

>>4362284
all we see is nophotos poorfaggotry

>>4366961
hey whoa you can’t say “Niger” in here this isn’t a racism board

>>4367223
>never scanned for details
>"6x7 should totally win"
How could you know if you've never compared high quality scans? Oh yeah...
>other people's comparisons!
Why won't you link them?
>crickets

>But, people much more competent and trustworthy than you have already completely contradicted your claims
Where? Who? I want to see their tests. Why can't we see them? What are you afraid of? Do they actually exist? I've been googling but all I can find are comparisons where you have to go to 4x5, or use a microfilm, to pull ahead. Where is this comparison where 6x7 is better?

>where you did whatever you could to make the digital file look better
How did I do that? No sharpening, no NR, no optical corrections. Let me guess: I didn't use a shit pixelating scaling algorithm, so in your view that was cheating, right?

>so I can take an unbiased look at it
Who are you? You've posted nothing of value. Just pages of cope. Why should I post the RAW for someone who won't post anything? You're not unbiased, your reveal your bias in the post I'm replying to ffs.

>even though in both photos, half a headlight and half a tire are all that's in sharp focus
Feel free to post your own examples.
>crickets

>>Sacred cows
>You mean like the cannot POS you think outdoes everything?
See? Gear queer who has to rely on insults, straw men, and lies to argue.

>now, taking you down a notch, that would be funny.
That would require you to post comparison photos. We both know that's never going to happen.

>>4367232
I'd like to link them, but they're all ones other people have linked you, and i've already seen all your subsequent cope and can't imagine with dealing with you in an even more spastic state.

>>4367226
>I remember lusting after the D800E as it was coming to market
Brilliant camera. It was kind of difficult staying with Canon while that was on the market, before the 5Ds/5DsR. I nearly bought a used Leaf Aptus-II 10 around that time period, wanting more resolution for large prints.

>>4367234
Yeah same- back then I had a 5D2, a buddy had a D700, I’d had a 5D and he’d had a D300 before that, and a couple of earlier Canon and Nikon bodies and we used to not particularly seriously rib each other over whose system was better but the 800 series was the first time when I genuinely considered maybe I should move systems.

File: 6x9-10,000-ppi-vs-5Ds-no-(...).jpg (2.14 MB, 5000x2500)

2.14 MB JPG

>>4367233
The truth is that you know they don't support your claims. That's why you're afraid to link them again. (And you might as well stop pretending to be multiple people.) That's why I'm the one who posted the IQ180 vs. 4x5 sample, and not you.

Here's another sample.
- Opened the 10,000 ppi scan and cropped out the film borders. Ended up at 32,536 width.
- Hunted for a car snapshit with a similar sized headlight. Found one.
- ISO 200 5Ds RAW opened with NO sharpening, NO NR, NO optical corrections.
- Scaled straight to 32,536 using Preserve Details 2.0, NO NR.
- Took 2,500px crops of the headlights.

Well there goes the excuses of "muh tire is bigger!" and "muh shadow detail!" and "it's just a tire we need more details!" The 5Ds still wins despite being at the following disadvantages...
- ISO 200.
- Hand held with no IS.
- Headlight at the edge of the frame where the 24-70L II isn't quite as sharp.
- Shot wide open at f/2.8.
- Zoom lens. (Pro zoom, but still.)
- Headlight in shadow. (VW bug headlight is facing the strobes which would tend to increase contrast.)
- There were cars driving nearby ;-)

6x9 came very close here. But imagine if the 5Ds had been shot with a tripod at, say, f/5.6, with a prime like the 85 f/1.4L IS, with one headlight center frame where the lens is sharpest. And with no cars driving nearby (kek). It wouldn't be close. It would be just like the other comparisons. Even worse for 6x9.

Isn't it funny how you come up with any excuse you can whether or not it's true or even possible (cars driving nearby), and I'm willing to pit the 5Ds against that oversampled 10,000 ppi scan even with multiple disadvantages? Edge of frame hand held f/2.8 isn't even remotely fair to the 5Ds. And it still pulled ahead. Just like any high res FF or GFX would.

>nooooo you cheated i'm unbiased post raw!
I will. All in good time. When are you going to post...anything?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4367235
I'm glad I stayed, I like a lot of what Canon has done. But yeah...the D800/810/850 were tempting. Mad respect for those bodies. Nikon also had better UWAs back then, glad Canon finally caught up.

File: Screenshot 2024-09-30 at (...).jpg (33 KB, 280x470)

33 KB JPG

>>4367244
Oh, and just to be clear on what I mean by edge of frame...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	280
Image Height	470

>>4367245
It was an interesting time to be in photography.

>>4367244
Fuckin destroyed him

>>4367244
Is it really fair to compare modern glass to all the vaseline smear vintage crap attached to every film camera ever?

>>4367284
That 65mm is well reviewed/respected. Without having one in hand I can’t say if it’s sharper or softer than the 24-70 f/2.8ii at equivalent apertures. But it’s a good bet that it’s sharper at f/16 (f/6.8 equiv) center than the Canon zoom at 70mm f/2.8 edge.

>>4367244
Film is more detailed here. Digital is just upscaled+sharpened and has color fog instead of grain.

Note: The film headlight is half out of focus and stsill looks more detailed.

You have a problem where you think sharpening equals resolution. Your lens does not project crisp edges. You can see the squiggly edges here and there where the sharpening algorithm got confused. The film is an honest impression of the image circle. The digital is heavily post processed to look similar but not quite as good. People processing like you are where digital got its reputation for looking sterile and plastic - because of all the tards upscaling and sharpening their 12mp DSLRs to 24mp 35mm film, which you're doing again with 50mp.

>>4367284
It's not vaseline smear vintage crap. Film just can't take as much sharpening as digital. Some extra sharpening is typically baked into the demosaicing method so you literally can't get away from it. The edge crispness you are looking at is fake, especially with such fine details. You are probably used to this, but originally people complained about it looking unnatural.

Look at how the film headlight has more honest resolution of ultrafine details. On digital they melt into shaky sharpening artefacts or are missing entirely. The film headlight is a more demanding target too, with finer detail. The upscaled digital, struggles with squigglyness and false colors despite having less fine detail. the digital headlight which is also larger in the frame than the film headlight, just like the tire he pixel peeped, because he's repeatedly comparing closeups to a car shot from a distance (this is like comparing full frame and micro four thirds with non equivalent FOVs - and this is why he doesnt want to link the raw lest I show him this explicitly, and WITHOUT UPSCALING, he really doesn't want you to see what it looks like without gigapixel)

File: file.png (2.1 MB, 3009x505)

2.1 MB PNG

>>4367559
>larger in the frame
correct

digislug is cheating hard
>digital gets a larger subject
>the film gets a deeper crop
>the digital is enhanced
>the film is as scanned with a curve inversion and only minor sharpening - of the grain
>"muh tire wear marks" literally discolored detailless smears generated by a scaling algorithm, film tire has more fine detail in the texturing

>>4367244
How can you post all this horseshit when the film clearly looks better and has more details?

EXCELLENT thread. thank you OP

>>4367565
only if you're mentally ill

>>4367645
The film clearly looks better and has more details

it just has more grain. all you've ever said is you hate grain.

>>4367551
>fuzzy and hazy
>"film is more detailed here"
cope

>noooo the film is OOF
cope

>nooo it's just sharpening!!!
Sharpening was completely off, so...cope.

>ignores all the disadvantages on the 5Ds side
cope

>>4367559
>neither file was sharpened in any way
>MUH SHARPENING
cope

>>4367561
>ignores that the corvette tire IS larger in real life
>uses this to shrink the digital side too small
>YOU'RE CHEATING!!!
lol cope

>>4367565
>>4367645
>>4367649
>samefagging
cope

But the absolute best part of all:
>omg the film is better here
>BUT HERE ARE A BUNCH OF EXCUSES FOR WHY IT'S NOT BETTER
cope and seethe

>>4367714
TLDR

The film is literally showing more small details. Your shit comparison looks like camera vs. phone and your insistence on AI upscaling really tells us why you dont want to show raws.
>But its FUZZY!
It's just not artificially sharpened digislop.

Sorry, you will forever be mocked for this image.
>Digislugs think the one on the right looks better

>>4367715
>The film is literally showing more small details.
Circle them in red for us.
>crickets

>muh ai upscaling!
Preserve Details 2.0 is not in any way AI upscaling. Your lies (muh sharpening, muh AI upscaling) betray your true opinion, as does your "film is better but here's why it's not" posts. And the fact that you gave up posting your "film is better" blog post while I happily post the only fair, real world comparison from that blog post.

>really tells us why you dont want to show raws
I'm going to upload multiple RAWs. More comparisons are coming.

>It's just not artificially sharpened digislop.
Neither file was sharpened in any way. Give me a little bit and I'll show you what the 5Ds looks like with standard processing (slight NR, sharpening, optical corrections). As much as I find the psychology of this fascinating, there are real life matters to attend to.

>>4367720
tldr
film looked better, digital looks like a phone lol

>BUT I CAN SEE GRAIN!
and? lmao. the digital looks like smears, the film looks like detail. sorry.

>>4367721
>doubles down on cope
>FILM IS BETTER DIGITAL LOOKS LIKE PHONE!!!
Is that why you're constantly making excuses for the film side?
>coping and seething intensifies

>blind boomer hates grain so much he seethes to hard to notice all the extra fine detail
thank allah he kept his post under the “click to view” limit this time!

>>4367730
>can't circle one example of extra detail
>THERE'S EXTRA DETAIL
Keep digging that whole.

>>4367002
35mm microfilms already outresolve FF digislop, digislug.
I'm a fan of Agfa Copex myself, because it makes digislugs in denial cope and seethe.

>>4367731
Hey blindbro, just look at it. The film photo is noticeably more detailed.

>>4367732
>but muh B&W iso 20 (really iso 12) 5-stop microfilm out resolves digital!!!
How many times have I said that the only film that can compete with digital in the same format is Adox CMS 20 II? (I haven't tested any other microfilms, they probably can as well.) That's the only film that I have tested that feels like a high res FF RAW file in terms of detail and sharpness, in 35mm format. That's fine if you only need 5 stops of B&W, the light is conducive to using such a film, and you're willing to pay dearly for a scan that can actually capture what's on the frame. But for the vast majority of subjects and shots, that doesn't work.

I'll never understand filmfag insistence on "winning" this "contest." This board often mocks m43fags for outrageous claims. But shoot any film other than a microfilm in 110 size and compare it to m43. It will get its ass kicked. I've owned a Pentax Auto 110 with multiple lenses. Crazy little device. But I sold it because I never used it, because film sucks at that size. It's only good if you want a soft, grainy, "vintage" look with zero detail.

And we don't even have a film format as small as a cell phone camera or old P&S cameras. They produce good 8x10 prints, sometimes even 16x20, while film that size would be a few globs of grain.

You shoot film for a unique rendering. For fun. To learn more about B&W tonality, which helps your digital work. To play with old cameras. You don't shoot film for "muh infinite resolution!" or "muh 20 stops DR!" because that's just Ken Rockwell tier bullshit. (And his article on the topic was almost certainly a troll.)

But filmfags gonna filmfag just like m43fags gonna m43fag.

>>4367733
>"it's obvious"
>can't give one example
Love it. Just like
>muh Bayer mess! muh aliasing!
Can't point to those either, not even after scaling to 32,536 pixels.

I don't know. Maybe it's not fair. Maybe those details were ruined because a car drove by during the scan :-)

File: 6x9-10,000-ppi-vs-5Ds-wit(...).jpg (2.18 MB, 5000x2500)

2.18 MB JPG

Here's one example of applying some processing to the 5Ds side. It can probably be better though. You process differently when scaling 3.75x, and in a different order because doing something before or after the scale can make a big difference. I haven't had to think about that since the 5Ds.

Light-to-moderate LNR, CNR, sharpening, texture, and dehaze + lens corrections (default profile). Then scaled in PS using Preserve Details 2.0. Size difference is due to the lens corrections.

Curious to try this with DxO PhotoLab, and also with an AI scaling tool. I'll have to demo the latter because I don't own a license to one. Also very curious to photograph a headlight with a stopped down prime, center frame, and demo what the 5Ds can really do when it's not hand held f/2.8 edge of frame on a zoom.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4367739
The difference between copex and cms is minimal, certainly both outresolve the finest digital FF

>>4367748
Film looks a lot better in terms of amount of detail honestly resolved. And why wouldn't it? On line charts, and thus real subjects, low speed film is a nice comfy and fuzzy 80-100mp.

The digital is just upscaled clean smears. Less grain, but what grain there is is unsightly color fog that would smear even more if you got rid of it. The question is, do you want a detailed photo with grain, or a smudgy photo with weird colors?

The ultimate answer is, a canon 5ds is shit, and film is slightly better, way higher effort, and infinitely less versatile. If you really want high resolution photos that are actually quality, sell your 5ds and buy an a7r(i)v or a gfx100s. The gfx100s is getting very cheap and will mog every low speed film stock in 120 up to ISO 3200, and even edge out some high speed 4x5, if you've ever done paid work it should be essentially free to you (=1 wedding = 1 GFX)

>>4367748
nice wobbly sealed bean there mr ai upscale

>>4367768
so this guy is just saying "50mp is as good as 80mp!" which is exactly what ken rockwell seethed about when he said 5mp was as good as 10mp

ken even upscaled the 5mp to claim it was so sharp and therefore excellent

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

1.26 MB JPG

>>4367768
>Film looks a lot better in terms of amount of detail honestly resolved.
>"honestly resolved"
What a strange way to say "film lost."

>1000:1 B&W line charts are real subjects
Only if you shoot line charts for a living.

>low speed film is a nice comfy and fuzzy 80-100mp.
In 4x5 maybe, depending on exposure and target contrast.

>The digital is just upscaled clean smears.
Still can't find that extra detail for us?
>noextradetail
>nophoto
>nocamera

>The ultimate answer is, a canon 5ds is shit
The ultimate answer is that you are a nocamera nophoto who is ironically also a gear queer with a hate boner because you've lost so many arguments. Really the best camera for you, if you ever buy one, is m43.

Can't help but post this one again so that we can all marvel at the "honestly resolved" detail of film.

[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

File: MF-Fuji-RVP-Howtek-vs-5Ds-2.jpg (1.13 MB, 2370x1185)

1.13 MB JPG

>>4367768
>>4367771
>>4367772
>samefagging this hard
>straw men
Let's take another look at "6x9 film = 80mp!!!"

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2370
Image Height	1185
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4367768
>>4367771
>>4367772
>words
>nophoto

>>4367780
>>4367782
Spamming the same invalid comparisons again because you cant accept a shitty canon dslr isn’t 100% ready to replace low iso 120 stocks?

>>4367789
Oh someone did a valid comparison for him and he had a meltdown where he literally went blind with rage and thought the article said a 5dc is the same as 4x5. Then he started claiming moire was clean detail and that the digital part was actually faked because in his world visible grain = the details do not count.

>>4367782
>>4367787
>retarded redditor again
Go back

cannot piss r shill is the most annoying and dumb fag on /p/

just say “tamron 50-400” and he bursts into treats

File: 1727800094090794.jpg (2.06 MB, 5000x2500)

2.06 MB JPG

Good job wasting your time on a meltdown but if you can't clearly see that the left side is more detailed, you're blind, and it's a good thing you quit photography (since you have so much time to write these meltdowns and spam these invalid comparisons)

The funniest part about your meltdown is I told you exactly which digital cameras always beat film and which situations film quickly falls apart in. You just can't accept that your canon garbage isn't top dog. It's just better than 645. Most of your whining amounts to how you're surprised than 50mp vs 80mp isn't actually that huge, it's just a lot of extra very tiny details you need to zoom in to see.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
https://jpbuffington.com/?p=167

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4367792
Nah the sony schizo is the worst. Making up stories and samefagging while having a meltdown.

>>4367794
who posted from a sony?

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

43 KB GIF

>>4367789
>>4367790
>>4367791
>samefagging again
>still nophoto
This is better than a m43 meltdown.

>nooooo the comparisons are invalid!!!
How exactly?
>crickets

>>4367790
>things that never happened, the post
Cope and seethe.

>>4367792
>samefag meltdown-in-progress
When you use the same exact language and childish insults, everyone knows it's the same person.

>>4367793
>"the left side is clearly more detailed!!!"
>still can't circle where
lol

>it's a good thing you quit photography
Who do you think you're talking to? Did someone else cause you to seethe like this in the past? Was it a m43 or Sony thread?

>The funniest part about your meltdown is I told you exactly which digital cameras always beat film
>"told"
I've "shown" you that at 50mp it's over for 6x9. This is a photography board. Nobody gives a shit about "telling."

>https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
>36mp and nearest neighbor scaling
Why do you have to cheat? Show us a real world 6x9, on something other than microfilm, that clearly beats 50mp FF or GFX. I mean does your upload button not work or something?

>https://jpbuffington.com/?p=167
>words
>theories
> 1000:1 line chart tests
Reminder of how this started many threads ago...
>noooo digital is only better on line charts
And now...
>FORGET THE REAL WORLD, LOOK AT THIS LINE CHART!!!

You're going to really lose it with the upcoming samples. I wish I could take a whole day off and finish everything fast, I want to taste your tears.

File: Screenshot 2024-10-01 at (...).jpg (442 KB, 1224x1328)

442 KB JPG

>>4367771
Is this what you're melting down over? Because it's in the original RAW file. Oh, and again, Preserve Details has nothing to do with AI.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1224
Image Height	1328
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4367796
jesus fucking christ, take your meds

His posts get longer the more you touch on the truth (that 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 still outdo ff digital for very fine detail, at low ISOs, with mirrors locked up, great glass and effortmaxxed scans)

Which is really funny because this isn't exactly a huge win for film.

>>4367799
>writes paragraphs and paragraphs
>nophotos
>"stop responding to meeee!!!"
Glorious

>>4367802
Do you even own a camera?

>>4367805
Yeah 3 but you're so unhinged that when i eeked out just one photo you thought i stole it and then started rambling about sony lol.

I'm sorry, I really am, but medium format film still outdoes FF digital in these little edge cases that basically don't exist outside of strobe-lit studios. I'm so sorry. But your very versatile snapshitter loses out to a fuji 6x9 in a well lit photo of a dog if someone is willing to spend $10k+ on scanning equipment.

>>4367807
>Yeah 3 but you're so unhinged that when i eeked out just one photo you thought i stole it
In my defense, you've lied so much that no one can blame me.

>and then started rambling about sony lol.
While you ramble about "cannot"?

>I'm sorry, I really am, but medium format film still outdoes FF digital
Really? Wow. That's amazing. You can show us this, right?
>crickets

>>4367807
NOOOO THE THIRD LARGEST FILM FORMAT CANT BE BETTER AT STUDIO DOG PHOTOS
[comment too long, click to regret clicking]

>>4367804
>Confused reddit tourist thinks we have to constantly post photos
Go back

File: sony-a7r-v-24-70mm-kit.jpg (16 KB, 400x400)

16 KB JPG

>>4362125
>completely mogs your medium format

>>4367813
Funny way to say “I have no evidence and therefore my opinion on this topic is worthless.”

File: photo_2024-10-01 22.43.22.jpg (151 KB, 1280x960)

151 KB JPG

>>4362213
>>4362445
Used mine as a doorstop, it's actually not all that special, 4:3 is really nice, but the files aren't any more impressive than, say, an a7r4, I would like a GFX100 which I can say it does make the hurdle of Digi-MF worth it.

The 50 series is honestly, pure unadulterated ass

I thought of the big phase one's, but they SUCK to use daily

File: Screenshot 2024-10-01 at (...).jpg (155 KB, 1160x546)

155 KB JPG

>>4367841
>the files aren't any more impressive than, say, an a7r4
>The 50 series is honestly, pure unadulterated ass

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1160
Image Height	546

>>4367559
I missed multiple obvious lies in this one since I didn't feel like reading your shit earlier. I love how film is better and digital has all these problems (but don't ask you to circle them in red), but also in case anyone believes their lying eyes it's not fair because the digital headlight is larger! Film is better but here's an excuse for why it's not!

The clear part of the digital headlight is 1,860px tall. The clear part of the film headlight is 2,178px tall. And this is obvious since the film headlight with frame doesn't fit in the crop, while the digital one does with room to spare top and bottom. Why do you have to lie?

>noooo the vw bug was shot at a distance!!!
I was standing further away than the Fuji photographer as I was at 70mm and he was at 28mm equivalent.

>muh rawwwwwwwww!!!
At my leisure. If you want it right away, all you have to do is post or link a comparison that backs up any of your claims.
>crickets

>>4367841
>I thought of the big phase one's, but they SUCK to use daily
there's a reason shitty inferior 35mm became the go to film format for everyday use back in the day. real medium format is huge and no one wants to use that outside of a studio.
the GFX has only the aspect ratio going for it. otherwise it's even more retarded than real medium format. lenses are huge and heavy, the body is bulky and you get only a 20% larger sensor for that. that's retarded.
if I wanted to get into digital medium format I'd buy a proper MF cam and a used 15 year old digital back or something like that. the GFX is a fucking meme and even fuji realized it as they're working on a full frame camera now

>>4367895
>ISO 25k
yeah, absolutely the normal day to day use case. thanks for this based comparison, anon.

>>4367960
The joke speakes for itself doesn't it.

>>4367959
Yeah, the one thing going for it is that you can get a very shallow DoF with speedboosters or the mitakon 65/1.4, or using EF lenses that cover the sensor.

That aside, unbelievably mid in most regards.

>>4367895
The one on the right looks a lot better

>>4367988
Yep. Way better.

>>4367895
They're the same picture, within the realm of a mild noise reduction adjustment.

>>4367938
tldr, 6x7 is 80mp and 6x9 is almost 100, it has more very fine details even if you hate grain and the eternal lack of artificial sharpening. Which, by the way, also looks better.

everyone ignores the most interesting part with the fluff chopped out
-
These figures are supported by our colleague Henning Serger who has been making extensive tests of real world film and sensor resolution for the past few years. His figures show colour film with up to 135 line pairs per mm, B&W film up to 150 lppmm and finally microfiche films such as Adox CMS20 at up to 260 lppmm!! In his scientific tests the object contrast of the test pattern is 1:4 (two stops)....
Here is a list of equivalent megapixels for each line pair figure.

90lpmm = 28mp
100lpmm = 35mp
120lpmm = 50mp
140lpmm = 68mp
260lpmm = 235mp!!
This is the data actually on the film (Henning uses a projector too - you still have to get this either enlarged or scanned in and that always loses some resolution. The maximum optical scanning resolution of any scanner I’ve tested is just under 6000dpi and my best scanner peaks at 5300dpi. This gives a maximum possible digital camera equivalent of 38mp.
->If your scanner peaks at 3500 to 4000dpi (as many do) your maximum equivalent is 19mp to 21mp <-
-
it is impossible or impractical for most people to get absolutely all of the detail resolution ANY film has to offer anyways. you would need a a7riii or iv in pixel shift an a flawless macro lens to see the faintest detail on a slow as fuck 35mm slide. and all film has the same grain density... you need that same resolution on every 35mm slice of a larger format to see every last, little faint detial.

the effective resolution of the best epson flatbed, with a betterscanning holder and fluid mounting, is ~2300dpi and epsons actually have copy variation.
>The [imacon] X5 scanner has a dynamic range of up to 4.9 and a maximum non-interpolated optical resolution of 8000 dpi for 135mm, 3200 dpi for 120 film and +2000 dpi for 4×5 film

yes, film has more details. way more. very grainy details, that will never be sharpened like pixel peepers demand today (some sharpening is always part of demosaicing)

>>4368038
everyone always says some imacon/flextight is almost a drum but the results from it always look less detailed and have less dynamic range/worse tonality than drum scans at the same dpi

hasselblad: lying since the 90s

I hate pixel peeping autistic niggers.

I shoot film because it's fun. Cleaning up, fixing, and playing with old cameras is fun. Trying different film stocks and experimenting with color filters in B+W is fun. Developing is fun. And I'm sure printing will be fun too once I get my hands on an enlarger. I couldn't give less of a shit whether film or digital is technically better.

Digital isn't fun for me. Film is. Simple as.

>>4368067
the guy shitting all over the map spammer doesn't even go beyond lab scans, he just hates that guy apparently. lulz.

can not blame him. i hate him too. he needs to shut the fuck up and stop spamming 3-10 posts every time someone says they like film more than digital. at least he finally stopped spamming the color gamut charts as if anyone gave a fuck.

File: Screenshot 2024-10-02 at (...).jpg (276 KB, 1160x1162)

276 KB JPG

>>4367960
>noooo don't contradict muh absolute ass opinion with evidence!
Geez, snoy can't even beat a 2015 "cannot" sensor. Let me guess, 6400 is also not a "normal day to day use case", right? What about 3200? 1600??? What an absolute ass of a camera, I would much rather have a GFX 50.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1160
Image Height	1162

>>4368027
>noooo they're actually the same picture if you just use AI noise reduction and smear details with fake details
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T COMPARE TO FILM WITH AI NOISE REDUCTION DETAIL SMEARING AND FAKE DETAILS!!!
LMFAO you are classic, so much worse than even a m43 fanatic.

>if i repeat my other BS opinions everyone will believe me
Not when you're a nophoto.

>>4368038
>words
>high contrast B&W line charts
>nophotos
Guarantee you his tests weren't even actually 1:4, but probably at least 1:100. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any original scans from these "tests" to verify the line pair contrast. What is Henning Serger hiding?

Oh, can I get you on record saying that Adox CMS 20 II should be at least 260 lp/mm and 235mp equivalent in the real world? Or even more? Please reply if you agree and tell me how many MP 35mm Adox CMS 20 II has in the real world.

>>4368043
Drums are generally better, but Imacons are good. The thing with Imacons is that there were more of them and they were easier to use = cheaper scans and even some people being able to afford them at home. But they clobbered the 4,000 ppi desktop scanners.

>>4368067
>I shoot film because it's fun. Cleaning up, fixing, and playing with old cameras is fun. Trying different film stocks and experimenting with color filters in B+W is fun. Developing is fun. And I'm sure printing will be fun too once I get my hands on an enlarger. I couldn't give less of a shit whether film or digital is technically better.
>Digital isn't fun for me. Film is. Simple as.
Based. I would never call you a filmfag, you shoot film for the right reasons, not for the nophoto/nocamera reasons. I hope you get an enlarger soon, full analog darkroom printing is so relaxing.

>>4368068
Your hate fuels me. If nophotos with ridiculous claims don't hate me, I'm not doing my job.

File: fuck you nerd.jpg (2.85 MB, 3203x1526)

2.85 MB JPG

>>4368089
I found your problem: You're trying to compare cameras using an advertising website.

I turned sharpening, but not noise reduction, off, because
1: I don't believe raws represent hardware performance. Simple as. No-NR photos mean nothing to me. I pity the pixel peeper who thinks otherwise.
2: When the fuck do actual photographers leave noise reduction off for digital cameras? Only when they think raws represent hardware performance. Everyone cooks their raws, fool.
NR was left on c1 defaults. Automatic grain was turned off (C1 quirk).

All of these cameras produce nice photos. The sony is slightly more noisy, the gfx is slightly less noisy, but no one will notice. NEXT.

>>4368094
>Guarantee you his tests weren't even actually 1:4, but probably at least 1:100. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any original scans from these "tests" to verify the line pair contrast. What is Henning Serger hiding?
He's not hiding shit because he's a professional who has to defend his claims, not an angry nobody spamming really shitty scans and dpreview screenshots on 4chan.

I find it amusing that you get angry that the least practical application of film outdoes a subpar DSLR.

>>4368097
>All of these cameras produce nice photos.
This phrase btfo'd most of the gear wars on this board, past, present and future.

>>4368098
this nigga is mentally torturing a gearfag over something he thinks is irrelevant, and the gearfag keeps biting

is it peak sadism or genuine amusement

File: HB-Pier-Yashica-Mat-Velvi(...).jpg (233 KB, 1600x1280)

233 KB JPG

>>4368068
>stop spamming 3-10 posts every time someone says they like film more than digital.
No, that's not when I spam posts. I spam posts when autistic filmfags/snoyfags meltdown and spam ridiculous claims for film's resolution with nothing but words to back them up, just paragraphs of theory based on noexperience and nophotos. All while insulting people who actually own gear (hurr that camera's absolute ass, that camera is a cannot, that camera is shit). It's no coincidence he's also a snoyfag.
filmfags = delusional resolution claims
snoyfags = every camera is shit besides muh snoy, snoy is perfect!
m43fags = smallest sensor best sensor only sensor!!!

See the last reply here? >>4368094 I wouldn't even respond in another thread where someone said "I just like film/film color/old cameras/the darkroom", unless it was to agree that those can be fun and film can give a unique rendering in both color and B&W. It's the difference between those of us with photos, and those who have none.

>>4368110
>delusional resolution claims
There really is more resolution. Far more. Why can't you see it? Why can't you accept it without thinking people with careers to uphold are all conspiring against digital cameras - that they use instead of film because no one has time to do 8k ppi wet mount scans of every 6x7 frame?

Why can't you deal with the fact that the only way to fully exceed medium format film in every way is to ditch the canonikon and buy a glorious fuji?

>>4368097
>no the site is biased!
>btw i specifically tuned the settings to try and make snoy look best
This is the problem with the human race. It's everywhere. Politics, religion, everything. Everyone falls in love with their beliefs and then defends them to the death, physical evidence be damned. If they can't generate conflicting evidence, they start writing books with no evidence. It's so fascinating yet so damn depressing. Corporations prey upon this shit with their advertising, turning people into morons for quarterly profits.

>"hardware" performance isn't everything off!!!
That's exactly what it is. It determines where you're starting from. NR tech is great, but comes with a cost and can create problems depending on the shot. If a camera is starting 1 stop cleaner then you know you've always got that additional stop without any heroic efforts that might fail you. I do agree that in real life you never turn NR completely off because at low settings it comes at zero cost. But it's not hardware performance.

I love my 5Ds. Do I spam the board that it's the best evah and play with settings to make it look that way? No. The new 45mp bodies are at least 1ev cleaner at high ISO with at least 2ev more base ISO DR. The GFX 100mp is even cleaner than those and with even more resolution/fine detail. But for me it hit a point where I'm not depending on heroic post processing even for very large prints. I do also have the R6 because in really shitty light, where resolution doesn't matter, it mops the floor with anything except MF sensors, even matching the A7sII on noise. (II is cleaner than III.)

Tell me the A7R IV or V works great for you with a little post work? Fine, I'm happy for you, it's a good camera, post some of your work. Tell me a GFX is ass and A7Rs have better or equal IQ, I'm going to laugh.